A recent study shows no amount of airbags, electronic stability control or roll cages can defeat the laws of physics.
While environmentalists push laws requiring automakers to sell smaller, lighter cars in order to meet higher fuel-economy standards, safety advocates worry that meeting those demands will result in cars that are less safe in a crash.
They might be right. A report released today by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) praises President Obama's plan to boost fuel economy standards for cars by using a size-based system that removes incentives for automakers to manufacture only tiny cars. The report also says mid-size and large sedans must have a place on the nation's highways because--even with airbags, electronic stability control and strong front-crash ratings--small cars are much more dangerous in head-on crashes than larger vehicles.
In Depth: Safest Cars of 2009
Article Controls
Emailemail
imageprint
imagereprint
imagenewsletter
imagecomments
imageshare
imagedel.icio.us
imageDigg It!
imageyahoo
imageFacebook
imagerss
Yahoo! Buzz
"A really, really poorly designed or insufficiently designed large- or medium-sized car may be more or less protective than the best-designed small car, but that's something that you're not going to be able to tell just by looking at crash-test ratings," says David Zuby, senior vice president of vehicle research for IIHS. "So all things being equal, if you're concerned about safety, you want a bigger, heavier car."
The statistics support Zuby's claim. Death rates in minicars involved in multi-car crashes are nearly twice as high as those in large sedans, according to IIHS data. In single-car crashes, 11 people per million were killed in large sedans in 2007, compared with 35 per million killed in small cars. In mid-size cars, the death rate for single-vehicle crashes is 17% less than for minicars.
The new report is especially noteworthy because normally the national highway traffic safety administration (NHTSA) crash tests are performed using a stationary wall and a single car--not two cars being crashed into each other.
The Laws of Physics
The Arlington, Va.-based IIHS rated front-to-front crash tests between microcars and mid-size sedans. The Institute chose 2009 models of the Honda Fit and Accord, the Smart Fortwo and Mercedes C-Class, and the Toyota Camry and Yaris. It did not survey SUVs or large sedans in order to show how much influence even small increases in size and weight have on crashes, the report said.
Vehicles from Daimler, Honda and Toyota earned study slots because they have small models with "good" ratings--the highest that the IIHS awards--in a 40-mile-per-hour frontal (stationary barrier) crash. But the Fit, Fortwo and Yaris performed poorly in frontal collisions with midsize cars, according to the new report.
Size is important because mass, coupled with acceleration, determines the force of a crash. Injuries depend on the forces that act on the occupants in the car, not on how much external damage the car sustains. The force of a crash turns on two key attributes: the weight of the crashing vehicle, which determines how much speed must be absorbed during the impact, and the size of the vehicle, which often determines how close the front of the vehicle is to the driver--an essential indicator of the extent of injuries to the legs and torso.
"When we run our crash tests, we see that the vehicles that crush up more when we crash them are ones in which the forces on the dummies inside ... are much higher," Zuby says. In other words, the occupants of the smaller car are at greater risk of injury.
In the crash test between the C-Class and Fortwo, for example, the Smart bounced off the C-Class and turned 450 degrees before landing and displacing the instrument panel and steering wheel through the cockpit. The C-Class had almost no intrusion of the front gears into the passenger area.
Dugg on Forbes.com
Citi Calls Goldman A Buy
GM shares drop in worries about bankruptcy - Forbes.com
American Politics May Kill the Next Kyoto
Obama and Ahmadinejad ~ Commentary by Amir Taheri
Visit The Forbes.com Digg Channel
Granted, the IIHS tests are much more severe than government safety standards mandate, as small-car proponents often note. The Smart Fortwo meets all U.S. government crash-test standards, including a five-star side-crash rating, notes Dave Schembri, the president of Smart USA. It also earned the highest scores for front- and side-crash worthiness from the IIHS itself.
"People drive small cars for many reasons, not just fuel economy as the IIHS states," Schembri said in a written response to the report. "People choose small vehicles because they are generally more environmentally friendly, a great value, they provide for greater driving and parking options in congested urban areas, and many consumers tell us they are simply more fun to drive."
The IIHS report also notes that advanced crash-avoidance and crash-protection safety systems, like the electronic stability program and a reinforced steel safety cage found in the Smart, do help mitigate crash results.
Honda's Fit fared slightly better in its crash with the Accord (the Fit is the safest minicar sold in the U.S., according to IIHS safety ratings), but the dummy's head struck the steering wheel through the airbag, and Institute testers recorded a "high risk of leg injury in a real-world crash of similar severity."
A written statement from Honda in response to this report said Honda has specifically addressed frontal crash compatibility between vehicles of different size and ride heights. It has done so by developing a body structure placed in all 2009 vehicles that helps absorb the energy of a frontal crash by channeling energy through both the upper and lower structural elements.
The statement also pointed out that the IIHS tests are under "unusual and extreme conditions" conducted "at higher speeds than most real-world vehicle-to-vehicle crashes."
The Yaris, in its crash with the Camry, lost a door and, despite the airbag, also forced the dummy's head against the steering wheel. Excessive head and neck injuries, plus deep gashes on the right knee of the dummy, were also reported.
Monday, April 13, 2009
Friday, March 20, 2009
How to recover corrupted PowerPoint file using TEMP folder?
Today tip will help you to recover the unreadable and corrupted file of Microsoft PowerPoint. Normally PowerPoint open files can become corrupted when you are trying to save it or if you were working on it and your PowerPoint application or windows crashed due to power failure. Windows saves a duplicate copy of working file as a temporary version. There is no need to use any third party software to manage these types of corrupted files, because you can recover them from TEMP folder.
Follow the given steps to recover the corrupted files in MS PowerPoint:
First click on Start button then click on Search option to start your search process.
Follow the given steps to recover the corrupted files in MS PowerPoint:
First click on Start button then click on Search option to start your search process.
Mesothelioma Lawsuit History
Tuesday, March 10, 2009 by Admin ·
Labels: Law Suit
There is a long history of lawsuits related to mesothelioma. The first mesothelioma-related asbestos lawsuit was filed in the United States in 1966. Although this case was lost, another mesothelioma lawsuit was filed immediately for a co-worker of the first plaintiff. This landmark case was won, and the plaintiff was awarded $80,000.Further mesothelioma lawsuits were filed during the succeeding years. The conspiracy to hide the dangers of asbestos from employees began to unravel, and fraud of massive proportions was uncovered. Executives and managers knew of the link between mesothelioma and asbestos for many years but purposely hid these dangers from their employees.Mesothelioma Fraud and ConspiracyIn 1978, a deposition was taken in which an asbestos plant manager divulged that the policy in the company was not to discuss chest findings or other medical results suggesting a relationship between asbestosis or mesothelioma. It was known as the "hush hush" policy. During this time a number of documents emerged clearly demonstrating fraud and conspiracy. The documents showed that as early as the 1930s, companies had made direct efforts to hide the hazards of asbestos.Since fraud and conspiracy were clearly part of the strategy of these companies, the extent and latitude of the mesothelioma litigation took on a new perspective. The plaintiffs could expect to receive much larger sums from the mesothelioma lawsuits due to the punitive nature of the verdicts.Now many of the asbestos companies have declared bankruptcy, but the courts have set aside sums of money for persons who have been damaged by the fraud and conspiracy surrounding this deadly disease.Increase in CasesThe court systems have seen a steady rise in the number of cases brought before them for mesothelioma litigation. Since 1994, this area of law has doubled the amount of civil lawsuits on the court docket. The claims have also increased each year for mesothelioma litigation.Mesothelioma litigation falls under the category of asbestos litigation. Malignant mesothelioma is a rare cancer whose only known cause is asbestos exposure. Asbestos litigation involves all the different kind of injuries incurred as a result of asbestos exposure.Asbestos was one of the first airborne contaminants to be regulated as part of the Clean Air Act in 1970. Product manufacturers knew the health hazards associated with asbestos exposure long before the harmful mineral was regulated; as far back as the 1930's. In fact the ancient Romans and Greeks also recognized that asbestos caused lung disease. Asbestos product manufacturers around the world refused to protect their consumers or employees, despite overwhelming evidence of asbestos hazards presented over the years. It has made such companies liable for any asbestos-related health problems caused as a result of their actions to hide their knowledge, and inactions in taking measures to protect workers and consumers.There has been a steep rise in asbestos litigation in the last thirty years, allowing lawyers and firms to specialize exclusively in asbestos-related cases. Asbestos litigation is premised upon the liability of manufacturers of asbestos and asbestos products, for the harm caused by exposure to these products. It was once thought that asbestos litigation had peaked, but because thirty or more years can pass before the asbestos-related diseases manifest a large number of new cases are filed each year.Asbestos litigation falls into a category of tort law (civil law) because it provides a remedy to parties injured as a result of asbestos exposure. A law firm or attorney associated with this type of litigation must have an expert understanding of asbestos and asbestos-related diseases. The must be able to discuss in great detail the medical aspects of the case in court, often cross examining doctors. Due to the long latency period between asbestos exposure and contraction of asbestos-related diseases, claimants are often unsure of when, where, and how they came in contact with this dangerous fibrous mineral. Asbestos lawyers are responsible for pinpointing the source of the exposure and bringing all liable parties to account.Mesothelioma lawsuits are part of asbestos litigation that began shortly after asbestos was regulated in 1970. These lawsuits provided a way for sufferers of mesothelioma, asbestosis and other diseases to receive compensation from the parties responsible for their asbestos illness.An attorney handling a mesothelioma lawsuit case is a specialized asbestos lawyer whose focus is mesothelioma litigation. They must show a link between asbestos exposure and an injury suffered by the victim. Mesothelioma lawyers help determine all parties liable for contracting malignant mesothelioma in addition to locating the source of asbestos exposure. This is a difficult task considering the fact that malignant mesothelioma is a disease that can take anywhere from 30 to 50 years to develop and become symptomatic.Lawsuit CompensationA number of factors determine the amount of mesothelioma compensation, some of which include medical expenses incurred, pain and suffering, lost wages, state law, and the parties responsible for putting the workers at risk. Studies concluded the eventual cost of litigation would exceed 200 billion dollars in the United States. Settlements out of court are often made to avoid the possibility of high mesothelioma compensation rulings and these settlements often run into the millions of dollars.Many in the legal industry believe that a global settlement model is needed to ensure future mesothelioma claimants are able to receive compensation for their suffering. Before 2006 Congress was considering the Fairness in Asbestos Injury Resolution Act (FAIR), legislation prompting the establishment of a 140 billion dollars mesothelioma compensation trust through which victims receive resolution for their pain and suffering. The FAIR act evolved from previous attempts at setting up a trust fund, all of which failed due to the inability of defendant corporations, insurance companies, and claimant attorneys to reach an acceptable compensation structure. Unfortunately the FAIR act failed to get anywhere in Congress. As of May 2008 there are no ongoing attempts to remedy this situation.
Labels: Law Suit
There is a long history of lawsuits related to mesothelioma. The first mesothelioma-related asbestos lawsuit was filed in the United States in 1966. Although this case was lost, another mesothelioma lawsuit was filed immediately for a co-worker of the first plaintiff. This landmark case was won, and the plaintiff was awarded $80,000.Further mesothelioma lawsuits were filed during the succeeding years. The conspiracy to hide the dangers of asbestos from employees began to unravel, and fraud of massive proportions was uncovered. Executives and managers knew of the link between mesothelioma and asbestos for many years but purposely hid these dangers from their employees.Mesothelioma Fraud and ConspiracyIn 1978, a deposition was taken in which an asbestos plant manager divulged that the policy in the company was not to discuss chest findings or other medical results suggesting a relationship between asbestosis or mesothelioma. It was known as the "hush hush" policy. During this time a number of documents emerged clearly demonstrating fraud and conspiracy. The documents showed that as early as the 1930s, companies had made direct efforts to hide the hazards of asbestos.Since fraud and conspiracy were clearly part of the strategy of these companies, the extent and latitude of the mesothelioma litigation took on a new perspective. The plaintiffs could expect to receive much larger sums from the mesothelioma lawsuits due to the punitive nature of the verdicts.Now many of the asbestos companies have declared bankruptcy, but the courts have set aside sums of money for persons who have been damaged by the fraud and conspiracy surrounding this deadly disease.Increase in CasesThe court systems have seen a steady rise in the number of cases brought before them for mesothelioma litigation. Since 1994, this area of law has doubled the amount of civil lawsuits on the court docket. The claims have also increased each year for mesothelioma litigation.Mesothelioma litigation falls under the category of asbestos litigation. Malignant mesothelioma is a rare cancer whose only known cause is asbestos exposure. Asbestos litigation involves all the different kind of injuries incurred as a result of asbestos exposure.Asbestos was one of the first airborne contaminants to be regulated as part of the Clean Air Act in 1970. Product manufacturers knew the health hazards associated with asbestos exposure long before the harmful mineral was regulated; as far back as the 1930's. In fact the ancient Romans and Greeks also recognized that asbestos caused lung disease. Asbestos product manufacturers around the world refused to protect their consumers or employees, despite overwhelming evidence of asbestos hazards presented over the years. It has made such companies liable for any asbestos-related health problems caused as a result of their actions to hide their knowledge, and inactions in taking measures to protect workers and consumers.There has been a steep rise in asbestos litigation in the last thirty years, allowing lawyers and firms to specialize exclusively in asbestos-related cases. Asbestos litigation is premised upon the liability of manufacturers of asbestos and asbestos products, for the harm caused by exposure to these products. It was once thought that asbestos litigation had peaked, but because thirty or more years can pass before the asbestos-related diseases manifest a large number of new cases are filed each year.Asbestos litigation falls into a category of tort law (civil law) because it provides a remedy to parties injured as a result of asbestos exposure. A law firm or attorney associated with this type of litigation must have an expert understanding of asbestos and asbestos-related diseases. The must be able to discuss in great detail the medical aspects of the case in court, often cross examining doctors. Due to the long latency period between asbestos exposure and contraction of asbestos-related diseases, claimants are often unsure of when, where, and how they came in contact with this dangerous fibrous mineral. Asbestos lawyers are responsible for pinpointing the source of the exposure and bringing all liable parties to account.Mesothelioma lawsuits are part of asbestos litigation that began shortly after asbestos was regulated in 1970. These lawsuits provided a way for sufferers of mesothelioma, asbestosis and other diseases to receive compensation from the parties responsible for their asbestos illness.An attorney handling a mesothelioma lawsuit case is a specialized asbestos lawyer whose focus is mesothelioma litigation. They must show a link between asbestos exposure and an injury suffered by the victim. Mesothelioma lawyers help determine all parties liable for contracting malignant mesothelioma in addition to locating the source of asbestos exposure. This is a difficult task considering the fact that malignant mesothelioma is a disease that can take anywhere from 30 to 50 years to develop and become symptomatic.Lawsuit CompensationA number of factors determine the amount of mesothelioma compensation, some of which include medical expenses incurred, pain and suffering, lost wages, state law, and the parties responsible for putting the workers at risk. Studies concluded the eventual cost of litigation would exceed 200 billion dollars in the United States. Settlements out of court are often made to avoid the possibility of high mesothelioma compensation rulings and these settlements often run into the millions of dollars.Many in the legal industry believe that a global settlement model is needed to ensure future mesothelioma claimants are able to receive compensation for their suffering. Before 2006 Congress was considering the Fairness in Asbestos Injury Resolution Act (FAIR), legislation prompting the establishment of a 140 billion dollars mesothelioma compensation trust through which victims receive resolution for their pain and suffering. The FAIR act evolved from previous attempts at setting up a trust fund, all of which failed due to the inability of defendant corporations, insurance companies, and claimant attorneys to reach an acceptable compensation structure. Unfortunately the FAIR act failed to get anywhere in Congress. As of May 2008 there are no ongoing attempts to remedy this situation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)