Kevin Archives

Off the coast of Italy on January 14, Captain Schettino runs his cruise ship aground, "trips" into a lifeboat and refuses to get back aboard his sinking ship to assist in the rescue despite the repeated commands of Chief De Falco of the Italian Coast Guard. That same day, The Tampa Bay Times reports that a man who pleaded guilty to DUI manslaughter for rear-ending a Chevy Tahoe at a traffic light has filed a lawsuit against the Tahoe driver. Like Captain Schettino, David Belniak has some explaining to do, and it better be good.

Winston Churchill once said, "I'm just preparing my impromptu remarks." A bit of planning can help make the most of opportunities.

Before going out to a holiday event or party where alcohol will be served, plan a safe way home before you take that first drink. Designate a sober driver. Add the telephone number for a taxi service to the contacts list in your cell phone. Arrange a ride home with a friend or family member who will be there and be sober.

Wear a red ribbon when you go out to remind others of the danger of drinking and driving.

If you plan on drinking, know that if you drink on an empty stomach the alcohol will enter your bloodstream faster and you may become impaired more quickly than you expected and get caught up in festivities and lose track of how much you have had to drink. While the best course of action is don't drink and drive, if you are planning to have some alcohol and drive yourself home, then limit yourself to a drink or two, switch to non-alcoholic beverages after that and don't drive for two or three hours after your second and last drink. It takes time for your body to process the alcohol out of your system. Drinking coffee or an energy drink like Red Bull or Rockstar will not shorten that time. Be sure to know not only what you are drinking but also how much alcohol is in your drink. An egg-nog or punch can have more alcohol than a beer, glass of wine or cocktail. If you still feel a buzz when you plan to leave, get someone to drive you home instead or call a taxi.

If you are hosting a party, offer to provide a ride home for guests who drink or offer them a place to sleep.

Be sure to offer your guests non-alcoholic drinks, both sweet and non-sweet. One option is cranberry and soda on ice. A low calorie option is sparkling water, either unflavored or flavored with lemon/lime, tangerine or strawberry. There are also sparkling fruit juices and berry juices, including apple, pear, grape, blueberry, cranberry and strawberry. In addition to regular sodas, there are GuS (Grown-up Sodas) sodas containing less sugar and in flavors including lemon, lime, ginger ale, black currant, orange, grapefruit, pomegranate and cola. Other options include a holiday iced tea with cloves and cinnamon, warm apple cider with cinnamon sticks, non-alcoholic egg nog, sparkling teas, and non-alcoholic beers like O'Doul's and Sharp's and some excellent imports including Beck's NA, St. Pauli Girl, Buckler and Kaliber.

Make it easy for your guests to choose a non-alcoholic beverage by having a variety of non-alcoholic drinks available and easily accessible. Let them know when they arrive that you have non-alcoholic drinks before you point them to the bar or put an alcoholic beverage in their hand.

Regardless of whether you have had any alcohol at all to drink, avoid driving late at night and in the hours after midnight when many drunk-driving crashes occur.

Wear your seat belt at all times, and have your passengers wear their seatbelts.

If you see a drunk driver on the road, don't hesitate to call local law enforcement. Don't think of it as turning in a driver who, but for the grace of God, could be you. Think of the child, the mother or father who might be killed down the road by a driver who should not be behind the wheel of that car. We all know we should not be driving when we've been drinking. Drunk or not, impaired driving is no way to celebrate the Holidays.

Let's help each other get home safely.

Last week, I was talking with Jane and Rick on WINA about motorcycle laws and Jane asked about Pocket Rockets. I thought she meant Crotch Rockets, the 600cc and 1000cc sport bikes you sometimes see cutting around cars and speeding off bearing riders in shorts and t-shirts flapping in the wind. She asked a second time and I remained clueless. Thirty minutes later, I had a moment of clarity, followed by memories of Homer Simpson yelling, "Doh! Doh! Doh!"

Pocket Rockets, also known as Pocket Bikes, are tiny, motorcycle replica mini-bikes with seats fewer than 24 inches high and engines often 50ccs or less. Some ads for certain brands suggest that these bikes are legal in all 50 states. Meeting EPA emission standards does not make a Pocket Bike street legal in Virginia. Pocket Bikes or Pocket Rocket motorcycles are not legal to ride on the public roads and highways in Virginia.

Under the Code of Virginia, if a "motor-driven cycle" has an engine smaller than 150cc, a seat height fewer than 24 inches and no manufacturer issued vehicle ID number, that cycle shall not be operated over any public highway in the Commonwealth. That includes streets, roads, and interstate highways. Section 46.2-100 and 46.2-911.1.

Jane asked if it was legal for kids to be riding Pocket Rockets up and down the streets in Belmont. Not in Virginia.

Even if the bikes meet EPA emission standards, riders need to take these motor-driven cycles to parking lots, private roads, driving ranges, tracks and similar places where they are allowed. On the public roads, the vehicle mix runs from scooters to SUVs and tractor-trailers. The small size, low height and speed of Pocket Bikes make them and their riders extremely vulnerable when mixed in with the larger vehicles on public roads and highways.

With the cold winter behind us, motorcycles are back on the road.  Lots of motorcycles. With May approaching, I talked with Sgt. Hackney of the Albemarle County Police Department, Sgt. Ronnie Roberts of the Charlottesville Police Department, and Anthony Riddle, a local motorcycle safety instructor, about the factors causing motorcycle accidents and serious injuries. 

1.  Following Too Closely.  A frequent cause of motorcycle accidents on Route 29 and Route 250 is following too closely.  Either a bike was following a car too closely or a car was following a bike too closely.  Either way, the biker usually suffers the most in such collisions. When following another vehicle, stay two seconds back from the car ahead to give yourself time and space in which to react if  the car slows or stops unexpectedly. 

2.   Speed.  On rural roads, speed is a common factor in motorcycle crashes.  Bad things happen faster at higher speeds. Speed reduces the time in which to perceive and react. If you need to brake, it is important to have practiced emergency braking procedures.  Braking hard without having the bike vertical can cause a crash due to loss of traction.  Going over a rise at higher speeds can cause the bike to lift up or off the pavement and take away the traction you may need to make a turn.  During hard braking, the weight of the bike shifts forward onto the front tire.  This  effect is exaggerated at higher speeds.  Hard braking at higher speed can cause your front wheel to lock up and skid, causing loss of steering.  More and more bikes are being equipped with anti-lock brakes to make bikes easier to control during hard braking.

3.    Visibility.  You hear it all the time from drivers of cars and four-wheel vehicles.  "I didn't see him" or "he came out of nowhere!"  The biker was there, in plain sight, but car drivers don't see the bike because the mind filters out non-relevant information  and the car driver is looking for vehicles that pose a danger to the car driver. While the car driver would yield the right of way to a Mack trash truck coming down the same lane at the same speed as a biker, he will pull out or make a left turn in front of a motorcycle without a second thought. 

4.   "Drive like everybody is trying to hit you."  Because of the tendency of many car drivers to ignore or fail to see and react to bike riders, it pays to be paranoid when you are on a bike.  Stay alert for the driver who is in a dream, on the phone, so caught up in a conversation that he lags behind other cars in traffic, or is otherwise not driving with the flow of traffic.  Stay alert for drivers on side roads ready to pounce into your lane of travel.  Left turning drivers in the oncoming lane should always get your attention, because you may not have gotten theirs.

5.   Sometimes you just need to get away.  Some drivers are overly aggressive and others are slow or inattentive, making one bad move after another.  If someone is driving badly, get away from them.

6.  Pushing Red Lights.   When traffic lights are changing from amber to red, there is a tendency to try to beat the light and get through the intersection.  On a bike, check the traffic behind you when you know you'll have a light change coming up.  You may have to run through the intersection to avoid being run down by an aggressive driver behind you who is going too fast to stop.  On the other hand, if you push a red light, you may find yourself colliding with a last second, left-turning driver or with a driver who  cannot wait to make that right turn into your lane immediately in front of you.

7.  Strap On Your Helmet.   Believe it or not, police officers arrive at crash scenes and find that the biker had not fastened the strap on his helmet, and his helmet came off in the crash. 

8.   DUI.  Like sticking your hand into a garbage disposal or poking a knife into an electrical outlet, this is one of those things that can be done but it is never ever recommended.  Perception is impaired. Reaction time is impaired. Reactions are impaired.  Energy drinks won't undo the damage of alcohol or drugs.  If you can't be sharp and alert on the bike, keep the key out of the ignition.

9.  Riding Gear.  Helmets. Gloves. Boots. Leather jackets.  Eye protection from sun, glare, insects, rocks, dust, and debris.  These are the things you put on, like a second skin, before you crash so you don't need a real second skin after the crash.  People in four-wheel vehicles have car bodies, padded seats and padded interiors to protect them in the event of a crash.  Their risk of skidding bodily along the pavement is far less than what a biker faces in a crash.

10.  Cornering.  Local motorcycle safety instructor Anthony Riddle says one study found that 68% of single vehicle motorcycle crashes involved cornering.  Slow down before the turn, look as far as possible through the turn, lean the bike into the corner, roll on the throttle or keep the throttle steady to stabilize the bike and maintain good traction, and watch out for gravel, wet leaves, holes in the pavement, and other road conditions that can affect your control of the bike in the curve.

11.  Lack of training.  Inexperience and lack of training is often a factor in motorcycle crashes.  Take a Basic Rider Course from Albemarle County Community Education, Blue Ridge Community College, or Shenandoah Harley-Davidson. Experienced rider classes are also available locally and around the country.

12.  Courtesy at Stop Signs and Traffic Lights.  A lot of bikers tend to roll on the throttle while stopped for a traffic light, waiting impatiently for the light to turn green.  While a recent article in Cycle World on the Triumph Street Triple R said that this engine deserves the Grammy, such appreciation for motorcycle engines and exhaust notes is not shared by many homeowners who live near traffic lights.  When sitting at a red light and the desire to go is tempting you to roll on the throttle, be a good neighbor and keep the engine sound to a minimum at the light and when you take off.      

An irritated homeowner may end up being the irritated driver getting ready to pull out in front of you or riding your tail in a sudden rain storm.

May is Motorcycle Safety Awareness Month but on a bike, every month is a time for motorcycle safety.

Injuries are part of the game in some sports. Football and hockey are like combat where the players fight over a single ball or puck. In spite of pads, helmets, and rules, we expect players in these sports will get injured. Golf is different. The players don't wear pads or helmets but sport comfortable pants and shirts, and maybe a cap. There's no fighting over the same ball or passing it around to keep it away from other players. Each player has his own ball. There's no pushing in golf. No tackling. No throwing elbows or slamming into another player. Not even any chatter to distract an opponent during his swing.

In golf, each player takes his turn while the others stand at a safe distance. It's a gentleman's game. Polite, courteous. How many sports have their own etiquette? For many, it's about making and maintaining social contacts in a non-contact sport. But every once in a while, in the course of events, there is a breach of order and/or etiquette that results in a serious injury.

Take the case of the Long Island golfer who hit his third fairway shot and failed to call "Fore!" (According to Wikipedia, "'Fore!' is shouted as a warning during a golf game when it appears possible that a golf ball may hit other players or spectators.") The shot did not go well. The doctor who hit the ball badly struck one of his golf partners, another doctor, in the head. The testimony by the first doctor and his two golf partners differed as to whether the ball traveled 15 - 20 feet or farther before striking the second doctor. The testimony also differed as to whether the injured doctor was standing at an angle of 50 degrees away from the intended line of flight or whether the angle was in the 60 - 80 degree range. The second doctor was looking for his ball on the fairway when he was struck. He suffered a detached retina which left him blinded in his left eye.

The injured doctor filed a personal injury suit, claiming that his golf partner should have called "Fore!" The trial court dismissed the suit, stating that the injured golfer was not in the foreseeable zone of danger and that the injured doctor, as a golfer, had consented to the inherent risks of the sport. The lawyer for the plaintiff argued that the foreseeable zone of danger varies according to the skill of the golfer and that the first doctor should not have hit the ball without giving warning to his golf partners.

On December 21, 2010, the New York Court of Appeals issued its decision in the case. For now, at least in New York, it appears that no matter how badly the slice, hook, or errant shot may fly, the rule is golfer beware. The court ruled that bad shots are a common hazard and a golfer can't expect to get a warning shout of "Fore!" every time a ball comes his way. "A person who chooses to participate in a sport or recreational activity consents to certain risks" inherent to that activity. Getting hit without warning by a shanked shot was a commonly appreciated risk. Based on this decision, although golf etiquette may require such a warning, the law in New York does not.

Lest golfers believe they are free game, utterly unprotected by the law, the judges stated that "a plaintiff will not be deemed to have assumed the risks of reckless or intentional conduct or concealed or unreasonably increased risks." This begs the question, how bad must a golfer be before the law requires that he give a warning shout. While intentionally driving a shot into a fellow golfer in your line of fire is prohibited, what if your swing frequently produces errant shots veering 50 to 80 degrees off course? Is it reckless, when someone is within such a sweep to your right or left, to take a shot without calling "Fore!"? Golf etiquette would seem to demand it, but the court's decision suggests that such conduct would not be reckless, regardless of the golfers skill, or lack thereof. Is it reckless if the golfer hitting the shot is also Driving While Intoxicated? Some might consider intoxicated golfers a commonly appreciated risk of the sport.

In Virginia, a different type of accident occurred when a golfer made a practice swing after hitting two balls into the woods. The club came out of his hands and struck one of his golf partners 20 feet to his rear. The injured golfer lost his right eye as a result of being hit by the 2-iron. The Virginia Supreme Court stated that "The basic rule of law applicable to golfers is that a player upon a golf course must exercise reasonable care in playing the game to prevent injury to others." Thurston Metals & Supply v. Taylor, 230 Va. 475, 339 S.E.2d 538 (1986). Whether he has done so is "measured by the surrounding facts and circumstances of each case." In the Virginia mishap, the court stated that the swinging golfer "violated the customary requirement that a golfer maintain control of the club throughout the swing." The court added that the statement "Oops, it slipped," was not enough to keep the negligence claim from going to the jury. The Virginia Supreme Court also concluded that the injured golfer was "at an appropriate and apparently safe distance to the rear" and there was no evidence he had negligently caused his injury or assumed a risk of injury. The $200,000.00 jury verdict was upheld.

While it is not clear whether the law in Virginia would have afforded relief to the injured doctor in New York, it is hoped that golfers in New York would be protected from rearward-flying clubs, regardless of whether they were let loose due to recklessness or negligence. In either state, however, it appears that golf etiquette is superior to the law in providing greater safety and protection against unwanted contact with errant balls, loosed clubs, or lawyers.

Green Bay is off to the Super Bowl after Sunday's playoff win over the Bears at Soldier Field in Chicago, but come Monday it was a Green Bay Packers tie that led to defeat for Chicago car salesman John Stone. Monday's contest was at Webb Chevrolet in Oak Lawn, Illinois, less than 16 miles from Soldier Field. Stone wore a Green Bay Packers tie to work. The day after the Packers deprived Chicago of a trip to the Super Bowl. What was he thinking? His late grandmother was a Packers fan.

According to Stone's boss, Webb Chevrolet spends $20,000 a month on advertising with the Bears during the season and provides loaner vehicles to some Bears players. Stone had worked at the dealership a month and a half. Maybe he didn't get the memo.

The first request to take the tie off was joking, according to Stone. More requests followed. Stone's boss Jerry Roberts said he gave Stone five chances to take the tie off but he refused. Stone said he was only asked three times. ESPN reported Stone saying that Roberts finally came out of a meeting and confronted him. "Take your tie off or you're f#@!ing fired."

This is how traffic accidents often happen. It's not just one bad decision. It's one after another. Like driving on wet or icy roads. Then deciding to go a bit too fast for the conditions. Then getting too close to the car in front of you. Then getting angry because the car in front is going too slowly. You get closer to his bumper, thinking that will make him go faster. Next thing you know, you get to exchange insurance information and tell a police officer your version of the crash.

A frequent type of crash is one driver rear-ending another who is stopped at a traffic light. Again, it is often a series of bad decisions that causes the crash. The drivers at fault are not blind. Rarely are they distracted by an emergency. Multi-tasking while driving is a way of life. We drive. We listen to the radio. We eat. We drink coffee. Our front passenger seats are covered with things we may need while driving. Gloves, cell phone, CDs, make up, tissue paper, a shopping list.

We know we are driving with a traffic light ahead but we look at the buttons on our car radio anyway. This will only take a second, we decide. We pick up our cell phone to make a call or maybe read an email or text. (No sending texts while driving in Virginia anymore.) We think we have enough time before the light up ahead changes. At 45 mph, we are traveling about 65 feet a second. Five seconds reading that email or text message and you've gone more than the length of a football field. That traffic light has come up faster than you think. And it's red.

John Stone's collision with Jerry Roberts on Monday involved a number of decision points. First, there was choosing to wear the Green Bay Packers neck tie the Monday after the Bears' play-off loss. Maybe he thought the tie would be a conversation piece and give him the chance to talk to customers about his late grandmother who was a big Packers fan. On the other hand, Monday morning might find Bears fans still feeling raw over that loss, and that tie is like salt in a wound. Road and weather conditions were probably not good for taking that tie out for a spin that day.

Then there was his boss's joking request to take off the tie. Stone drove right through that yellow light. And the second request, made while Stone was with a customer. He drove through that yellow light too. Whether there was only one more request or three, Roberts' last warning was like a traffic barrier with black and white diagonal stripes, flashing lights and a sign "Bridge Washed Out Ahead." We may never know what made Stone proceed, undeterred by that ultimatum. However, if our cars uttered Roberts-esque driving tips, there would probably be far fewer accidents.

Tractor-trailers may be big and their drivers may sit up high where you would think they can see everything but they have blind spots big enough for your car, SUV or minivan to get lost in.

You may have read the notice on the back of some trailers that says, "If you can't see my mirrors, I can't see you." What it should say is "If you can't see my face in my mirrors, I don't see you."

Truck drivers are required to have a commercial drivers license. They have specialized training in the operation of large commercial vehicles. They know where their blind spots are. In an ideal world they would use their mirrors often enough to know when your vehicle is in one of their blind spots. The Virginia Driver's Manual, available online at the DMV website, calls these blind spots "No-Zones."

REAR BLIND SPOT

The obvious blind spot no-zone is immediately behind the truck. The driver can't see you and if or she brakes suddenly, you may not have time to avoid rear-ending the truck.

SIDE BLIND SPOTS

Two not so obvious blind spot no-zones are on each side of the truck, near the front half of the trailer, where you can clearly see the driver's side-mounted rear-view mirrors. You may think you're in a safe spot because you can see the mirrors, but don't be fooled. If the driver's abilities and alertness are impaired by fatigue, he may not have been checking his rear-view mirrors frequently enough to know that your car has moved into one of his blind spots. Rain, snow, ice, heavy traffic or other driving conditions may have drawn his attention elsewhere. In these situations, if the truck driver makes a move to his left or right, you could be hit, forced off the road or forced into another vehicle.

When you pass a truck on the interstate, don't linger in his blind spots. Move through them as quickly as you can, given the traffic and speed limits. You may want to hold back and allow a car ahead of you to get on down the road so that when you pass the truck, you can do so without sitting in the blind spot for several seconds or longer.

FRONT BLIND SPOT

The final no-zone is immediately in front of the tractor-trailer. With a moving tractor-trailer, you don't want to be here because if you have to stop suddenly, you don't want the tractor-trailer crashing into your car and crushing your passenger area. In slow moving or stop-and-go traffic, some trucks have a small blind spot immediately in front of the truck that may prevent the driver from seeing your brake lights come on. If a truck rear-ends you in stop and go traffic like this, do not go around to the back of your car to check the damage unless you have made eye contact with the truck driver and you know he or she sees what you are doing. The truck driver may not have felt the impact with your car. If traffic stops after such an impact and you get out to look at your rear bumper and you are standing in the truck's front blind spot, when traffic begins moving the truck may do the same. You would not be the first person in Virginia to be seriously or fatally injured in a situation like this.

Truck drivers are professional drivers but professionals of all kinds make mistakes. It only takes a moment of distraction or inattention. When you are driving around trucks, make sure you are in a position where the truck driver can see you. And remember, just because you can see his mirrors doesn't mean he sees you.

Click on this link to see a visual depiction of a truck's blind spots.  It is part of the Virginia Driver's Manual, View image

It is often said - "A picture is worth a thousand words." The saying may be true but pictures, like words, do not always tell the truth. When it comes to photos of yourself posted on Facebook after you have been injured in an accident, those photos may be lying about your medical condition.

If you are rear-ended at a traffic light or hit broadside by someone running a stop sign or a red light, you can have painful injuries that last for months, if not years. During that time, life goes on.

There are still chores to do, leaves to rake, grass to cut, kids to chauffeur around town, family picnics and get togethers to attend, and visits with friends. While still in pain, you do chores and activities you did before you were hurt. If you don't do them, who will? The insurance company for the person who hit you won't be knocking on your door to find out what kind of help they can offer. Those "good hands" are more likely balled up into tight fists.

You may go to the beach or a football game. You may go to a wedding, go out to dinner with friends, or go on vacation. Put pictures of any of these things on Facebook and the insurance company loves it. Those pictures probably make it look like you are having a good time and feeling fine. What they rarely if ever show is the pain you were in at the time, or the pain you were in afterwards for having gone out.

That is what insurance companies are counting on.

Whether you are trying to settle your own personal injury claim or a lawyer is handling your case, insurance companies are looking at your Facebook page and other social media websites where your pictures are posted. Don't think that your pages are private and that the insurance companies won't find your photographs. They will.

Once they find pictures of you doing anything you said you have trouble doing, or anything you couldn't do any more or that you tried and gave up because of your injuries, they lower the value of your claim. You may have told the whole truth and nothing but the truth, but now they have "proof" you are doing better than you say. Their lawyers tsk-tsk and say shame on you. Now they have something to show a jury and say - See this! She said she couldn't do this, and here she is doing it! They may even say that if you lied about your injuries, you can't be trusted on anything, including your story about how your accident happened or whether you had your aches and pains before the accident.

On the other hand, if you avoid doing everything your injuries interfere with, that same insurance company will accuse you of malingering and exaggerating your injuries.

If you have a Facebook page and are injured in an accident, think more than twice about putting pictures of yourself on the Internet. The value of your case may drop by a few thousand dollars, tens of thousands, or even hundreds of thousands of dollars, simply because you put photos of yourself on Facebook.

It used to be that insurance companies had to hire investigators to go out and take photographs and video of injured people, hoping to catch them in the act of doing something the company could use to challenge and undermine the injured person's claims. Now with Facebook, many injured people are doing the insurance investigators' work for free.

If you are injured in an accident, don't put any pictures of yourself on Facebook until your claim is settled or the trial is over.

In 2002, a former manager of a McDonald's in Brazil complained about gaining 65 pounds over 12 years. He said "mystery clients" visited McDonald's restaurants and reported back to McDonald's on the food quality, service and cleanliness at the restaurants. Because of this he felt pressured to sample the food daily for quality control purposes. He also apparently ate the free lunches his McDonald's offered. Last week a judge awarded him $17,500.

I read 15 or 20 reports on this decision online, looking for one that gave Judge Joao Ghisleni Filho's reasoning. Did McDonald's impose on its managers a particular level of actual consumption or ingestion? How does McDonald's train its managers to test for consistency in their food? Was the manager free to chew a couple mouthfuls and spit the food out when he sampled it for quality control? Was he obligated to eat McDonald's food for lunch? If so, how much? At what point did this manager make the connection between the fries and quarter-pounders going in and the pounds going on? Was there any mention of what he was eating outside of work during those 12 years? Did he stick to a low calorie diet at home and only open the calorie intake valves when he reported for duty?

Was the award only for the weight gain? $17,500 comes out to about $67.30 a quarter pound. Not much of an award. And what did the judge think of this former manager filing a complaint about having to eat the same food he sold to customers for 12 years?

With a story this strange, I long for Paul Harvey to be here to report "The Rest of the Story." Did the judge determine that McDonald's created a hostile work environment with McNazis posing as "mystery clients"? How far did McDonald's go in testing the franchise where this manager worked? Was this franchise singled out for special attention? Was McDonald's looking for an excuse to terminate this franchise? Did Judge Joao Ghisleni Filho find that McDonald's business practices in regard to this franchise in Porto Alegre crossed a line that required compensating this former manager? Perhaps we will never know. The story, as reported by Associated Press, was carried almost "as is" by nearly every site I looked at. Dollars to donuts, there's more to this story than what has been reported.

When you like riding motorcycles and like having a tall, cold beer on a hot day, it is tempting to mix the two - even though we know better. In the United States, temptation is in our DNA. We live in the land of more. Advertising has been pushing "more is better" into us since we were old enough to talk. We've seen so many images of cold beer, hot women, and good times we are primed to order that beer when we are in situations like we see in the ads.

After a good ride on a hot day with miles to go before days end, it is tempting to have something more, something good, something more than ice tea or a Coke. "It's Miller time!" urges us, along with "go for the gusto!" (if you remember that advertising slogan) or "just one won't hurt," to go ahead and order that beer. We know better. We've heard it in motorcycle safety classes. We've read it in motorcycle magazines. But instead of listening to Jiminy Cricket on our shoulder telling us "don't be a fool, stick with the ice tea," we're thinking - "It'll relax me for the ride home. I've only got a few more miles to ride. One beer won't make a difference. Everybody else is having one. That is going to taste great! I know my limits, I'll adjust my riding accordingly."

In addition to those rationalizations, there's also -- "I'll have an energy drink!! That'll get me home safe!!" We see their advertisements at motorcycle races. Monster Energy Drinks like M-80 and Heavy Metal. Red Bull. Rockstar. Full Throttle. The mental association they are pushing is that motorcycling and energy drinks go together. "So motorcycling plus an energy drink plus a beer (or maybe two or three thanks to the energy drink) and I'll be good to go!" Not so fast, cowboy.

Those energy drinks don't offset the effects of alcohol on perception time, reaction time, and judgment. They may have anywhere from 80 to 160 mg of caffeine or more, as much as 240 mg in some cases. A 12 oz. Coke has 35 mg of caffeine. All that caffeine can offset the drowsiness caused by alcohol but drowsiness is not the only effect on the brain and its ability to get you and your motorcycle home safely. We use the sense of drowsiness caused by alcohol to assess our level of impairment. When massive doses of caffeine take that drowsiness away, our ability to assess our level of impairment is reduced and we are likely to underestimate the extent to which one or more drinks have affected our ability to ride safely.

When we mix energy drinks and alcohol, we tend to drink more. When you take decreased perception and reaction time, and mix that with impaired judgment and the likely effect of massive caffeine on what the right wrist wants to do with the throttle, that ride home could go bad in ways our mothers, fathers, and loved ones don't want to know.

People who mix energy drinks are more likely to drive after drinking. They are more likely to underestimate their level of intoxication and mental impairment. And they are more likely to overestimate their ability to drive home safely.

When the day's ride is not yet over, you're sitting at a table, relaxed, and are tempted by a tall cold one, take a pass. Hold off on the beer until you're home safe, wherever "home" happens to be that night. Live to ride another day.

Tort Reforms That Undermine Right to Trial by Jury

Ask Legislators to Violate Their Oath of Office

TRIAL BY JURY in suits at common law is a right that "shall be preserved" according to Article VII of the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia states that "in suits between man and man, trial by jury is preferable to any other, and ought to be held sacred." Article VIII, Section 11.

In taking their oath of office, the President of the United States, U.S. Senators and Congressman, and the Governor, officers and legislators in the Commonwealth of Virginia swear or affirm to defend the Constitution of the United States.

Men should be good neighbors to each other but the Constitution recognizes that when they are not, the right to trial by jury shall be preserved as the way to achieve a just resolution of their disputes. The oaths taken by our leaders as a prerequisite to holding office are oaths to uphold the Constitution and, thereby, uphold the right to trial by jury. This recognizes that the touchstone of law and power in the United States is the Constitution. Not the flag. Not the Oval Office. Not the Capitol. Not Wall Street.

Businesses should be good neighbors too, but while the rule "do unto others" may guide the conduct of individuals, the rule "maximize the bottom line" more often guides the conduct of businesses. Financial fraud, price fixing, price gouging, cutting corners, dumping toxic waste, making motor vehicles that attract buyers but catch fire on their own or easily roll over, and selling drugs, toys and other products that poison, maim and kill - all these add to the bottom line - as long as lawsuits don't get in the way. "Tort reform" is all about protecting that bottom line and doing away with lawsuits. It has nothing to do with making motor vehicles and other products safer, drugs safer, patients safer. Trial by jury is the remedy under the Constitution for holding wrongdoers accountable for not being good neighbors.

When the U. S. Chamber of Commerce, its Institute for Legal Reform, and corporations, interest groups, lobbyists and politicians talk about the need for "tort reform," they are asking legislators to chip away at our Constitutional right to trial by jury to hold corporations accountable.

If we saw these companies and industries on the playground when we were kids, we'd say they were bullies, wanting to push people around without having to answer to anyone.

Tort Reform is a one way street. Its goal is the elimination of the checks and balances on corporate power that trial by jury preserves by putting power into the hands of the people of the United States.

Legislators putting caps on the amount of damages that juries can award for medical malpractice claims, punitive damages, pain and suffering; creating rules that make it harder for people to prove their cases and get their cases before a jury; legislatures granting privileges and immunities from liability of one kind and another; allowing defendants to force plaintiffs to arbitrate a claim instead of going before a jury - the tools for taking away the right to trial by jury are many and devious. At times you need a Sherlock Holmes to sift through all the cries of alarm, the justifications and the deceptions to see that what they are really doing is taking a bit here, a bit there, until they have stolen from us this golden tool entrusted to us by our Founding Fathers for preserving a just society for generations of Americans yet to come. Our elected representatives have taken an oath to defend the Constitution. When it comes to tort reforms that undermine trial by jury, they should just say no.

___________________________

Presidential Oath - "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of the President of the Unites States, and will, to the best of my ability, preserve and defend the Constitution of the Unites States."

U. S. Senate and Congress - "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the Unites States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

Commonwealth of Virginia - "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the Unites States, and the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge all the duties incumbent upon me as _________ (office) according to the best of my ability (so help me God)." Virginia Constitution, Article II, Section 7.

Graco Children's Products is recalling its Harmony high chairs sold in the U.S. between November 2003 through December 2009. Loose screws and cracked brackets can cause these high chairs to tip over. Graco sold 1.2 million Harmony high chairs in the U.S. and another 35,000 in Canada.

For a free repair kit, contact Graco at 1-800-345-4109 or online at Graco.Baby.com.

Based in Atlanta, Graco has received 464 reports of screws loosening or falling out and brackets cracking, resulting in unexpected tip overs of the high chairs.

For additional information, go to http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10171.html.

How many headlines have we seen - Children's Jewelry Recalled Because of Lead - or words to that effect. The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) website offers the following:

* Wal-Mart Recalls Charm Key Chains Due to Risk of Lead Exposure. 4/18/08. 12,000 units involved in this recall.

* Wal-Mart Recalls Additional Charm Key Chains Due to Risk of Lead Exposure. 6/19/08. About 39,000 units involved in this recall, in addition to 12,000 previously recalled.

* Horse Toy Figures Recalled by Blip Toys Due to Violation of Lead Paint Standard. 1/26/10. About 15,000 units. Sold at Wal-Mart from 1/2009 through 7/09.

* Children's Toy Jewelry Sets Recalled by Playmates Toys; Charms Violate the Total Lead Standard. 2/2/10. About 252,000 Tiny Tink and Friends Children's Toy Jewelry Sets. Sold at various retailers 11/08 through 11/09.

* FAF Inc. Recalls Children's Necklaces Sold Exclusively at Walmart Stores Due to High Levels of Cadmium. 1/29/10. About 55,000 units involved in this recall.

* CPSC Issues Warning on Children's Winter and Holiday-Themed Charm Bracelets with High Levels of Cadmium. 3/11/10. Rudolph-the-Red-Nosed-Reindeer charm bracelets sold at discount and dollar-type stores 2006 to March 2009. Number of units involved unknown as importer of these goods from China has gone out of business.

Why does it take the CPSC and state attorneys general to discover that products being sold for children contain toxic materials at unsafe levels? When Wal-Mart and other chain stores consider selling a product for children, do they not test the product to see if it contains toxic chemicals or toxic materials at unsafe levels? Where is the headline about how these products got on the store shelves in the first place? Who looked at these products to see if they were safe or toxic? Or did the retailers who offered these items to us to buy for our children, did they just look the other way?

The effects of lead on children are well known. It causes anemia, muscle weakness, brain damage and learning difficulties; it can also affect mental and physical growth. www.atsdr.cdc.gov./tfacts13.html

The effects of cadmium are lung damage, fragile bones, and possible kidney damage. Cadmium is a human carcinogen. It is used in batteries, pigments, metal coatings, and plastics. www.atsdr.cdc.gov./tfacts5.html

Mothers and fathers with young children don't have the time, energy, or resources to test every item they buy for their children. Anyone with young children knows there is not enough time in the day for everything, and sometimes it is hard to even read all the warnings on children's items. Large retailers know this. If a parent goes to a store and finds a toy on the shelf, she thinks it is safe if there is no warning on the packaging. When the warning comes months and months later in a headline or a CPSC recall announcement, it begs the question - who is minding the store?

Kevin Ryan wrote the following ode in response to a Dec. 30, 2009, story from the www.avvo.com, website: 

As the complexity and sophistication of robotic products increases, so too will increase the cost of proving liability. This cost will effectively close the courthouse doors to many who are injured. Manufacturers, through talking heads on TV, economic experts, pundits and so on are likely to lobby the public, the congress and state legislatures (a) on the need for immunities from suit to "protect jobs" (that probably have been exported to foreign countries) or to protect the "industry" so we don't fall behind other countries in robot production; or (b) they will seek the creation of additional procedural hurdles in the court systems and legal process to make it impossible for an injured person to hold a corporate manufacturer responsible before a jury.

New remedies or procedures will be needed to level the playing field so that economics alone do not dictate who can bring a lawsuit. The time may have come for the cost of proving liability to be included in the damages that are recoverable by an injured party who wins at trial after having made a settlement offer which was less than the jury verdict.

Without some mechanism to offset the cost barrier to holding such manufacturers responsible for the injuries they cause and to encourage them to have adequate levels of insurance coverage, their licenses to manufacture complex and sophisticated robotic devices will become, thanks to the high cost of litigation, licenses to maim and kill. That would be a world like the Empire Luke Skywalker fought against. It will be a world where the court system serves the powerful at the expense of the individual. In the rush to a future where R2Ds and C3POs move among us, let us not forget that it is the individual who is paramount, because when the individual is protected, each and every one of us is protected; but when it is the wealthy and powerful who are protected, then the rest of us live in danger.

In the movie Ghostbusters, the ghostbusters' advertising slogan asked - who you gonna call? As we move forward into a world with increasingly complex products, we need to remember this question and be sure that the justice system keeps the court house doors open to individuals injured by sophisticated and complex products of all kinds.

In Star Wars when R2D2 and C3PO are sold to Luke Skywalker's uncle, he was looking for droids (thinking robots) to operate his farm equipment. Nobody asked - who made these things and who is at fault if they malfunction and burn down my workshop, destroy my equipment or injure anybody? The Star Wars script did not call for product malfunction and mayhem to create a personal injury law saga. However, Murphy's law is written into the script of real life. If accidents can happen, they will.

We have cars that parallel park themselves. We have Roomba vacuum cleaners that roll around the house on their own, moving from room to room, avoiding stairs, even plugging themselves into their docking station when their battery gets low. We have industrial robots in factories and robots used by the military in Iraq to detect and inspect bombs. The day is coming when robots will be moving around among us, operating not by direct human control but on artificial intelligence and other programs. Like the various products that have come before them, these robot devices will malfunction and injure people. It may be a car that drives itself through a cross-walk filled with pedestrians, or a janitorial robot bumping someone and knocking her down a flight of stairs, or a robot child caretaker that restrains a child and breaks his arm. Product failures and malfunctions are a fact of life that is not going to change.

Today when a machine or appliance causes a fire that burns down a house or kills people sleeping in their home, traditional product liability law determines responsibility for the loss of property or life. In these lawsuits, lawyers hire engineers to identify the malfunction that caused the fire and to determine whether that malfunction was caused by negligent design or negligent manufacture, alteration of the product during repairs or maintenance, abuse of the product, or a failure to warn about the fire hazard and what to do to prevent fires. In a typical defective product case, the cost for experts ranges from $75,000 to several hundreds of thousands of dollars. This litigation price tag alone prevents many legitimate cases from being brought - a form of tort control in and of itself.

Now along comes R2D2, adding artificial intelligence to the list of potential causes of product malfunction. The cost of litigation will be even greater as an additional class of experts will be needed to determine what part the computer software played in the malfunction. They will have to determine if the defect was in the original programming, or was it due to hacking or radio/ELF/microwave or other electrical interference, or to downloading a defective software patch, or downloading an updated version of the original program, or did the addition of a new program cause a conflict with the software in the robot in which the interaction of two non-defective programs caused a glitch that resulted in the injury? Determining the guilt or innocence of these ghosts within the machine will be difficult and expensive.