Corporate employment and labor lawyers are getting extremely Net savvy.  They know there is a wealth of information to be found on Facebook and Twitter, and to some extent, MySpace.  When these lawyers receive an employee complaint about sexual harassment, wrongful termination, gender discrimination or any other employment complaint, one of the first things that these lawyers will do is look up the employee’s Facebook page.  Not every post on your Facebook wall will provide a juicy nugget that the company’s attorney can then use against you.  However, the chances are high that if you’ve been facing a tough time at work, you are likely to vent online on Facebook or tweet a caustic message about your employer to all your followers.

California employment lawyers would warn employees who are preparing to file a claim against their employer, to tread cautiously.   Corporate and labor lawyers have very successfully used Facebook wall posts and Twitter status updates against employees.  Any posts that you make against your employer, talking of revenge of retaliation, or any other outpourings of an emotional mind, will be lapped up by the company’s attorneys.  These messages will be printed and presented when it’s time to hear your claim.  You can expect your employer’s attorneys to try to make friends with your friends, in order to gain access to any messages or posts by you.

Just about anything you post online, including Facebook wall posts, Twitter status updates, messages, forum posts, replies, retweets of Twitter tweets, and images that you post could turn up in an employment lawsuit.  It’s not just your presence on social networking sites that will come under the microscope.  If you blog, or have ever commented on someone else’s blog, you can expect these to also show on the opposing attorney’s computer screen.  Expect any tidbits of information, including any groups and forums that you have joined, videos that you upload, and even supposedly private direct messages that you’ve shared with other Facebook users, to become fair game in a lawsuit.  The other attorneys, with some effort, can gain access to all of these, spelling possible trouble for your claim.

The device has been developed by an entrepreneur Steve Gass, and is known as SawStop.  The device works through minute electrical currents on the blade and a computer-chip in the saw.  These electrical impulses can sense that there’s a human hand in its path.  Once a human hand detected, a safety brake is fired, and the blade comes to a stop in less than 3/1000th of a second.  The maximum damage that a person might experience with a saw equipped with SawStop is a scratch or a nick.  Without the safety device, the blade can easily slice through the person’s finger or hand, and probably through other fingers before the person even has time to realize what is happening.

The question is not about whether SawStop can prevent hundreds of table saw-related accidents every year.  The question is whether power tool manufacturers are willing to include this device, in order to protect their consumers.  Unfortunately, the industry has not been very willing to adapt this technology.  Gass has presented the device to most of the major tool manufacturers, and from most of them, the response been the same-they are not interested, because they’re not too sure how it will sell.

Table saw-related accidents injure thousands of people, including wood workers, carpenters and do-it-yourselfer’s every year.  There is a device out there that can eliminate hundreds of such accidents, but manufacturers won’t take steps to include these because of cost factors.  It is estimated that adding the feature to one table saw will increase the cost of the saw by up to $100.  To California product liability lawyers, it’s a small price to pay when you consider that thousands of people suffer varying degrees of amputations every year from these accidents.

The law will require retailers to post a notice in at least 11-point type next to cell phones listing their absorption rate. This rate is the amount of radio waves that are absorbed into the user’s body tissue from the use of the cell phone. These are known as Specific Absorption Rates, and can vary from phone to phone. However, the Federal Communications Commission requires that all phones sold in the United States have Specific Absorption Rates that are below 1.66 W per kilogram.

San Francisco is the first city in the country to adopt an ordinance like this. The law is hardly a few days old at all, and not surprisingly to any class action attorney, has already seen plenty of criticism, most vociferously from the cell phone maker lobby. Not surprisingly, the cell phone industry views an ordinance like this as something that could affect its business. San Francisco city authorities disagree. They say that they only want people to have the information they need while making a shopping decision. They insist they are not encouraging people to stop using cell phones. However, they believe that shoppers must have all the information they need before they make a purchase.

San Francisco is very different from many major American cities in that an ordinance like this has even passed the city’s lawmaking process. More expansive bills have been defeated in other cities in California and in the state of Maine. The National Cancer Institute and the Federal Communications Commission agree that there is little scientific evidence proving the dangerous health effects of cell phones on human beings. However, these are not their final conclusions, and, both agencies continue to monitor studies into the effects of cellular devices on human health.

Inflatable Seatbelt

Ford Motor Company is all set to roll out its new inflatable seatbelts – a Ford auto safety innovation – on the 2011 Explorers.

According to reviewers who managed to test the seatbelts, the undeployed seatbelt is padded and much softer than regular seatbelts. This should make it more appealing to those who refuse to wear seatbelts, like children. The inflatable seatbelts are available for back seat passengers. Typically, these passengers tend to consist of children and senior adults.

During impact, the seatbelts inflate from side to side, as they are fed with cold compressed gas from a cylinder underneath the seat. This allows the impact to be spread across five times the area that a seatbelt normally would. This reduces the strain that is likely with a normal seatbelt during impact. The seatbelts are configured to deploy at a low impact, and much more slowly than front seat airbags which are typically deployed suddenly, with great force and only at high-impact. This will help protect the softer bones of both senior adults and children, preventing injuries and fractures.

These features are currently optional on the 2011 Explorers, and are available for between $200 and $300 extra. Ford is likely to introduce the inflatable seatbelts on other models too, most likely the Taurus.

It’s always exciting when auto companies create technological innovations to keep occupants safe during a crash. It’s far too soon to tell how much inflatable seatbelts will help protect back seat occupants during a crash, but any feature that aims to improve on the safety of airbags and seatbelts is always welcome. The fact that these undeployed seatbelts are more comfortable than normal seatbelts will make them more attractive to back seat passengers, who typically have some of the lowest rates of seatbelt use. Getting occupants of the backseat to buckle up has been a major concern for auto safety advocates and Las Vegas personal injury lawyers, and this feature could be a push in the right direction.

Those facts come from an international survey of respondents from Europe, Asia and North America. In all, 1,800 respondents from six countries were asked to check activities that they had indulged in while driving.

• 28% admitted to texting while driving
• 5% admitted to playing video games while at the wheel
• 5% admitted to shaving while driving
• 13% admitted to applying makeup while driving
• 12% admitted to e-mailing while driving
• 10% confessed to reading newspapers or magazines at the wheel

These statistics prove one thing – Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood should be as concerned about non-tech distractions at the wheel as he is about texting and use of cell phones while driving.

It’s not as if distracted driving is a 21st century phenomenon. Ever since man began to drive around on a set of wheels, he has been distracted by factors within and outside the vehicle. There have always been distractions from conversations with fellow passengers, and distractions from steamy billboard ads. The concept of multitasking has been around for many decades, and Los Angeles personal injury attorneys have often found people combining personal grooming activities with driving. That’s why you see women applying lipstick while driving and men shaving.

The emergence of drive-through restaurants made it easy for people to pickup snacks or a quick breakfast on the way to work. Most of these people end up eating in the car, with one hand holding a burger and the other hand on the wheel. Any Los Angeles personal injury attorney will tell you that taking even one of your hands off the wheel is a recipe for disaster.

The rule prohibits railroad employees from using electronic communication devices if it interferes with their ability to operate the train safely. Employees would be allowed to use cell phones only under certain conditions. The rule will allow for certain exceptions in the case of calculators, watches, cameras used to record safety hazards, and medical devices.

The proposed rule comes 20 months after the devastating Metrolink accident in Chatsworth, California in 2008. Twenty five people were killed in that collision, the worst commuter rail disaster in modern history. Soon after the collision, it came to light that the Metrolink train operator had been texting just before the crash. The Federal Railroad Administration issued an emergency order, immediately banning the use of cell phones and other electronic devices by rail operating employees.

The proposed rule is part of Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood’s self-declared war against distracted driving. Ever since he took office, LaHood has implemented a number of new rules banning the use of cell phones by operators of commercial vehicles, and increasing pressure on states to enact their own anti-distracted driving laws. Not everyone has been happy with the Transportation Secretary’s efforts to combat distracted driving, especially those involving the use of cell phones while driving. There have been complaints about a nanny state, and far too many restrictions on individual freedoms.

Unfortunately, as California train accident lawyers saw after the Metrolink tragedy, unrestricted individual freedom can often contribute to catastrophic accidents that result in a major loss of life and limb. The Secretary deserves to be commended for his aggressive stand on distracted driving, even in the face of opposition.

The findings of the study were released this week, and show that the number of fatal accidents occurring at night and involving motorists between the ages of 16 and 19, actually increased by 10% over the past decade. According to researchers, it is likely that this increase in fatal crashes is due to cell phone use by teen motorists. Teenage motorists may find it difficult to drive because of nighttime conditions and inexperience. However, those risks are magnified when you introduce a cell phone into the picture. Cell phones are extremely popular with teenagers, and improper use of these devices has likely contributed to this spike.

Unfortunately, teenagers often have an undeservedly high opinion of their driving abilities. For instance, many teen motorists believe that texting while driving is no big deal, and that they can comfortably multitask. The fact is that texting and use of a cell phone dramatically increase your risk of being involved in a crash. When it comes to teen motorists, those risks are magnified several-fold because of their relative inexperience.  However, your typical American teenager will insist that he can text with his eyes closed, and still drive. Being comfortable with technology doesn’t mean that it’s safe to use in any situation.

When it came to adult drivers, the researchers found that the number of fatal accidents involving drivers above the age of 20, increased by 8% during the same period. They attribute this increase to alcohol use, which seems to be the number one factor in nighttime accidents involving adult drivers.

Last week, the world’s number one social networking site said it would not bow down to pressure from law-enforcement officials and child safety groups in the UK. That pressure began to mount after the death of a teenager, who met her murderer on Facebook. Ashleigh Hall went to meet who she thought was a teenage boy she had befriended on Facebook. The “boy” turned out to be a serial rapist, who proceeded to rape and murder Hall. The case has shaken child safety groups in Britain, and the pressure was on Facebook to install a so-called “panic button.” Facebook has refused these suggestions, and has been criticized vociferously for it.

So, is the criticism justified, and should Facebook proceed to install such buttons on its website? After all, many other social networking sites, including the newly rejuvenated MySpace, have such buttons. It’s important to understand that the panic button does not provide the user a direct link to the nearest police station. That would have been the kind of panic button that Nevada personal injury lawyers would have liked. The panic button that’s currently in use on several social networking sites merely provides the user some resources they can use to understand the kind of danger they could be facing.

It’s not exactly the kind of help that a child who is at risk from a predator is likely to make use of. According to child safety experts, most teens and preteens live under the assumption that bad things only happen to other people, and not to themselves. They may be less likely to make use of such materials.

More than a panic button, Nevada sexual abuse lawyers believe that checks on the age of children using Facebook would be helpful in preventing abuse of some of the most vulnerable social networking users. Facebook also makes it far too easy for sexual predators to sign up with different accounts, and use these to stalk or harass potential victims.

Those remarks came from the new administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, David Strickland. Speaking at the Society of Automotive Engineers World Congress, Strickland said that his agency was presently conducting research on hybrid vehicles and risks to pedestrian safety. According to analysis of NHTSA data, there is enough indicate that hybrid electric vehicles could have a higher risk of pedestrian collisions, than internal combustion engines. Pedestrians crossing on a crosswalk may be unable to hear a car approaching. Quieter vehicles could also pose a risk to pedestrian safety while making a turn, or backing out of a parking lot. During such maneuvers, persons nearby may not be able to hear the car approaching, with serious consequences.

The NHTSA is now planning further research into whether to require vehicles to add some kind of noise emitting systems in these vehicles. The sound emitted should be sufficient enough to allow pedestrians to hear the car approaching, and must also easily denote an approaching vehicle.

The NHTSA is also hard at work into the finalization of rules that require automakers to install backup cameras in their vehicles. These cameras will allow motorists to be aware of persons just behind the vehicle. In 2007, according to NHTSA data, backover accidents resulted in 183 fatalities and approximately 7,000 injuries.

Little children are at a special risk for back over accidents. Persons who are physically challenged may also not be able to step out of the path of a car in time to avoid a collision. Cameras can help prevent such accidents.  The new rule will likely be phased in across four years. The cameras are the latest in a series of measures that have encouraged California mass tort lawyers about the NHTSA’s commitment to motorist safety.

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration this week passed a rule that will allow the use of the results of a single compliance review to decide if trucking companies must install electronic onboard recorders.  The FMCSA’s new rule will go into effect on 1^st June 2012, and is likely to impact more than 5,700 trucking companies.

Under the new rule, a trucking company that violates trucker work hours more than 10% of the time during a single compliance review, must install these recorders on its trucks. Electronic onboard recorders monitor driver work hours, and prevent the driver from exceeding the hours of service rules that currently stand at 11 consecutive hours.

The rule also requires that electric onboard recorders be synchronized with the truck’s engine. The agency had toyed with the idea of having wireless GPS systems instead of synchronized systems, but then decided to go with synchronized systems because these ensure better accuracy in monitoring driver work hours.

The rule also sets standards for the functioning of the electronic onboard recorders. The recorder must automatically track the vehicle’s location at every change of duty, and must provide a digital record of all information that federal safety officials can access. This information must include the driver’s name, his duty status, sleeper berth, driving time as well as the location, date, time and distance traveled.

The agency had two options while deciding on the rule – it could either go with a single compliance review or a double compliance review to determine whether a truck company should get the recorders installed. By deciding to go with a single compliance review standard, the agency has sent a strong message that it intends to tackle the problem of driver fatigue very seriously indeed.

California truck accident lawyers had worried that any EOBR rule that came up would be lightweight, and minimize accuracy. However, the rule requires that onboard recorders be synchronized with the engine, so the data that is received will be extremely accurate.