Utah Personal Injury Blog

Trucking Industry Pushes Hours of Service Rule Myths

Bret Hanna — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 23:30:27 GMT

This is a follow-up to my post from the other day which covered a recent settlement of an hours of service rule case that, with luck, is a step in the right direction. To recap the problem:

The Bush administration increased the number of daily and weekly hours truckers can drive from 10 to 11 consecutive hours per 14-hour shift and total weekly driving hours from 60 to 77 per driver every seven days (a more than 25 percent increase). The rule dramatically expanded driving and work hours by cutting the off-duty rest and recovery time at the end of the week from a full weekend of 50 or more hours off duty to as little as only 34 hours.

The Truck Safety Coalition, Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, Public Citizen, and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters filed suit against the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMSCA) over the rule and because of a settlement reached on October 26th, the FMCSA will begin a new round of rule making that may result in a reduction of hours allowed by the current unsafe hours of service rule.

The trucking industry, however, continues to push myths about the Bush hours of service rule that simply must be debunked. Fortunately, the Truck Safety Administration has prepared an information sheet doing just that:

Facts Rebutting the Trucking Industry Myths about the Progress of Truck Safety and
the Bush Administration Hours of Service (HOS) Rule

Myth: Fatigue-Related Truck Crash Fatalities have decreased under the HOS rule.

Fact: This claim is false. Data from the official government fatality database, the Fatal
Analysis Reporting System (FARS), shows that while large truck crash fatalities decreased in 2006 from 2005, this followed increases in truck crash fatalities in the 3 years immediately prior to 2006. Truck crash fatalities rose in 2003, 2004, and 2005 over each previous year. Notably, the increases in fatalities in 2004 and 2005 occurred during the first 2 years the Bush Administration HOS rule was in effect.

Fact: Even the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) does not assert
that truck fatalities have declined as a result of the Bush Administration HOS rule.
FMCSA states only that the rule did not make things worse.

Fact: National motor vehicle fatality figures cannot be used to "prove" that any specific
motor vehicle safety regulation among the hundreds that have been issued over the years is the single reason for any annual change in traffic deaths.

************************************************************

Myth: Truck fatality figures have improved in recent years. The trucking industry asserts
that because fatalities in truck-involved crashes was lower in 2006 (5,027 fatalities)
than, for example, in 2000 (5,282 fatalities) that fatalities have decreased.

Fact: FARS data shows that truck fatalities rose in 2003, 2004 and again in 2005 from
each previous year. Truck deaths over the 10-year span of 1997 through 2006 averaged over 5,000 per year, and dipped slightly below that total only in 2002 (4,939). (Recent annual fatality totals of less than 5,000 deaths due to the recession are explained below.)

Fact: The relative risk of dying in a large truck crash has actually increased compared
to fatalities in passenger vehicle crashes. In 1995, the relative risk of a fatal truck crash per 100 million vehicle miles of travel (VMT) was less than 20 percent greater than the relative risk of a fatal passenger vehicle crash, but the relative risk of a fatal truck crash has risen sharply since 1995 so that now the fatality risk in fatal truck crashes is 55 percent greater than the fatality risk in passenger vehicle crashes.

Fact: The proportion of truck crash fatalities to all annual motor vehicle fatalities has
not changed. In 2008, one of every 9 traffic deaths were the result of large truck fatal crashes. That proportion of traffic deaths has not changed for many years and is virtually constant from 1997 through 2008.

************************************************

Myth: Recent decreases in national truck deaths in 2007 and 2008 (preliminary data)
can be attributed to the Bush Administration HOS rule.

Fact: Recent decreases in overall fatality statistics in 2007 and 2008 reflect reductions in
freight tonnage linked with the recessionary economy. The sudden and precipitous decline in truck fatalities in 2007 and 2008 is linked with substantial reductions in both truck freight tonnage and a sharp drop in commercial vehicle miles of travel from the latter part of 2007 through 2008 due to adverse economic conditions. This reduces overall truck crash exposure. Similar declines in passenger vehicle fatalities are the result of reduced travel and commensurately reduced crash risk exposure.

Fact: Historically, economic recessions have been accompanied by reductions
in traffic fatalities. Every U.S. recession has coincided with a decline in motor
vehicle fatalities. CNBC News reports that “fatalities fell more than 16 percent from
1973 to 1974 as the nation dealt with the oil crisis and inflation. Highway deaths
dropped nearly 11 percent from 1981 to 1982 as President Ronald Reagan battled the
recession.”

************************************************************

Myth: Three-quarters of truck crash fatalities are "caused" by the drivers of passenger
vehicles.

Fact: There is no study proving that passenger vehicle drivers "cause" three-quarters of
the fatalities in crashes involving passenger vehicles and large trucks. The false claim by the trucking industry is a “junk science.” It is predicated on a deliberate misreading of studies that relied on descriptive “driver factor codes” reported by police at the crash scene and tabulated in FARS. These codes are after-the-fact notations often based on speculative information, as acknowledged by the U.S. Department of Transportation, and are not the product of in-depth crash investigations to accurately determine contributing factors that led to a particular crash.

Fact: The authors of both studies have stated that the study findings cannot be used to
attribute “fault” or “causation” as the industry has asserted. The author of the 1998
study on which the industry claim is based has stated that his study had been misused by the trucking industry and explained that the study could not be interpreted to assign fault or determine crash causation for the truck-passenger vehicle collisions he evaluated. The authors of the 2002 study disclaimed any causal connection between reported driver actions and crash outcomes. The industry claims are an intentional mischaracterization of the findings in these research reports.

Fact: FMCSA studies and FMCSA officials have also repudiated this industry claim.
According t o FMCSA “driver factor codes” cannot be equated with fault.

Fact: A number of studies contradict the claim that passenger vehicle drivers are to
blame for most crashes involving both large trucks and passenger vehicles. These include
studies that: found that truck drivers were primarily responsible for the majority of highway interchange crashes;15 found that nonfatal lane change crashes on the Washington, D.C. Capital Beltway (I-495) were twice as likely to be the result of a tractor-trailer changing lanes rather than a light vehicle lane change; found that in all crashes between trucks and light vehicles, trucks were more likely to be the “contributor” to the crash than light vehicles by 48 percent to 39 percent, and trucks were more responsible than light vehicles in backing, rear-end, rightturn, left-turn, and sideswipe collisions.

To see the data underlying this fact sheet, look here.

In order to make sure that the roadways are safe for everyone, we must all know the facts and use them to try and make the world a safer place.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Bret Hanna

Truck Hours of Service Case Settlement a Step in the Right Direction

Bret Hanna — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 22:33:26 GMT

A recent press release from the Truck Safety Coalition highlights an hours of service case settlement that has resulted in the Obama administration agreeing to reexamine the rule that is supposed to keep drowsy truck drivers off the road. Here is the text of the press release:

ARLINGTON, VA (November 10, 2009) – The Department of Transportation (DOT) and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) have agreed to conduct a new round of rulemaking that could result in reducing the current unsafe hours of service rule for truck drivers issued by the Bush administration in 2003.

As a result of the October 26 settlement, the Truck Safety Coalition, Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, Public Citizen, and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, petitioned the court to hold in abeyance the lawsuit they filed against the FMCSA and their current hours of service rule. The FMCSA must begin a new rulemaking process and submit a notice of proposed rulemaking to the Office of Management and Budget within nine months and publish a final rule within 21 months.

The Bush administration increased the number of daily and weekly hours truckers can drive from 10 to 11 consecutive hours per 14-hour shift and total weekly driving hours from 60 to 77 per driver every seven days (a more than 25 percent increase). The rule dramatically expanded driving and work hours by cutting the off-duty rest and recovery time at the end of the week from a full weekend of 50 or more hours off duty to as little as only 34 hours.

The groups have petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals a total of three times, most recently in March 2009. In 2004 , the court vacated the hours of service rule on the grounds that the government did not adequately consider the effects of longer driving hours on individual truck driver health and traffic safety, and in 2007 because the agency did not let the public examine and comment on the new crash risk analysis used by the agency to support reissuing the same exact rule.

Daphne Izer, who co-founded Parents Against Tired Truckers (P.A.T.T.) in 1994 after a fatigued truck driver killed her 17-year-old son Jeff and his three close friends, was pleased with the settlement. "The good news is that there will be a new hours-of-service rule that hopefully will protect truck drivers and families like mine. This new rule must put people before profits."

Dawn King, whose father, William Badger, was killed on December 23, 2004 when a tractor trailer driver fell asleep behind the wheel and collided with his car, is currently a board member of Citizens for Reliable and Safe Highways (CRASH) and a participant in the Truck Safety Coalition’s First Response program assisting fellow grieving truck crash victims. She added, "Fatigued drivers are a threat to the safety of everyone on the road. This settlement is a positive step forward and should lead to improved worker and safety regulations in the truck driving industry."

This is a huge step in the right direction. Let's hope new rule scales back the allowable hours of service to a safer, more rationale number and that it is implemented quickly.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Bret Hanna

Straight Talk on Tort Reform from Texas

Bret Hanna — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 23:20:37 GMT

Texas passed sweeping tort reform legislation in 2003 that, to a great extent, eliminated medical malpractice cases in the Lone Star State. Jennifer Bard is the Alvin R. Allison Professor of Law and director of the Health Law Program at Texas Tech University School of Law and an adjunct associate professor in the Department of Psychiatry, Texas Tech University School of Medicine, and she incorporates the Texas experience with tort reform into her analysis which concludes that such measures do not reduce health care costs. Here is her piece which appeared Saturday in the Houston Chronicle:

It's not as rare as you think for President Barack Obama and Gov. Sarah Palin to be in complete agreement on an issue of national importance.

In August, she wrote on her Facebook page that “we cannot have health care reform without litigation reform.” Speaking to the American Association of family physicians a few weeks later, President Obama said, “I have talked to enough doctors to know that defensive medicine may be contributing to unnecessary costs. ... So I am proposing that we move forward on a range of ideas about how to put patient safety first and let doctors focus on practicing medicine.” Both of them are wrong. There is no evidence to suggest that limiting the rights of individuals to bring lawsuits will either lower the cost of health care or increase its quality. In fact, were this true, Texas would have the cheapest and best health care in the nation. The provisions of the tort reform legislation passed in 2003 have essentially eliminated medical malpractice suits. Indeed, things are so bad the lawyers for the insurance companies are complaining about the loss of business.

The only evidence we have that defensive medicine, defined as doing extra tests or surgery based on fear of litigation, drives up costs is from the least reliable source possible — the doctors themselves. Doctors' objections to law suits aren't financial — they are philosophical. Doctors are on the whole good people who devote their lives to helping others. Yet somewhere in their training they acquire the idea that this puts them beyond the constraints and hassles faced by every other professional. Lawsuits are time-consuming and embarrassing. They require explaining one's actions to a group of nondoctors, something doctors feel inappropriate. What doctors want isn't reform, it is an exemption. And that's just not how we do things in the United States.

As in all other cases involving a professional, every medical malpractice case depends on another physician's testimony that the offending doctor caused the patient's harm by acting below the standard of a reasonable physician in similar circumstances. To say that a jury isn't qualified to choose the testimony of one expert witness over another in a medical malpractice case is to say they shouldn't be allowed to do so in cases involving exploding tires because they are not automobile engineers. Unless Obama and Palin are interested in trading in our legal system for one with less citizen input — say one more like China's — then not only isn't litigation reform a necessary part of health care reform, it is no part of health care reform.

But don't throw out the baby with the bath water. Perhaps doctors are practicing defensive medicine, but that doesn't mean litigation reform will change their habits. First, it is hard to attribute overtesting to fear of litigation when the current payment system financially rewards doctors and hospitals for the number of tests they order and procedures they run, rather than on the time they spend talking to the patient to find out what's wrong. Second, it is entirely possible that those interested in selling them malpractice insurance have greatly inflated the risk. After all, given the relative rareness with which medical malpractice suits are brought, fear of litigation should no more be motivating a doctor's decisions than fear of alien abduction.

No one has ever suggested that civil litigation can directly reduce medical error. Reducing infection rates by adopting uniform protocols for hand-washing and instrument sterilization is not the same as pressuring a company to withdraw a defective product from the market. But our system of civil justice, as outlined in the United States Constitution, is not to blame for health costs or medical malpractice. Health reform can take place without litigation reform — both systems may be broken but they are not dependent on each other.

So perhaps if Obama and Palin really want to lower the cost of health care and improve its quality, they should be listening to economists and safety experts rather than either doctors or lawyers.

This analysis is spot on and from someone who does not appear to have "skin the game." Yes she is a lawyer, but not one that makes her living representing those injured by medical malpractice or working for the insurance companies that hire lawyers to defend doctors when claims are pursued against them for malpractice. We should consider her analysis in the objective light in which it is presented.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Bret Hanna

TACT - How Utah Can Get Started

Bret Hanna — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 20:25:54 GMT

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration has a program that every state should be considering: TACT (Ticketing Aggressive Cars and Trucks) is designed to highlight the dangers posed by aggressive car and truck drivers. Utah is not yet a TACT state but here is how we can get started.

The TACT program relies on three key components to be effective: communications, enforcement and evaluation. Here are the guidelines proposed for the program:

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) released Guidelines for Implementing a High-visibility Traffic Enforcement Program to Reduce Unsafe Driving Behaviors Among Drivers of Passenger and Commercial Motor Vehicles to reduce unsafe driving behaviors among drivers of passenger and commercial motor vehicles. The guidelines draw on examples and lessons learned from the successful TACT demonstration program in Washington State. In addition to the guidelines, FMCSA describes the key components for implementing TACT and encourages States to use this information when planning for their high-visibility traffic enforcement program. When developing a TACT program, it is essential for States to create an action plan that includes sub-plans for enforcement, communications and evaluation as well as a catalog of the resources needed to fully implement the program.

The program includes a planning component which should be completed before implementation:

TACT pre-planning activities include recruiting members of the project team, identifying the problem to address, establishing the goals of the program, and planning the design. The team should have knowledge and experience in project management, research, communications, and finance. Problem identification begins with a review of commercial motor vehicle crash and causation data. This review can identify particular types of crashes, roadways on which specific types of crashes occur, groups that might be overrepresented in crash statistics, times of the day when more crashes occur, and other factors that might affect enforcement activities.

Goal setting depends on many considerations:

Funding and other in-kind contributions

Types of behaviors identified for citations

Geographic area for the program

Participation by enforcement agencies and other stakeholders

Delineation of media markets

Program design identifies all aspects of the campaign to increase public awareness and the effectiveness of the enforcement to change behaviors. The key program design issues include selecting the violations and unsafe practices for which car and truck drivers will receive citations; identifying the roadways where the citations will be given; determining the time periods for the program activities; planning for the law officers' training, coordination, and feedback; determining the number of enforcement waves; documenting the processes, and more.

The three elements are then spelled out in detail:

Communication

Paid and/or earned media activities can help States increase awareness among passenger and truck drivers of proper safety behaviors and of the heightened risk of receiving a ticket for a violation. FMCSA recommends that States consider including the following communications activities in their TACT program:

Paid Mass Media: Radio placements during major drive times, TV spots and print ads in the daily newspapers of the intervention areas can help deliver TACT messages to motorists.

Earned Media: News coverage on local TV and in newspapers is also a good way to increase TACT program awareness. Press conferences are effective in generating earned media. Posters, banners and flyers can be donated and distributed by local businesses during the enforcement period.

Specialized Materials: Materials such as road signs in TACT program intervention areas and truck wraps with messages such as "Leave More Space" can inspire safer driving behaviors and convey enforcement messages to car and truck drivers.

Web-based Outreach: Posting information about a State TACT program along with information and resources to help promote safe driving behaviors can help educate motorists on how to share the road safely with trucks. E-newsletters or announcements to safety partners and local law enforcement organizations can help keep all parties informed of best practices during the enforcement period.

Enforcement

As part of TACT program design, a State should gather relevant crash and fatality data to identify high-risk areas. These are the areas where a TACT program might have maximum impact. Based on the resources available, the State should select one or more intervention areas where enforcement and communications will be applied. Each State should develop its own enforcement strategy based on resources and the selected areas. Consideration should be given to the timing, frequency and visibility of the enforcement efforts. It is also important for a State to develop viable enforcement tactics that cover which departments will be involved and the methods to be used to identify and stop dangerous drivers.

Evaluation

The evaluation plan should detail how the TACT research plan will be determined—data collection methods, segments, and measurement criteria. Typically, TACT program administrators will wish to measure changes in awareness and behavior associated with the interventions brought to bear during the enforcement period(s). Evaluation measures can include crash counts, observations of unsafe driving behaviors, surveys of driver attitudes, and knowledge and recall of program messages and themes. States are encouraged to collect multiple waves of data to highlight trends across the intervention periods. When evaluating a TACT program, it is also beneficial to collect data in comparison areas with similar crash rates. These "control" areas will not have implemented a TACT enforcement period.

Utah should make the commitment and jump on the TACT bandwagon.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Bret Hanna

TACT - Utah Should Go After Aggressive Car And Truck Drivers

Bret Hanna — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 20:52:58 GMT

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration has a program that every state should be considering: TACT (Ticketing Aggressive Cars and Trucks) is designed to highlight the dangers posed by aggressive car and truck drivers. Here is why:

Crash data compiled by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration indicates that the truck-involved fatality rate on the nation's roadways declined 12% in 2008 compared with 2007, with the number of truck-related crash fatalities dropping from 4,822 in 2007 to 4,229 in 2008. Initiatives such as TACT are helping to decrease the fatality rate by making the general driving public more aware of the safe ways to interact with trucks and provide large vehicles with more room and maneuverability. To help reduce crashes and fatalities further, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) is working to educate motorists on how to share the road safely with commercial motor vehicles (CMVs).

The Ticketing Aggressive Cars and Trucks (TACT) program is a high—visibility traffic enforcement program that uses communication, enforcement, and evaluation activities to reduce CMV-related crashes, fatalities, and injuries.

In the fall of 2004, Washington was selected as the first pilot State for the TACT program. Based on the success of the Washington State TACT program and other traffic enforcement programs such as Click It or Ticket, FMCSA encouraged additional States to undertake TACT programs on roadways with injuries and fatalities resulting from crashes between cars and trucks. Currently there are fifteen States participating in the TACT program.

Here is the idea:

TACT provides a research-based safety model that can be replicated by States when conducting a high-visibility traffic enforcement program to promote safe driving behaviors among car and truck drivers.

This is the point:

The mission of the TACT program is to reduce CMV-related crashes, injuries, and fatalities. FMCSA is achieving its mission by educating car and truck drivers on how to share the road safely.

Here's how:

The TACT program combines communication and evaluation with targeted enforcement activities to raise awareness among car and truck drivers about safe driving behaviors. Unsafe driving behaviors may include, but are not limited to: unsafe lane changes, tailgating, failing to signal lane changes, failing to yield the right of way, speeding, and aggressive driving (a combination of two or more behaviors). Pre-planning activities for States include problem identification and goal setting. Outreach and education activities are supported by a communications plan that includes print or Web-based outreach and paid or earned media placement. Evaluation of the reduction in crashes following a TACT enforcement period is followed by post-program activities such as reporting and recognition and rewards programs.

And the plan:

To ensure success, it is important to secure the skills and expertise of law enforcement, communications specialists, evaluators, and key State, local, and industry partners. It is also critical that sufficient resources be allocated for the program to be able to communicate the correct message to the target audience and ensure the commitment of law enforcement to the program.

FMCSA has provided a sample management structure for States to refer to when planning to implement a high-visibility traffic enforcement program. The structure illustrates the relationships between Federal, State, and local partners who, by working together, can successfully implement a TACT program.

http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/safety-security/tact/TACTMgmtStructureNewVersion.pdf

Sixteen states have implemented the TACT program but Utah is not one of them. Utah is in the group of states that is identified as a Non-Commercial Motor Vehicle (CMV) Traffic Enforcement (TE) state. While these states have safety plans in place, here is why is they should consider taking the extra step to implement TACT:

States identified as Non-Commercial Motor Vehicle (CMV) Traffic Enforcement (TE) conduct traffic enforcement activities as outlined in their safety plan. Although most states conduct non-CMV traffic enforcement efforts using Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP) funds, Ticketing Aggressive Cars and Trucks (TACT) States focus on violations pertaining to, but not limited to:

Following too closely

Improper lane changes

Speeding

Failing to yield the right of way

Failing to signal lane changes

The Non-CMV TE State’s activities are different from TACT States because their enforcement effort lacks a corridor enforcement component, is deficient in public outreach and communication through earned media, and doesn’t provide baseline measurements with an evaluation component. It should be noted that citation counts are not a valid measure of TACT program success, rather a reduction in crashes and fatalities is the goal. The aim of the TACT program is to reduce the risky driving behaviors of passenger and CMV drivers in pre-determined locations or corridors.

This is just a "scratch the surface" overview of the program but I will post more on this topic in the days to come, including more specifics on the program and how it can be funded.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Bret Hanna

First Response Program Offers Helping Hand to Truck Accident Victims

Bret Hanna — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 22:34:35 GMT

As indicated in a prior post, more than 5,000 people a year die in accidents involving tractor-trailers. That means that many individuals and families will be devastated each year by the injuries and deaths and they will need a helping hand. A program of the Truck Safety Coalition offers just that.

The First Response Program is a network of volunteers in communities across the country that offer support and assistance to the victims and families of victims of accidents involving tractor-trailers. The Mission Statement of the program is:

We will seek to locate and help new victims of truck crashes by providing information, encouragement, hope or simply a willing and understanding ear. We will seek to provide them with assistance, comfort and information that we wish someone had provided for us in such a dark time, and to let them know that, if they choose, there are ways to try to make some degree of sense of such a senseless situation. Helping to comfort truck crash victims and helping to satisfy their needs is the foundation for the First Response Program.

And their goal is:

Our goal is to contact and support every truck crash victim in the United States. Unfortunately, this is an aggressive goal due to the tragic number of truck crashes every year. By setting up the network, we hope to support, state by state, the new victims of truck crashes. It is important for us to let them know they are not alone in their time of grief.

While this goal may be aggressive, it is attainable if word of their work gets out. Contact information for the program can be found by calling (703) 294-6404, or by sending an e-mail inquiry to crash@trucksafety.org. With luck, most of us will never need the support and assistance of these volunteers but it is comforting to know they are there for us if we need them.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Bret Hanna

Trucking Safety Must be a Top Priority

Bret Hanna — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 22:54:58 GMT

Deaths resulting from accidents involving tractor-trailers between 2003 and 2006 exceeded 5,000 per year which is way too high. The Truck Safety Coalition (TSC) is dedicated to reducing these numbers and describes itself as:

The Truck Safety Coalition is a partnership between The Citizens for Reliable and Safe Highways (CRASH) Foundation, and Parents Against Tired Truckers (P.A.T.T). The Truck Safety Coalition is dedicated to reducing the number of deaths and injuries caused by truck-related crashes, providing compassionate support to truck crash survivors and families of truck crash victims, and educating the public, policy-makers and media about truck safety issues.

The TSC site also contains memorials dedicated to those who have lost their lives in these accidents and they really underscore the need to focus on safety issues to reduce the number of injuries and deaths resulting from truck involved accidents. This post is the first in an indefinite series of articles that will address trucking safety issues. Please visit often to stay current on this topic which is critically important to everyone on the roadways.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Bret Hanna

Guilty Verdict Sends Message to Both Drivers and Cyclists: Calm Down!

Mark Williams — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 22:24:11 GMT

A retired emergency room physician was found guilty by a Los Angeles jury for injuries he caused to two cyclists when he deliberately stopped short in front of them on a canyon road leading up to his neighborhood. This case has been seen as a test of the rights of road cyclists. While it definitely is a strike back at aggressive motorists who do not believe cyclists have a place on the road, it also sends a message to cyclist to use restraint when responding to insults from angry drivers. In the fight between a motorist and a cyclist, the cyclist will almost always lose. Because of this disparity, if cyclists want to survive a show-down on the road (especially on the many isolated section in the country or mountains), they need to be the one to exercise restraint and remain calm in a volatile confrontation with a driver. Many drivers do not believe a cyclist has any right to be on the road. Others have anger issues- whether running into cyclists or other motorists. Still others have a disdain for bikers based on past observations of cyclists hogging the road, running stop signs, or riding two or three-abreast in areas designated for singe-file. Because of these factors, the cyclist cannot afford to react with anger. If a cyclist is cut off by a car, if the cyclist reacts with a raised finger or fist, profanity, or an angry shout, this is likely to spark further confrontation. It can only end in injury or even worse, death.

Drivers should be warned by the outcome of this trial. Trying to "teach a lesson" to scofflaw bikers may land you in jail. However, this case should also send a message to cyclists that they may end up on the pavement or sticking their head through a broken car window if they try to take on an aggressive driver. The lesson for all is simple: Calm down! Think twice before retaliating for perceived insults. Practice safe driving and practice peace. Turn the cheek... live another day.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mark Williams

New York State Bar Takes Stand Against Tort Reform

Bret Hanna — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 14:33:10 GMT

The New York State Bar Association took a strong stand against tort reform last Friday. President Michael Getnick issued a statement calling on the U.S. Senate to reject calls for caps on pain and suffering damages in medical malpractice cases as part of health care reform. Here is the press release:

ALBANY, NY (11/13/2009)(readMedia)-- New York State Bar Association President Michael E. Getnick (Getnick Livingston Atkinson & Priore, LLP and of counsel to Getnick & Getnick of New York City), in a letter today, called on the U.S. Senate to reject any proposals that would discriminate against medical malpractice victims while also jeopardizing public safety by capping the amount of compensation that victims could receive for pain and suffering. Such proposals have been raised in the debate over national health care reform legislation.

In his letter to U.S. Senators Charles Schumer and Kristin Gillibrand, President Getnick restated the State Bar's long-held position that the authority to change medical liability laws should rest with the states and not the federal government.

"As Senate activity on this topic continues, I want to reiterate our long standing objections to those tort and medical malpractice reform proposals that have resurfaced as part of the current debate," wrote Getnick. "We object to legislation to cap pain and suffering compensation for victims of medical malpractice. Such caps would unjustly discriminate against classes of accident victims who suffer devastating physical and psychological losses.

"For over 200 years the authority to promulgate medical liability laws has rested with the states, which are the repository of experience and expertise in these matters," Getnick noted in the letter. "I am pleased that the House, in passing Bill 3962, The Affordable Health Care for America Act, refrained from including provisions advocated by some members that would have resulted in federal tort laws encroaching upon the authority of the states."

Getnick noted that legislation recently passed by the House of Representatives would provide for incentive payments to states that adopt alternative medical liability laws without imposing caps on damages and other unacceptable measures. According to Getnick, providing such incentive payments to states is an appropriate alternative to proposals that would impair the ability of victims to seek remedy in the justice system.

"In assessing the current tort system, it is at least as important to consider the victims of malpractice in comparison to those who cause them personal injury," he said. "We have seen in the past that the attack of tort reformers is a movement that favors cost savings over quality and that emphasizes the corporate bottom line over safety of the public.

"As the health care debate progresses with you and your colleagues in the Senate we strongly urge Congress to focus on health care problems and to ensure that the individual victims of medical malpractice are not placed in a secondary position as compared to those who have created the very victims from which they seek protection in the name of tort reform," Getnick concluded.

A copy of the letter can be found here. This very public support for the civil justice system and the rights of those injured by medical malpractice should be applauded and endorsed by Bar Associations across the country. In addition, all citizens interested in preserving their rights should contact their senators and convey the same message.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Bret Hanna

Silver Eagle Refinery Voluntarily Shuts Down

Bret Hanna — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 18:55:06 GMT

The Silver Eagle Refinery located in Woods Cross has agreed to follow a safety board recommendation to shut down indefinitely in the wake of a November 4th explosion. The U.S. Chemical Safety Board has been at the refinery since the explosion which damaged the plant and several nearby homes. The current investigation is on the heels of the board's investigation of a flash fire at the same refinery in January that severely burned two contractors.

The specific current concern is with the integrity of the pipes and processing units that run throughout the refinery. The recent explosion, which was powerful enough to knock at least one home in an adjacent neighborhood off its foundation, was caused by the rupture of one such highly pressurized pipes. The significant thinning of the pipe that caused the rupture was not detected by the refinery's mechanical integrity program.

The Silver Eagle Refinery is Utah's smallest with daily output of 8,500 barrels of processed crude oil, but 60 employees are affected by the closure. The refinery will not reopen until all pipes and processes are inspected and necessary repairs are made. Meanwhile, the U.S. Chemical Safety Board also has a current investigation open into an October 21st fire at the nearby Tesoro refinery.

Refineries in Utah are concentrated in one area just north of Salt Lake City along the congested and heavily traveled Interstate 15 corridor. Local communities have also allowed high density residential development in the areas adjacent to the refineries, so local residents literally live in the back yards of the refineries. Because so many people travel and live in the danger zones, and because worker safety has to be put first, safety must be the highest priority of the refineries and the agencies that regulate them. The refineries have dodged bullets recently insofar as no one has been killed by the fires and explosions, but let's hope all involved are taking a hard look at the refinery operations to ensure that future injuries, deaths and property damage do not occur.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Bret Hanna