There is an important traffic safety issue involved in the car crash accident which ended up killing a 60-year old woman from Santa Clara in San Tomas Expressway. Two words: senior drivers.

The driver of the car, whom the deceased, Roberta Lee was a passenger of was an 81-year-old Santa Clara woman. According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), older drivers are a danger mostly to themselves and their passengers and that in fatal crashes of drivers 75 and older, the drivers and their senior passengers were much more likely to be killed than were occupants in other vehicles.

The elderly female driver allegedly failed to stop at the red light at the intersection and turned left, directly into the path of a 2002 BMW. The driver of the BMW, a 40-year-old San Jose man, was unable to stop and collided with the Honda’s passenger side which killed Lee.

Lee’s vehicle also crashed into a Honda Accord, sending the elderly female driver and the driver of the Honda to the hospital for treatment of injuries.

That kind of crash is almost standard for senior drivers, according to the IIHS the most common error made in senior-involved crashes is failure to yield the right-of-way. Senior drivers are also over-identified in certain types of collisions — angle crashes, overtaking or merging crashes, and especially intersection crashes.

The reason for older drivers’ failure-to-yield or stop crashes varies. Age has always been a factor for diminished vision and capacity. Older drivers aged 70-79 were more likely to see another vehicle but misjudge whether there was time to proceed while drivers 80 and older predominantly failed to see the other vehicle.

Currently, the California Highway Patrol is still investigating the accident. No arrests have been made pending the findings of the authorities.

Given that age does bring about the decline of some physical, cognitive, and visual abilities which are needed in certain skills such as driving and possible impairment because of prescription medication, older drivers have a  higher risk of crash involvement.

California, in one of its efforts to help elderly drivers has a Mature Driver Program. This is an eight-hour course for drivers age 55 and older which covers a variety of topics of special interest to the mature driver and is approved by Department of Motor Vehicles.

While this will not guarantee senior drivers will be accident-free, it is part of the State’s efforts to stem senior car crash accidents.

• Bookmark on Delicious
• Digg this post
• Recommend on Facebook
• Buzz it up
• share via Reddit
• Share with Stumblers
• Tweet about it
• Subscribe to the comments on this post
• Tell a friend
• Print for later

After filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, announcing plans of partnership with Italian automaker Fiat and the sale of some assets and operations, a “new” Chrysler was formed, now formally known as Chrysler Group LLC.

The federal government also lent the troubled automaker a helping hand when it financed the deal with US$6.6 billion in financing.

Chrysler vehicle owners, especially those with defective or bugged down cars will have a cause to rejoice as the automaker has recently announced that it would accept product liability claims on vehicles built by the “old” Chrysler that are involved in accidents after the completion of its bankruptcy which was in June.

John Bozzella, the Senior Vice President for External Affairs & Public Policy of Chrysler Group LLC said that despite the challenges that lie ahead for the company, they are confident that the future viability of the company will not be threatened if these claims are accepted.

Under the Product Liability Law, manufacturers, distributors, suppliers, retailers, and others who make products available to the public are held responsible for the injuries those products cause. Consumers who are injured by the use of the defective product have the right to sue the seller or manufacturer for damages suffered.

Thus, Chrysler, as an automobile manufacturer will certainly be obliged to compensate consumers for the damage they incurred for faulty and/or defectively designed vehicles.

Motor vehicle defects in particular, have been the subject of several product liability and common law suits have involved defects such as:

•    SUVs designs that are prone to rolling over
•    Tires that are prone to blowouts
•    Unstable motorcycles that “wobble” when driven at high speeds

While Chrysler announcement is indeed good news, the company emphasizes that the claims they will entertain will not include those filed prior to the company’s bankruptcy. Chrysler Group had agreed to assume liability only for cars sold by Chrysler Group. So, consumers better take note of that condition.

• Bookmark on Delicious
• Digg this post
• Recommend on Facebook
• Buzz it up
• share via Reddit
• Share with Stumblers
• Tweet about it
• Subscribe to the comments on this post
• Tell a friend
• Print for later

Two car rollover crashes with hardly more than a day in between but with two different fates.

In Chula Vista, a 27-year old man from San Diego died when he lost control of his Chevrolet Tahoe and hit the center median and some trees which caused his vehicle to roll over. Anthony Alvarez, the driver, got ejected and suffered massive head trauma. He died at the scene.

A 21-year old female driver from Laguna Beach had better luck when she escaped unscathed from a single-vehicle rollover crash near 73 freeway. She lost control of her blue Honda Civic and rolled twice as it cut across the lanes. Although uninjured, she was taken to the hospital as a precaution.

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, more than half of all motor vehicle occupants killed in single-vehicle crashes are involved in rollovers.

Although rollover accidents account for less than 3 percent of police reported passenger vehicle crashes, 23 percent of rollovers result to fatal crashes. In 2007, a total of 10,182 people died in crashes where their vehicle rolled over.

Although the vehicle design is a huge factor for rollover accidents (SUVs and pick-ups with a higher center of gravity is more prone to roll over), most are actually caused by driver behavior. Most rollovers occur when a driver loses control of a vehicle, slides sideways and is tripped by an object like a curb, guardrail, or even uneven ground which causes it to rollover.

Vehicle rollovers can also happen when a driver attempts to turn a vehicle too aggressively — usually when it goes too fast before making a sharp turn.

Rollover accidents, as facts have proven, are fatal. But while it is difficult to actually prevent getting involved in rollover accidents, the risk of a driver and passenger fatality in the event of such can be considerably reduced.

According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, the majority of the people killed in rollover crashes were unrestrained. Safety belt use is the single most important and effective way to reduce the risk of injury or death in a rollover.

Alvarez, the man from San Diego likely got ejected from the vehicle because he was not wearing a seatbelt unlike the young woman in Laguna Beach who managed to emerge from her rollover accident intact and alive.

Without safety belts, occupants in vehicles that roll can be thrown from the vehicle, greatly increasing the risk of serious injury or death. The two-seconds you take to click on your seatbelt makes the difference between literally rolling with it (and surviving) or getting kicked out (and on to another plane of existence).

• Bookmark on Delicious
• Digg this post
• Recommend on Facebook
• Buzz it up
• share via Reddit
• Share with Stumblers
• Tweet about it
• Subscribe to the comments on this post
• Tell a friend
• Print for later

The recent death of a Garden Grove man in a motorcycle accident has underscored the rising statistics of motorcycle fatalities in California.
Recently, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has reported a 44 percent increase in the number of motorcycle deaths.

The California Highway Patrol claimed that the common causes of motorcycle collisions include unsafe speed, improper turning, improper passing, and unsafe lane changes. According to them, lane splicing/splitting is also a contributing factor in many collisions.

Jason Doerr, the ill-fated motorcycle driver was allegedly lane splitting before he hit a car which caused him to fall down and get run over by a car from another lane.

According to Robert Gladden, who manages the California Motorcyclist Safety Program for the Motorcycle Safety Foundation, California is the only state that does not explicitly ban motorcycle riders from splitting or sharing lanes – driving between established lanes of traffic.

Motorcycle riders can legally lane splice even if the Department of Motor Vehicles motorcyclist’s handbook has warned that the practice is not safe. According to the DMV, all motor vehicles and motorcycles need a full lane to operate safely.

The statistics from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety speak for itself. In 2007, crashes involving a motorcycle and at least one other vehicle accounted for 56 percent of all motorcyclist deaths and forty percent of these crashes involved a vehicle turning left while the motorcycle was going straight, passing, or overtaking the vehicle.

While motorcycles can indeed be mobile and make their way around traffic easier, it is also more dangerous because a lot of times, other drivers are not aware of the presence of a motorcycle because it may be in the vehicle’s blind spot or its too dark to notice.

Motorcyclists often blame other drivers for their inattention to the road as a cause of motorcycle accidents. But other drivers find that motorcycle drivers are just as irresponsible and reckless when they speed up or split lanes on the road as well.

But in the end, road safety is a shared responsibility. While it is not safe to share lanes, the most car and motorcycle drivers can do is to respect everyone’s right of way and be an attentive and patient driver.

• Bookmark on Delicious
• Digg this post
• Recommend on Facebook
• Buzz it up
• share via Reddit
• Share with Stumblers
• Tweet about it
• Subscribe to the comments on this post
• Tell a friend
• Print for later

Under the Americans with Disabilities Act or ADA, employers whether private, state and local governments so long as they have 15 or more employees are prohibited from discriminating against qualified individuals with disabilities.

The protection given to qualified disabled employees by this federal law extend to job application procedures, hiring, firing, advancement, compensation, job training, and other terms, conditions, and privileges of employment.

Target, the fifth largest retailer in the United States is now currently facing charges from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for allegedly denying a disabled Orange County employee equal rights in one of its store.

Jeremy Schott from Orange County was a part-time employee at Target’s Foothill Ranch store. He was diagnosed with Cerebral Palsy and the store had allegedly reduced Schott’s work hours because of his medical condition.

Likewise, the EEOC claimed that Target didn’t notify Schott’s job coach and parents of any “in-person” meetings involving work issues, and that Schott had to attend the meetings alone despite repeated requests to include job coaches and parents at the meetings. Because of his condition, Schott “could not effectively communicate with others without the assistance of a job coach”.

Anna Park, an EEOC regional attorney said that despite Schott’s cerebral palsy, he was still considered as a qualified employee and was motivated to work but Target denied him his right to an equal opportunity to succeed in the workplace.

Disabled employees have the same rights as ordinary employees do, but because of employers who try to take advantage of their condition, the ADA has specifically provided for certain employment protection for impaired employees.

Under the ADA, an employer is required to make a reasonable accommodation to the known disability of a qualified applicant or employee if it would not impose an “undue hardship” on the operation of the employer’s business.

Excluding Jeremy Schott’s parents and job coach in the meetings over work issues is not justifiable at all. Given that Schott’s condition impairs his ability to properly communicate, the attendance of his parents and job coach would be a reasonable accommodation especially if they want to be fair to their employee.

But Target, without even granting that reasonable accommodation arbitrarily reduced Schott’s work hours. They didn’t even consider job restructuring or reassignment.

While an employer is not required to lower quality or production standards to make an accommodation, the law provides that he give a reasonable accommodation at the very least, to enable these disabled individuals a chance to become productive citizens.

• Bookmark on Delicious
• Digg this post
• Recommend on Facebook
• Buzz it up
• share via Reddit
• Share with Stumblers
• Tweet about it
• Subscribe to the comments on this post
• Tell a friend
• Print for later