Driving is serious business.  Every time we drive on the highways we need to be sure we are paying attention to the traffic signs, road signs, and the other drivers on the road and we need to make sure the vehicles we are driving are safe.  Just because you buy new tires it does not mean that those tires were recently manufactured.  If you look closely on the tire it will have the date the tire was made. 

Some tires are defective and without warning the tread can separate causing a terrible crash.  When a tire blows or separates suddenly there is a good chance that your vehicle will roll over resulting in serious injuries and/or death.  The likelihood of a crash and injuries or fatalities from such a crash, is far greater when the tread separation occurs on a SUV compared to if the tread separation occurs on a sedan or large pickup truck instead.

There have been several tire recalls involving Bridgestone, Continental Tire, Cooper Tire, Firestone Tire, Goodyear Tire, Kelly Springfield Tire and Yokohama Tire. 

This type of crash could happen to anyone.  Inspect your tires on a regular basis, check the date they were manufactured, check the internet and be aware of publicized recalls. If you or a loved one is involved in a crash that could be the result of faulty tires, be advised that there is a legal remedy available and do not hesitate to seek justice.

See the hyperlinks below for additional information:

http://www.recalls.gov/nhtsa.html
http://usgovinfo.about.com/blfirestone.htm

Yamaha drastically changed the design of the Rhino and called it a “utility terrain vehicle”, rather than an “all-terrain vehicle”. Why would Yamaha feel the need to do this?

Wikipedia tells us that an all-terrain vehicle is “a vehicle that travels on low pressure tires, with a seat that is straddled by the operator, along with handlebars for steering control…it is designed to handle a wider variety of terrain than most other vehicles.”

It seems reasonable to expect that all-terrain vehicles will be ridden on ground (terrain) that is unpredictable and rough. It also seems reasonable to expect that riders will probably ascend and descend hilly ground. That is what an all-terrain vehicle is all about, right?

But, what if we called them “nearly all-terrain vehicles” or all-terrain except rough terrain vehicles” or, maybe, “utility terrain vehicles”. Let’s take the last one as an example, what is a “utility terrain”? Utility can mean “designed or adapted for general use” and terrain typically refers to “the physical features of a tract of land”. So, Yamaha apparently intended to market its Rhino Utility Terrain Vehicle as a general use vehicle to be used on a tract of land. Not a great deal of difference from what an all-terrain vehicle is thought to mean.

When riders began purchasing the Rhino and it began tipping over, crushing limbs and killing people, should Yamaha have been surprised? Should Yamaha have been surprised that substituting a round steering wheel for a set of handlebars, would create potential maneuverability issues?

Yamaha produced a vehicle in the Rhino that looks, walks, and talks like an all-terrain vehicle. Because they labeled it a utility terrain vehicle should not allow them to be shielded from reasonable safety standards.

Lately, not a news cycle turns without an insurance company, a Wall Street firm, a bank or other corporate giant asking for a government bailout with our taxpayer money.

Ironically, these are the same Big Corporations that every year aggressively lobby the government to de-regulate their industries to allow for greater profit margins.

We have all heard corporate America’s battle cry before: More government intrusion will lead to decreased profits and thus harm the economy. If we fill the pockets of the rich, this will have a trickle-down effect on the rest of the population because the rich will spend money and create jobs. The truth of these ideas are the subject of much debate, but it is undeniable that corporations are an integral piece of our economic engine. They create new technologies, employ the workforce and increase our Gross Domestic Profit. It is also undeniable, given the recent economic downturn, that when corporations are left to their own devices, there is an element that will exploit the weak and powerless for their own gain. It is simply in the nature of Corporate America to place profits above all else, including Americans.

To those of us who are called on to fight these titans of corporate America on behalf of individuals, this most recent and seemingly incongruent request for government intervention by corporate America is nothing new. Corporate America has for years been talking out of both sides of its mouth when it comes to government involvement. While on the one hand, they have lobbied for less government and less taxes (in a further twist of irony, taxes are now being used to make up for their mismanagement), they have asked for government intervention before when it suits their needs. They have simply packaged this need as tort reform.

(more…)

The first tobacco trial of what is termed the “Engle” plaintiffs has resulted in a total verdict for Mrs. Hess and her son in th eamount of $8 million.

Big Tobacco’s lawyers, once again, attempted to shift all the blame away from themselves and against Mr. Hess. The jury apparently saw it otherwise.

The jury deliberated approximately 2 1/2 hours. Mrs. Hess reportedly wept, undoubtedly happy to have had this grueling fight reach a close.

Unfortunately, if Big Tobacco takes its normal approach, they will search for every grain upon which to base an appeal. It is unlikely that Big Tobacco will ever own up to its mid-twentieth century manipulation of smokers.

Did we ask for prepackaged, processed foods? Well, maybe tacitly. These types of products provide longer shelf life in the store and reduce spoliation long term at our homes. The drive for these foods was motivated by both the retail industry as well as consumers.

We expect to buy food that is safe to consume.  Is it acceptable for us to allow manufacturers to minimize safety measures, simply because we enjoy convenience? 

The recent peanut butter recalls are both a further warning to consumers and a debacle that should alert our government officials to a problem that may be appearing as the tip of the iceberg of a much larger problem. Whether it be food for human consumption or food for our pets, the recent events involving tainted products is proof enough that something more needs to be done to protect consumers; whether those consumers are two legged or four legged. 

Much of the recalled peanut butter is tainted with salmonella, which is a potentially life-threatening organism.  Salmonella is found in the intestinal tracts of humans and animals. It is most often spread to consumables through fecal matter of animals. Typical symptoms of Salmonella poisoning include:

 Diarrhea
 Abdominal cramps
 Fever

Most people recover from salmonella poisoning, but people with challenged health should seek the advice of a physician immediately if symptoms persist or if the person has a preexisting condition, such as: HIV/AIDS, cancer, diabetes, kidney disease, and transplant patients. In our four legged friends, any who have persistent symptom mentioned above should immediately be seen by a veterinarian.

Bacterial contamination has also occurred in our produce especially if the produce is grown and imported from another country.  We cannot continue to let this happen.  How many people or animals have to get sick or die before regulations and inspections are put into place that we can be assured that when we purchase food it is safe to eat or drink?

We should be certain that there are stringent regulations in place that do not allow these bacteria to be present in our food.  Also laws should be such that every manufacturer of food products takes extra measures to assure the safety y of processed foods. Should a manufacturer be tempted to place profits over safety, laws should be in place and the government should be prepared to enforce them in a way that discourages that decision in the first place. 

Is it really going to be necessary the peanut butter to be labeled as a high-risk food?

Today a jury in Fort Lauderdale, Florida found that a long time smoker, Stuart Hess, really was addicted to cigarettes. If you can imagine, Big Tobacco’s lawyers marched into the courtroom and argued that cigarettes were not addictive or, in the alternative, cigarettes were not addictive to Mr. Hess.

Mr. Hess had smoked cigarettes for 40 years and had tried numerous methods to quit, without success. Ultimately, Mr. Hess died from cancer and his addiction to nicotine endured throughout his chemotherapy.

Big Tobacco’s lawyers apparently argued that because Mr. Hess appeared to be “able to quit from time to time”, he was not addicted to cigarettes. Mrs. Hess attorney, Gary Paige, put it about as plainly as you can: “People smoke because they’re addicted, not because they choose to,” Paige said. “Nobody wants to be addicted to cigarettes. It’s as addictive as cocaine and heroin.”

What is it with an industry who can not even be honest enough to admit that cigarettes are and always have been addictive!

Finally, Mrs. Hess has found some vindication from Big Tobacco.

When I was younger, I owned a motorcycle. I loved it. The freedom of the road and the wind blowing past you. Leaning the bike through a curve and the thrill of an open, back country road were the pay backs for getting rained on.

Back then, I had more experience working with Big Corporations and less experience watching in astonishment as Big Corporations place profits over people and over safety. Sure, I had heard about the whole Pinto thing and fires that “may have” killed people, but, back then, I accepted the Big Corporation explanation that it was just “something that was happening” and it was not their fault.

What I would never have imagined now or then was that the front wheel of my motorcycle would break off. And if there was even the slightest risk that the front steering column needed bracing to avoid the front of the bike shearing off, I would expect the manufacturer to take out a full page advertisement to alert me about that.

Alas, though, I have spent many years now watching Big Corporations. “Its not our fault” is apparently the cardinal mantra in all Big Corporations’ training manuals for their CEO’s. Its “happenstance”, “its an isolated incident”, and my favorite, “it’s the consumer’s fault”.

Suzuki recently “recalled” its GSX R-1000 motorcycle because they have “received reports of cracking or breakage of the frame behind and below the steering neck…” In plain language—the front wheel can break off and you can lose control of the motorcycle, possibly resulting in the rider tumbling down the highway at high speeds. Now, in fairness, Suzuki says that “ordinary operation” does not create a risk of the cracking or breaking of the steering mechanism.

I suppose that we need to examine “ordinary operation”. I honestly do not know what that means. I mean, if you go over speed bumps too fast or hard, is that enough to weaken the GSX R-1000 steering neck? If you hit a pot hole really hard, is that enough to cause the front wheel to break off once the bike is exposed to 70 mile per hour forces? If I am playing around in my drive way and I pull a few wheelies, is that enough to create a crack that may very well fracture at high speeds.

The bottom line really is: do you issue a “milk toast” recall of a machine designed to move down the highway at high speeds where the front wheel may fall off? Once again, doesn’t this beg for a full page ad—a “four alarm fire” warning?