What Can We Do to Make Airplanes Safer?

2010 has been one of the worst years for airplane crashes in recent memories. As of August 2010, there have been 13 passenger airline crashes, compared to just 10 for the whole of 2009. We have reached the point where it's necessary to step back and ask what's going on.

It's not as if there is any one specific pattern that can be seen in the plane crashes that have occurred across the world this year. However, it may be time to begin thinking about what we could possibly do to make aviation safety better. The problem is that almost everything that could be done to make airplanes safer has already been done. We have reached a stage where there is little digital technology we could add to a plane to make it safer. Modern airline cockpits are as high-tech as they come, and control just about every facet of the planes’ operation.

In fact, some California plane crash lawyers believe that this overreliance on technology could actually contribute to crashes. For instance, pilots who get used to too much technology and a plane that simply flies on its own like it’s on cruise control, are more likely to become complacent. The fact that so much of flying these days is done by computers could also chip away at the quality of pilots that we turn out every year. In the years ahead, we will have pilots who have never piloted a plane without all this technology at their finger tips. Technology is meant to supplement a pilot’s flying abilities, and it can be a safety issue when it threatens to completely take over a pilot’s flying. Besides, we also need to focus hard on preparing pilots to deal with all this technology and understand it. Another area of concern where there is room for improvement is the quality, professionalism and integrity of air traffic controllers.

Brain Injury Most Frequent Sledding-Related Injury

The brain injury risks from skiing and snowboarding have been well-documented. In fact, there's a campaign underway in California to require helmets for skiers in the same way that bicycle and motorcycle helmets are now mandated. New research suggests that California brain injury lawyers should be just as concerned about sledding-related brain injuries as they are about injuries in other winter sports.

The study came from data between 1997 and 2007 from the Center for Injury Research and Policy of the Research Institute at Nationwide Children's Hospital in Columbus, Ohio. During the ten-year period, the researchers found a total of 229,023 sledding injuries in children below 18 years of age. These injuries were serious enough to require a visit to the hospital. That means approximately 20,000 sledding-related injuries every year.

Brain injuries were the most frequent of all sledding-related injuries. 34% of all sledding-related injuries were head injuries. According to the researchers, children in sledding accidents were more likely to suffer a traumatic brain injury if the accident occurred on the street or highway. It's not uncommon to find children sledding on the streets, and researchers highly discourage such practices because of the high risk of head injuries. The sledding area should be clear of trees and stationary objects. A child, who collides with a stationary object or person, has a higher risk of suffering brain injuries. Besides, a child sledding on the streets is at a risk of being involved in an auto or truck accident. The researchers are not only discouraging parents from allowing their children to sled on highways and roads, but they are also discouraging the use of motorized sleds drawn by ATVs, snowmobiles or trucks.

Unlike with skiers and snowboarders, there is no solid evidence to indicate that wearing helmets can prevent injuries among sledders. The researchers say they need further study before they can define a clear link between wearing helmets and preventing head injuries during sledding.

Adult Bicyclists in Los Angeles May Soon Be Required to Wear Helmets

Current bicycle helmet laws in Los Angeles only apply to bicyclists below the age of 18. However, if Mayor Anthony Villaraigosa has his way, there may soon be a rule requiring that all adult bicyclists in Los Angeles wear helmets while riding.

This week, the Mayor hosted a bike safety summit in Los Angeles. Among those who participated were representatives of bicycle safety groups in Los Angeles and scores of bicyclists. The event addressed some of the concerns that Los Angeles bicyclists have about their safety. For instance, the Mayor expressed his support for a proposed California bill that would require motorists to keep a gap of at least 3 feet between their car and a bike. He also said that the Los Angeles City Council will invest in developing more than 1,600 miles of bike lanes in Los Angeles. More bike lanes in the city mean more convenience and safety for bicyclists. The mayor noted that between 1977 and 2010, Los Angeles only built 372 miles of bike lanes. That is an average of 8 to 10 miles a year. The mayor hopes to increase that to an average of 40 miles of bike lanes per year.

He also promised a series of public service announcements to educate the public about bicyclist rights in Los Angeles, and called for a mandatory bicycle helmet law that makes it mandatory for all adult bicyclists over the age of 18 to wear helmets.

The Mayor's recommendation comes from personal experience. Last month, he was the victim of a bicycle accident in Los Angeles that left him with a fractured elbow. Fortunately, there were no head injuries involved because the mayor was wearing a helmet at the time. Bicyclists involved in accidents are at a higher risk of head and brain injuries when they hit the ground

Unfortunately, to Los Angeles bicycle accident lawyers, it seems like the mayor has been overly cautious in the kind of rules he has proposed. Mandating bicycle helmets for all adult bicyclists is a good idea, but there must be more focus on getting motorists to respect bicyclists’ rights too. Education has its place and purpose, but legislation can accomplish more.

Racial Discrimination Lawsuit Filed against Southern California Edison

It’s the third racial discrimination lawsuit filed by African-American employees of Southern California Edison. This week, a group of 11 current and former employees of the utility company filed a lawsuit, alleging there was a continuing policy of racial discrimination that kept black persons at low pay levels, and hindered their prospects for promotions.

The suit was filed this week in the Los Angeles Superior Court. The lawsuit alleges that Southern California Edison had a work environment that was racially hostile. Few African Americans at the company are in senior management positions. At least one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, alleges that she has worked for the company for over 35 years training employees who would then move on to promotions ahead of her. White persons with less experience and seniority were preferred over black persons. The lawsuit also alleges that African-Americans are not paid equally as their white counterparts, and that they receive unfair work assignments.

It's the third such lawsuit filed against Southern California Edison. Two other lawsuits were filed in 1974 and 1994. Those lawsuits also alleged racial discrimination. In fact, many of the persons named in the new lawsuit filed this week, were also named in the 1994 lawsuit. In that lawsuit, Southern California Edison was asked to comply with a consent decree, in which the company would pay $11.3 million into a settlement fund, and would then start employee training programs.

Under the consent decree, the company was ordered to enhance opportunities for African-Americans at Southern California Edison. However, Los Angeles employment law lawyers have learned from a Southern California Public Radio report that the African American population of the company has actually declined by as much as 40% since the 1994 lawsuit. The new racial discrimination class action lawsuit claims damages and an injunction that would force Southern California Edison to comply with the consent decree.

Copyright Infringement Lawsuit against Harry Potter Publisher

The trustee of the estate of a British author has filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against Scholastic Inc., the publishing company behind the Harry Potter series. This is not the first time California business and commercial litigation lawyers have learned of lawsuits by the trustee against entities involved in the Harry Potter success. Similar lawsuits were filed against the British publishers of the Harry Potter series, as well as JK Rowling, the author of the series in 2009 and 2010. Those cases are still pending.

According to the trustee for the estate of the late Adrian Jacobs, JK Rowling copied the theme for the book, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, from a book written by Adrian Jacobs, called The Adventures of Willy the Wizard-No. 1 Livid Land. The Willy the Wizard book was published in 1987, and the Harry Potter book that the plaintiff alleges was copied from it, was published in the year 2000.

The lawsuit is based on certain similarities between the two books. The main theme of both books includes a year-long struggle as part of a contest to become a wizard which in the Harry Potter book, Potter ultimately wins. There are other similarities in the books, the lawsuit alleges. Both the protagonists, Willie and Harry, are required to understand their task that is central to winning the contest, and in both books, the protagonists uncover the task in the bathroom. In both books, according to the lawsuit, the tasks involve rescuing imprisoned communities of half human-half animal creatures. The Willie the Wizard book has not been published in the United States. Scholastic Inc. is denying that there is any merit to the case.

The copyright infringement lawsuit seeks that Scholastic Inc. stop selling all copies of Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. It also asks that all existing copies of the book be destroyed, and that the company pay the estate of Adrian Jacobs all profits that it has received from the sale of the book.

Study Finds Reclining Car Seats Increase Risk of Injuries

Most passengers on a long distance trip are guilty of this - reclining their seats partially or fully in order to enjoy a short nap. But a new study shows that these passengers may have a dramatically higher risk of injuries during an accident. In fact, regular safety features like seatbelts and airbags may not be as effective in preventing injuries in these passengers.

Researchers have found that passengers who are in reclining seats during an accident not only had a higher risk of injuries, but they also had a similar pattern of injuries. These passengers most often suffered from head injuries when their heads snapped forward from impact. They also suffered from spinal cord injuries and spinal fractures. Leg injuries occurred when the legs moved in with great force into the dashboard.

Researchers considered the pattern of these injuries around the country, and found that these were similar nationwide. Overall, passengers in partially reclining seats had their risk of death in an accident increase by 15%. Those in a fully reclined seat had their risk of death increase by almost 70%. The researchers are unanimous - passengers in the reclining seats have minimal protection from seatbelts and airbags.

The Insurance Institute of Highway Safety confirms these findings. According to the Institute, it conducts most of its safety tests only on passengers and drivers who are seated upright. No safety tests are conducted on passengers who are in an inclined position. That means there is no way of knowing whether the seatbelts and airbags have any efficacy at all when it comes to protecting passengers in a reclining position.

Las Vegas personal injury lawyers find it disconcerting how so many passengers seem to be unaware of this danger. Most of us don't think twice before reclining the seat for a nap. It's important to understand that if there is an accident, your chances of suffering serious injury or death are as low as someone who's not buckled in.

New Breathalyzer Rule Goes into Effect in Los Angeles Next Month

In just a week from now, drivers in Los Angeles who been convicted of drunk driving will have to get a breathalyzer device installed in their car, to prevent them from driving drunk again. It's a law that Los Angeles personal injury lawyers have supported, although the beverage industry and the DUI attorney lobby has not been too impressed.

Los Angeles County is among four counties, including Sacramento, Alameda and Tulare, where the new law will soon go into effect. Implementation of the law begins on July 1st. All convicted drunk driving offenders are required to have breathalyzer devices installed on the dashboard. The device will detect the amount of alcohol the person has imbibed, and prevent the car from starting. It essentially shuts the engine down, and prevents the driver from driving off in an intoxicated state.

The bill has been controversial since it was signed last year by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. All first-time drunk driving offenders under the law will be required to have the device installed. The cost of installing the device will be borne by the offender. The pilot program is one of several measures that the state of California has taken to prevent the kind of injuries and deaths that result from alcohol-related car accidents. The program will stay in effect until 2015, after which there'll be a review of the program. If the review finds that the program has been successful in further reducing drunk driving rates, then it will be expanded throughout the state of California.

In 2008, more than 1,000 people were killed in the state of California in alcohol-related car accidents. That number was a substantial improvement from years past, and it has not been through popular laws that we have been able to make such dramatic achievements in motorist safety.

Los Angeles drunk driving accident attorneys will not have any illusions that this law will be welcomed by sections of the population and vested interests. Much of the criticism leveled against it “unfairly” targets first-time offenders. However, there is enough evidence to show that first time offenders who get off lightly are more likely to drive drunk again. This law targets precisely such drivers. 1,000 lives every year is not an insignificant number, and this law will help reduce those numbers further.