Performance analysis of DSRC priority mechanism for road safety applications in vehicular networks

Dedicated short range communications (DSRC) has been regarded as one of the most promising technologies to provide robust communications for large scale vehicle networks. It is designed to support both road safety and commercial applications. Road safety applications will require reliable and timely wireless communications. However, as the medium access control (MAC) layer of DSRC is based on the IEEE 802.11 distributed coordination function (DCF), it is well known that the random channel access based MAC cannot provide guaranteed quality of services (QoS). It is very important to understand the quantitative performance of DSRC, in order to make better decisions on its adoption, control, adaptation, and improvement. In this paper, we propose an analytic model to evaluate the DSRC-based inter-vehicle communication. We investigate the impacts of the channel access parameters associated with the different services including arbitration inter-frame space (AIFS) and contention window (CW). Based on the proposed model, we analyze the successful message delivery ratio and channel service delay for broadcast messages. The proposed analytical model can provide a convenient tool to evaluate the inter-vehicle safety applications and analyze the suitability of DSRC for road safety applications.

Exposing and addressing tobacco industry conduct in low-income and middle-income countries

The tobacco industry's future depends on increasing tobacco use in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs), which face a growing burden of tobacco-related disease, yet have potential to prevent full-scale escalation of this epidemic. To drive up sales the industry markets its products heavily, deliberately targeting non-smokers and keeps prices low until smoking and local economies are sufficiently established to drive prices and profits up. The industry systematically flaunts existing tobacco control legislation and works aggressively to prevent future policies using its resource advantage to present highly misleading economic arguments, rebrand political activities as corporate social responsibility, and establish and use third parties to make its arguments more palatable. Increasingly it is using domestic litigation and international arbitration to bully LMICs from implementing effective policies and hijacking the problem of tobacco smuggling for policy gain, attempting to put itself in control of an illegal trade in which there is overwhelming historical evidence of its complicity. Progress will not be realised until tobacco industry interference is actively addressed as outlined in Article 5.3 of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. Exemplar LMICs show this action can be achieved and indicate that exposing tobacco industry misconduct is an essential first step.

Adversarial interpreting – a forensic linguistic perspective

Interactions with second language speakers in public service contexts in England are normally conducted with the assistance of one interpreter. Even in situations where team interpreting would be advisable, for example in lengthy courtroom proceedings, financial considerations mean only one interpreter is normally booked. On occasion, however, more than one interpreter, or an individual (or individuals) with knowledge of the languages in question, may be simultaneously present during an interpreted interaction, either monitoring it or indeed volunteering unsolicited input. During police interviews or trials in England this may happen when the interpreter secured by the defence team to interpret during private consultation with the suspect or defendant is present also in the interview room or the courtroom but two independently sourced interpreters need not be limited to legal contexts. In healthcare settings for example, service users sometimes bring friends or relatives along to help them communicate with service providers only to find that the latter have booked an interpreter as a matter of procedure. By analogy to the nature of the English legal system, I refer to contexts where an interpreter’s output is monitored and/or challenged, either during the speech event or subsequently, as ‘adversarial interpreting’. This conceptualisation reflects the fact that interpreters in such encounters are sourced independently, often by opposing parties, and as a result can rarely be considered a team. My main concern in this paper is to throw spotlight on adversarial interpreting as a hitherto rarely discussed problem in its own right. That it is not an anomaly is evidenced by the many cases around the world where the officially recorded interpreted output was challenged, as mentioned in for example Berk-Seligson (2002), Hayes and Hale (2010), and Phelan (2011). This paper reports on the second stage of a research project which has previously involved the analysis of a transcript of an interpreted police interview with a suspect in a murder case. I will mention the findings of the analysis briefly and introduce some new findings based on input from practising interpreters who have shared their experience of adversarial interpreting by completing an online questionnaire. I will try to answer the question of how the presence of two interpreters, or an interpreter and a monitoring participant, in the same speech event impacts on the communication process. I will also address the issue of forensic linguistic arbitration in cases where incompetent interpreting has been identified or an expert opinion is sought in relation to an adversarial interpreting event of significance to a legal dispute. References Berk-Seligson (2002), The Bilingual Courtroom: Court Interpreters in the Judicial Process, University of Chicago Press. Hayes, A. and Hale, S. (2010), "Appeals on incompetent interpreting", Journal of Judicial Administration 20.2, 119-130. Phelan, M. (2011), "Legal Interpreters in the news in Ireland", Translation and Interpreting 3.1, 76-105.