Sentence examples for both standards are from inspiring English sources

But two of the most influential nonprofit safety groups, Public Citizen and the Center for Auto Safety, have decided to oppose the auto makers, arguing that both standards are inadequate because neither is designed to simulate what happens when cars are hit in the side by light trucks.

More details on both standards are given in [30].

That both standards are feeling the pains of introducing a new media, both standards are selling, but not well, and that the war is far from over.

Solvent systems and resulting Rf values of both standards are summarized in Table S1 [see Additional file 1].

Both standards are compared in terms of delay, reliability, scalability, and mobility support in the context of various application requirements.

Both standards are evaluated in terms of delay, reliability, scalability, and mobility support under various vehicular networking conditions and parameters settings.

The new level for both standards was set Wednesday at 75 parts per billion, tougher than the current 84 parts per billion but less stringent than the 60-to-70 60-to-70 60-to-70 E.partsscientargethad urged.

Both standards were tested on real-time testbed for various vehicle speeds.

The most significant difference between both standards is the change of the positions of the point source for spatial resolution measurements.

Taking into account that both standards were developed for indoor conditions, we decided to consider here the intervals given by [30], which are wider and could be better extrapolated for outdoor conditions.

Equimolar quantities of both standards were 10-fold serially diluted and used to generate standard curves.