14 months after fire, Rosemont, Illinois halts electric vehicle charger installations in parking garages
The Chicago suburb of Rosemont, Illinois, is putting the brakes on installing electric vehicle chargers inside parking structures — in a development that comes more than a year after an EV caught fire.
The electric vehicle burst into flames in January 2024 while charging in the garage at the Fashion Outlets of Chicago in Rosemont. Firefighters battled the blaze for hours, and a specialized blanket was needed to extinguish the fire.
"Once these EVs catch fire, they're a dickens to deal with," said Rosemont Mayor Brad Stephens. "In the process, the car had to be dragged out of the garage, and then additionally to that, portions of the garage had to be closed down."
Repairs have been made to the EV chargers at the mall. But Mayor Brad Stephens and the Rosemont Village Board have now approved a temporary ban on the installation of charging stations in parking garages.
"You just want to make sure that your community is safe," Stephens said. "That's what this is all about."
While parking structures in Rosemont won't have EV chargers, some EV experts question how effective the ban will be.
"That's really shortsighted, and it's really not going to make a difference in the long run," said electric vehicle expert Christopher Allessi II. "EVs are here to stay. The only people it's going to hurt is going to be the businesses."
Allessi runs a YouTube channel dedicated to all things electric vehicles. He was at the mall the day of the fire.
"Those charging stations are busy," Allessi said, "and what are those people doing while they're charging? They're going in. They're using the facilities. They're going to the food court. They're getting something to eat. They're going shopping."
Since the fire, Mayor Stephens said the Village of Rosemont has discouraged businesses from installing EV charging stations in parking structures.
"You have a very, very strong financial and personal incentive to make sure that charging station is safe," said Ryan McKinnon of Charge Ahead Partnership.
The partnership advocates for companies, organizations, and people that sell EV charging or want to be in the business.
"There's businesses that legitimately want to get into this," McKinnon said. "They're looking for ways that they can bring EV charging stations onto their property where they can serve drivers."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scientific American
3 hours ago
- Scientific American
What I Wish Parents Knew about Social Media
On Friday afternoons shortly before the school bus arrives, my mom arrives at my house. She ambles into my kitchen to make a cup of tea, and after a few minutes my son will come running in the back door. They will chat briefly, but inevitably my son will ask to watch YouTube videos on my mom's tablet. Then they will go and sit on the couch and watch videos of people playing Minecraft, or Super Mario Odyssey, or some combination of the two for an hour or so, until my husband and I finish work. Occasionally I will find myself looking over their shoulders as formulaic videos, with the same jump cuts and extreme close-ups, made by people I had never heard of (but still with millions of subscribers), play. I research social media for a living, and I still find myself wondering: Is it ok that my son is watching this? If junk food for the brain existed, these videos might be it. Clearly, I don't ban all screens in my house, and I wouldn't tell you to ban them in yours, either. But in my work, I've seen how little transparency social media companies offer parents and kids about how their systems operate—and how much harm that invisibility can do. In my recent look at the algorithms that drive these platforms—what's called their feed algorithms—my co-authors and I found that only one of the major platforms, X makes details of how its system works publicly transparent. This is not okay. On supporting science journalism If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today. There's some good news though: through research not sponsored by social media platforms, we are learning more about where the most serious risks to kids and teens are, and what things parents can do to manage those risks. Understanding the design of these systems, and talking with your child about them, is one of the most powerful tools you have to keep them safe and supported online. Here are three things I wish every parent understood about social media—and how to talk to your kids about them. Your teen isn't the customer—they're the product. I say teen because, in general, kids under age 13 are not supposed to be on these platforms, which make money by selling ads. They do this by collecting fine-grained data about what your kid watches and reacts to, and then monetize that data by literally selling your child's attention to the highest bidder, in the hopes of getting their money today or building a new lifelong customer for the future. Once kids are over 18, social media companies can also directly sell their data to data brokers (just as they can do with yours). Just remember, on social media, advertisers are the customer, not you or your kid. That doesn't mean that people don't also get value out of social media, but for teens particularly, it can be hard to understand what they are exchanging for the entertainment they are getting. What you can do: • Talk to your kids about how the platform's business model works. Make sure they know that their attention and engagement is what's being sold. • Talk to your teens about what they want to get out of social media. Do they want to keep up with their friends? Do they want to be entertained by influencers? Do they want to learn about trends or games or fitness? Decide together how they can be mindful around those goals and how you can support them in doing that. You should also figure out what they (and you) are and aren't comfortable giving away in exchange for whatever value social media delivers to them. • Sit down together and go through the platform's ad preferences and privacy settings. Talk about what the settings do, and decide together what's right for your child—and your family. Algorithmic feeds are designed to maximize usage, not well-being. Every major platform uses feed algorithms to keep users scrolling, watching or clicking as much as possible by offering them what they think the user will like next. There is no platform I'm aware of that observes an 'upper bound' of how much usage they will try to optimize for, meaning that no matter how much social media users consume, their feed algorithms will keep trying to get them to use more. Platforms do this by carefully calibrating aspects of what they show you in feed, from the mix of topics and video length, to other aspects of system design, like how often they notify users about reactions and comments to their own content. Feed algorithms also adapt to each user's behavior and can quickly home in on whatever type of content users pay attention to or engage with the most. I think even the most social media-loving teen understands that more isn't necessarily healthy. What you can do: • Talk to your kids about how feed algorithms work. You can use the 'feed cards ' my co-authors and I developed to explain how these systems work on platforms like TikTok, YouTube and Facebook. • Ask your teen to show you their feed and scroll through it together. Can you 'hack' with the algorithm by watching certain videos or reacting to certain types of content and seeing how quickly the algorithm adapts? Talk to your kids about how (and whether) they can stay in control of their experiences when they are using algorithmic feeds. • Remember that you can set limits without banning social media. Social media algorithms will always try to get your kids to use them more. Some teens don't yet have the self-control to step away, even when they are having experiences that make them feel bad. Has something on Twitter or Facebook ever made you incandescently angry? If so, that was probably the point—rage-bait works. And if you're over 25, your prefrontal cortex is fully developed—think about how that might have felt to your child. Talk to your kids and decide on sensible limits on how late in the evening they can use social media, and how much time they can spend on social media overall. Use in-app tools to set limits, but remember kids often know how to circumvent these, so pay attention to where your kid's device is too. Content moderation exists, but don't count on it. It's natural to hope that social media companies are catching and removing harmful content before your child sees it. But surveys show that even young teens report seeing content on social media that disturbs them. How is this possible? Platforms do take down a lot of content, but as my research shows, content removal often occurs after feed algorithms have already shown the harmful content to most people who will ever see it. What you can do: • Don't assume that 'the system' will catch everything; it won't. • Ask open-ended questions about your kids' social media experiences: 'What's the best thing you saw on TikTok this week?' and 'Have you seen anything that upset or confused you this week?' • Remember that different platforms have different rules, and different enforcement. If your teen is routinely having experiences that make them uncomfortable, it might be time for them to shift to another platform that feels safer for them, or even just take a break to reevaluate if what they are getting from using a given social media platform is really worth it. The Bottom Line I'm not going to pretend any of this is easy. My research has also shown that the transparency tools that platforms offer are difficult for users to use and understand. But we parents can give our kids their best chance to develop a healthy relationship with social media if we can stay engaged, curious, and consistent. And finally, it's important to hold the line on some non-negotiables that have the most potential to cause kids harm: • Make sure kids and teens don't have phones or social media in their bedrooms overnight. Kids need sleep—not all-night Snapchat sessions. • Don't let kids lie about their age to join platforms early, or to get an 'adult' account instead of a 'teen' one if they're under 18. On many platforms there are meaningful differences in default settings, data collection and even in feed algorithms between teen and adult accounts. I'm still learning, both as a researcher and a parent. But what I've learned so far tells me this: there are ways to help teens have safer, better online experiences, but kids need involved parents and consistent rules to make sure that happens.
CNN
3 hours ago
- CNN
Duracell sues Energizer, claiming ad campaign features ‘misleading' battery life claims
America's top battery brands are locked in a power struggle over battery life claims. Duracell has filed a lawsuit against Energizer, accusing the rival battery maker of running a deceptive advertising campaign. In a complaint filed in federal court in Manhattan on June 13, Duracell — which is owned by Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway — alleged that Energizer's new ad campaign falsely states that its Energizer MAX batteries outlast Duracell Power Boost batteries by 10%. The ad's claims have caused Duracell to suffer 'irreparable reputational harm, including the tarnishing of its brand and loss of goodwill,' Duracell said in the complaint. Duracell alleged that the sole basis for Energizer's 10% claim is a comparison of the two brands' AA batteries under one industry standard, but battery performance is also measured by other standards, the company said. 'The Energizer MAX False Advertising is a clear effort by Energizer to expand its market share – at Duracell's expense – by confusing and misleading consumers about the comparative performance of Energizer MAX batteries and Duracell Power Boost batteries with blantantly false advertising in a transparent, and unfair, effort to drive sales,' the complaint said. Energizer's new ad campaign, which launched earlier this month, has been featured on numerous television channels, as well as on Facebook, Instagram and YouTube, the lawsuit said. One YouTube ad features Energizer's mascot, the Energizer Bunny, engaging in a head-to-head showdown with a battery that looks like a Duracell battery. 'There's no competition. Energizer MAX outlasts Duracell Power Boost by 10%,' the ad says. 'No fluff, just facts.' Duracell is seeking to halt Energizer's ads and for Energizer to pay monetary damages. Energizer did not immediately respond to CNN's request for comment.
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Watch a C8 Corvette Fly More Than 100 Feet Through the Air at Travis Pastrana's Dirt Playground
What would you do if you found yourself in possession of a free C8 Corvette and an open-world dirt playground to fool around in? Well, if you're the team behind Channel 199 on YouTube, you jump it five or six car lengths. You know, for science. And against all odds, the team legitimately completed the jump. You can see the big highlight below, or watch the full 30-minute video farther down in the story to see the full background of how the team prepared for the stunt. How'd this come together? Well, Travis Pastrana won a new Corvette Z06 competing in Cleetus McFarland's Freedom 500 event, then proceeded to sell it in favor of a regular Stingray for the stunt. It was, delightfully, spray-painted rather hastily in an American flag design with the stars on the front and stripes the rest of the way back. Pastrana was present throughout the planning — a smart move, considering he's a wholly qualified individual when it comes to jumping cars. The real trick was getting the speed exactly right for the Corvette to fly far enough, but not so fast that it wound put on a trajectory to crash land. York needed to get the Corvette up to around 70 mph through a narrow dirt trail in the woods that led to a clearing with the ramp. After a couple of test runs, York did the final send. Seeing it fly across the gulf, the Corvette almost looked like it might come up a tiny bit short. Thankfully, the rear of the C8 just cleared the ramp as the nose crashed down into the ground. York made it, but the impact was hard enough to cause the airbag to deploy, and it was a far closer call than anyone involved was likely hoping it might be. Deceleration up the ramp caused speeds to drop to about 64 mph on takeoff, which is the lowest speed that Pastrana hypothesized would work. Conveniently, Pastrana was able to use Chevy's Performance Data Recorder to analyze speed, throttle and brake inputs with a video overlay. He thinks the jump can be done with no damage if he adds a little more speed to York's run-up and accelerates through the ramp. Pastrana even teased that he might climb in the car next to try it again... so there could be a second attempt at turning the C8 into a plane coming soon. You Might Also Like You Need a Torque Wrench in Your Toolbox Tested: Best Car Interior Cleaners The Man Who Signs Every Car
