Blog

The Associated Press reported that both the House and Senate have reached an agreement on legislation to establish national standards on toy safety respecting lead and phthalates (hazardous chemicals in plastics), and requiring mandatory testing of children’s products. The bill also provides increased funding to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) for enforcement of these standards.

The new legislation appears aimed at the wealth of defective and lead-laden toys that have hit American stores from China and other foreign manufacturers. It requires that the toys be tested by third party facilities, and that manufacturer’s labs be open to the CPSC. It also directs CPSC to develop a searchable database of reports of product related injuries, illness, death or risks.

This is a major step forward in the field of toy safety. However, until manufacturer’s and every one up the line of distribution are held financially accountable for the injuries their toys cause, it is unlikely that wholesale changes will occur. It is the financial incentive that causes manufacturers to utilize cheaper products, cheaper labor, and relaxed safety standards. It is only when that financial incentive is reversed that significant and permanent changes will be made. See our prior post.

Interstate 5 is a major trucking artery which courses through the center of Northern California. The cities of Redding, Corning and Orland are the half-way point between Seattle and Los Angeles. This brings a tremendous amount of commercial traffic to the north state.

Over the years, our Redding lawyers have represented numerous individuals and families involved in trucking accidents. This has included numerous truckers whom we have grown to appreciate for their hard work and industry, as well as their dedication to the safety of our highways through their professional competence and adherence to national safety standards. We have noticed a disturbing trend, however, and that is that it is becoming more and more difficult for truckers, particularly independents, to earn enough to sustain themselves and their families, and to provide for their “post-trucking” life or retirement. The ever increasing cost of fuel is a significant factor in this equation. As a result, we have seen that truckers are working into their late 60’s and 70’s in order to “keep the ball rolling.” As the trucker population ages, so do many of the health issues which may affect their ability to safely operate their commercial rigs.

In the next few weeks Congress will begin oversight hearings addressing the health fitness of the trucking industry, in the context of what has been described as one of the “biggest causes of occupational death in United States today.” This oversight appears to be prompted by several recent studies on trucker health.

A recent AP study concluded that of the over three million truck drivers who occupy our roadways, a large percentage do not meet adequate minimal health standards. As a result, 5,300 people died in 2006, and another 126,000 were injured in situations where truck drivers fell asleep, suffered heart attacks, seizures, or were otherwise seriously physically impaired.

Another soon to be released report by the Government Accountability Office claims that 563,000 commercial drivers were determined by the Veterans Affairs Department, Labor Department, or Social Security Administration to be eligible for full disability benefits due to their health problems. Of this 563,000, approximately 1,000 drivers have known serious vision defects, hearing problems, and seizure disorders which severely impair their ability to operate a motor vehicle safely.

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration openly acknowledges that it hasn’t completed any of the eight recommendations that U.S. safety regulators have proposed since 2001.

Regarding trucker fitness, there is growing concern about “medical certificates” that are truckers are required to regularly obtain. Currently, there is no centralized medical oversight of the medical exams that truckers obtain. Many truckers have the ability to have their medical exams performed by any doctor of their choice. Where truckers have potentially disqualifying health issues, such as high blood pressure, it has been reported that “doctor shopping” is common.

Other concerns arise out of the length of time in which commercial driver’s licenses are valid. Some truck drivers will have known serious health problems years before their license expires. There is currently no effective procedure to intercept these drivers until their licenses expire or some event, such as a catastrophic accident, raises a concern.

With the current attention being brought to this issue, we are hopeful that trucking industry brings trucker health into focus and takes steps to improve it. Such an effort within the industry could lead the way to promoting healthier and more productive lives of the truckers, and would enhance safety on our roads. Unfortunately, the industry is very amorphous and unorganized, (except for large commercial lines), and it may be very difficult for the industry to move itself. If this ends up being the result, it would seem inevitable that Congress or the states will move to make truck health requirements and monitoring more stringent and harsh.

SunL and American Honda Motor Company announced more ATV recalls.

SunL recalled the SLA 90 Youth All-Terrain Vehicle because of it lacks front brakes, a manual fuel shut-off, and sharp edges of the handlebars are not effectively padded. The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission reports that these defects could lead to loss of control of the ATVs marketed to children 12-15 years of age, which could lead to serious injury or death. For specific model numbers consult the agency’s bulletin. Further information can be obtained by contacting SunL Group at 866.355.0497.

Honda has recalled its TRX 420 Rancher ATVs, also known as the Honda FourTrax Rancher 4X4, for the 2007-2008 model year. The ATV’s rubber CV(constant velocity) boots may puncture and allow contamination and binding of the CV joints, resulting in sudden loss of steering control. Such loss of steering could cause serious injury or death to riders. Further information can be obtained by contacting Honda at 866.784.1870.

We have previously reported ATV recalls issued by Kawasaki, KYMCO and ARTIC CAT this summer. There seems to be an unusually high number of ATV recalls, particularly involving youth models, this year.

A new red-light camera at the intersection of Churn Creek and Cypress in Redding will begin issuing citations today. Photo-enforcement has been touted as the solution for reducing red light violations, but is safety really enhanced at these intersections?

All across America, city governments are giving police agencies the green light to install cameras at intersections in an effort to catch red-light runners. While the public tends to believe that the cameras help make their intersections safer, multiple recent studies have shown that injury accidents and fatalities have actually increased at intersections with the new red-light cameras.

A recent study by the Virginia Department of Transportation concluded that while photo-enforced intersections reduce the number of red-light runners, both rear-end and angled collisions increased by almost 50% at some intersections. Overall, the Virginia study found a 27% net increase in all accidents at photo-enforced intersections and that the “impact of cameras on injury severity was too close to call.”

The Virginia study also noted that most citations were issued to motorists who were unfamiliar with the photo-enforced intersection.

From the evidence presented in the study, it is clear that the everyday driving public is sharply aware of which intersections are photo enforced and which are not. When motorists travel through a photo-enforced intersection and observe a “yellow,” they are deeply inclined to either brake heavily before the limit line or aggressively accelerate as to not be caught by the undiscriminating Electronic Cop. These sort of reactive driving maneuvers can create increased danger to other motorists and pedestrians on the roadway.

Another red-light camera study was conducted by U.S. House Majority Leader, Dick Armey in 2001. This study noted that in several cities with the red light cameras, the timing of the yellow-light interval had mysteriously decreased after the cameras were in operation. Interestingly enough, the congressman also concluded that:

“Every study claiming red light cameras increase safety is written by the same man. Before joining the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), he was a top transportation official in New York City at the time the city began looking into becoming the first jurisdiction in the country to install red light cameras. In other words, the father of the red light camera in America is the same individual offering the “objective” testimony that they are effective.”

Politically, the red-light cameras can be a gold mine. As politicians tend to shy away from raising conventional taxes, the penalty tax is a great way to increase government revenue without raising eyebrows. In California, the penalty tax is 170% of the base fine for traffic infractions. In effect, a $100 base fine becomes a $270 citation.

The monetary benefits of red-light cameras are highly notable. In Redding, California, the Redding Police Department issued 548 red-light citations in a section of roadway where the police cited only seven drivers in the same two month time period a year ago. At $325 for every mailed fine, the City could see a net increase of $175,825 every two months, or up to $1 million of extra revenue per year.

Red-light cameras have been challenged on a constitutional level in several states on grounds that they deny one’s right to due process as guaranteed by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. The Sixth Amendement, as incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment, states that “in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to. . . be confronted with the witnesses against him. . .” As a camera cannot be questioned on a witness stand, and the reviewing police officer cannot be 100% sure that he/she is interpreting the violation in its absolute raw form, especially in the day of Photoshop® and other advanced movie editors, some have been skeptical of red-light cameras for their potential misuse and encroachment on a citizen’s guaranteed rights.

Additionally, most photo-enforced intersections are maintained by private third party businesses. As the business only prospers when the cameras engender a profit to the municipality or the business itself, more ethical concerns are raised.

In light of these recent studies, we believe that an assessment should be performed by the Redding Police Department to determine the overall efficacy of camera enforcement in reducing the number, as well as the seriousness, of traffic related injuries. If the intersections actually become more hazardous with camera enforcement, the entire program should be reassessed. Clearly this should be done before the City makes any further long-term commitments into this program.

Summer’s here in Northern California. Redding has more sunny days per year than 98 percent of cities in the entire country. It’s time to “stop and slop” on your favorite sunscreen. But, are these products really protecting us from the sun? Which products perform as promised?

An eye-opening study on the effectiveness and safety of sunscreen products has just been published by the Environmental Working Group (EWG), a cosmetic safety advocate. This study concludes that 4 out of 5 sunscreens available in America afford inadequate protection from the sun or contain potentially unsafe chemical ingredients. The EWG also found that the “Leading brands were the worst offenders: None of market leader Coppertone’s 41 sunscreen products met EWG’s criteria for safety and effectiveness, and only 1 of 103 products from Banana Boat and Neutrogena, the second- and third-largest manufacturers, are recommended . . .”

The study evaluated 952 brand name sunscreens to determine if their claimed SPF (Sun Protection Factor) corresponded with adequate protection for both UVB and UVA sunrays. UVB is a category of ultraviolet light rays sometimes referred to as “tanning rays.” These rays penetrate only the top layer of skin, the epidermis, and change the color of the pigmentation. UVA rays, on the other hand, were initially thought to be the “safer” tanning rays as they did not appear to damage the epidermis. This prompted recommendations for the use of tanning booths which utilize UVA rays. Science has since determined that UVA rays are actually more damaging. UVA rays penetrate the epidermis to the underlying dermis, the “true skin,” composed of collagen and elastin protein-enriched tissue invigorated by blood vessels and nerve endings. UVA damage to the dermis has been linked to early skin aging, redness and wrinkling, immune system suppression and possibly skin cancer.

Consumers of sunscreen are typically drawn to products with high SPF believing that these products protect them from sunburning and ultraviolet damage. This study reveals that high SPF sunscreens are effective as to UVB rays, and protect against sunburns, but many fail to provide sufficient protection against UVA rays. The study criticizes the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for not establishing standards for UVA protection to be followed by the manufacturers.

The study also criticizes marketing terminology which the EWG believes mislead the public as to the efficacy and safety of the products. It finds that such claims as “protects” against the “sun’s rays; sun’s harsh rays; sun’s harmful rays; and burning rays” give customers a false sense of security and a sense that all of the sun’s damaging rays are being filtered out. Claims that the sunscreen protects against “skin aging; wrinkling; premature skin againg; photoaging; lip damage; freckling; uneven coloration; and skin damage” are considered “unsupportable” health claims.

The EWG is critical of the FDA for not providing uniform standards regarding the ratings of SPF with respect to UVA exposure, identification of potential toxic chemical exposure, and truth in labeling. The article points out that the FDA has been purportedly endeavoring to come up with these standards for over 30 years, and has missed a Congressional Mandate to provide them in 2006. The article attributes the FDA’s failures to the influence of the sunscreen industry.

In the end, the consumer is still left to wonder which sunscreen would be most effective for their purposes. Fortunately, the EWG study provides many charts showing product performance and which products the study recommends. We recommend you link to the study before you purchase your next bottle of sunscreen.