Support HB3377 – Seat belts in school buses

March 20, 2017 by Jay Stefani Leave a Comment

As a parent, my job is to protect my kids. My wife and I recently had to tell our second-grade daughter that she couldn’t go on an upcoming field trip, which included a short but significant ride on a stretch of highway. Our decision caused more than a few tears. The problem: The buses in our school district don’t have seatbelts, and that was a non-starter.

When our daughter started public school last year, we knew that the buses lacked seatbelts. We felt better when school officials described the daily bus route: 25-35 mph roads, roughly five miles round-trip. They also described the bus seats as “specially designed,” and the drivers as well-trained. My daughter has been riding the bus to and from school for nearly two years, without incident. But the highway changed that.

We often hear that school buses are safe and that crashes are rare. Without doubt, school buses are designed to minimize injury—padded seats, raised passenger compartment, and other non-restraint safety measures. School buses are also quite visible and immediately recognizable. The drivers are, in fact, highly trained, and most school bus-related injuries/deaths occur when kids are waiting for, boarding, or exiting the bus.

Still, thousands of children suffer injuries every year while riding the bus, and it stands to reason just how many of those injuries could have been prevented with a simple, common sense requirement that state legislators have been debating for years. Detractors cite that implementing seats belts in school buses is too costly. They also cite the fact that injuries related to bus accidents are rare. But just because it’s rare doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen. Consider school fires: they are more rare than school bus crashes. They result in fewer injuries and deaths. And yet, no one would argue that school fire drills waste money. Same goes for sprinklers and smoke alarms.

In Illinois, House Bill 3377 would require three-point seat belts to be installed on all school buses made after the effective date of the bill. It’s a step in the right direction, though it could take a decade for the state to implement the new law (school districts typically replace 10% of their bus fleet each year). But the bill makes sense, protects our kids, and deserves to become the law.

Please contact your Illinois representative and voice your support for HB3377.

Why Trump’s auto plan is bad news for consumer protection laws

January 25, 2017 by Jay Stefani Leave a Comment

You don’t have to look far to see where this is going. On Tuesday President Trump met with leaders of the so-called Big Three to discuss the future of the American auto industry, and it appears the future doesn’t include the rights of the average American.

Sitting down with the CEOs of GM, Ford and Fiat Chrysler, Trump implored the nation’s largest auto manufacturers to start building plants in the U.S. He also urged them to hire American workers. In exchange, he promised to cut taxes and ease governmental and environmental regulations, which he believes are strangleholds to homegrown companies looking to invest domestically.

On its face, Trump’s logic is flawed. Manufacturing is significantly cheaper when outsourced to places like Mexico, and as Kristin Dziczek, director of the industry, labor and economics group at the Center for Automotive Research, described to the Washington Post: “the big automakers make investments knowing they will outlive any single president, regardless of what policies or regulations are put in place.”

The irony then of Trump’s plan is that it’s more likely to hurt average Americans than help them. The trick is to read between the lines. Easing regulations is likely code for eliminating accountability, thus giving big companies like Ford, GM and Fiat Chrysler nearly unmitigated protection in the event of a lawsuit.

I’m talking, of course, about liability, “the state of being responsible for something, especially by law”: the GM ignition switch crisis, for example, or the Takata airbag debacle. If you’re looking for blatant obfuscation, Volkswagen recently paid record fines for implementing a system that skewed the results of emissions tests. Our associate attorney, Brett Manchel, briefly touched on the definition of limited liability in a post about Uber’s new Terms of Service agreement. It’s worth reading to give you another perspective of what I’m talking about.

Like all companies subject to consumer protection laws, GM, Takata and Volkswagen have paid handsomely for defects that have either killed someone, or in Volkswagen’s case, killed the environment. It’s a pittance in comparison to lives lost and damage inflicted.

But money is money and no one likes to lose it. If Trump gets his way, we’re approaching a crucial juncture that has the potential to do real damage to consumer protection laws, giving corporations even more advantages than they already have.

Yesterday the New York Times wrote that representatives of the Big Three expressed optimism at the idea of a “a renaissance in American manufacturing,” now coming off a record sales year in 2016. That optimism is likely tempered by the fact that the White House sees big business as victims rather than perpetrators.

One of the nice things about living in a developed nation like the U.S. is that you shouldn’t have to worry about food being safe to eat, water being safe to drink, products safe to use. The reason for that is because regulations are frequently nothing more than safety rules. In case you haven’t already noticed, Trump the businessman doesn’t see it that way.

Jay Stefani is a partner at Levinson and Stefani. Follow him on Twitter.

Chicago, it’s time to adopt the Idaho Stop law

January 17, 2017 by Jay Stefani Leave a Comment

As an attorney who represents cyclists, a question persists: Are Illinois traffic statutes (and some of the country’s, for that matter) unduly bad for riders and for drivers?

About a month ago the Chaddick Institute for Metropolitan Development at DePaul University released a study that argued in favor of relaxing state mandates by, somewhat ironically, considering a law that was passed in 1982 by the Idaho state legislature called the “Idaho Stop.” The law essentially allows cyclists to treat stop signs as yield signs and red lights as stop signs.

Problem is the Idaho Stop is as controversial for lawmakers as it is obscure for the general public. Several states have tried to adopt it to no avail, and the skeptics in Illinois point out that introducing a law like the Idaho Stop in places like Chicago would simply validate every conceivable bad habit that motorists loathe about cyclists — on top of the fact that comparing traffic in Chicago to Idaho is like comparing apples to oranges.

“What works in downtown Boise,” wrote the Chicago Tribune’s Editorial Board shortly after the Chaddick study was released “isn’t what works in the traffic-choked Loop.”

The board continued: “We all know cyclists who breeze through uncongested intersections because … they can. But traffic laws are designed to inject a sense of what everyone must do at intersections and other choke points — not what they wish to do.”

It’s a valid point, but one that’s missing the big picture.

Why the Idaho Stop?

The Idaho Stop was designed to “align policy with the fact that many cyclists seek to maintain their energy and momentum at intersections without compromising safety,” according to the authors of the Chaddick study.

Here in Chicago just one in 25 cyclists make a complete stop when there’s no oncoming traffic, and hardly any offenders face any sort of traffic citation when they do. The authors at DePaul also concluded that a significant percentage of cyclists consider it a “negative physical experience to have their momentum interrupted by a stop sign or red traffic signal,” none of which is due to laziness.

For anyone who has ever ridden a bike, you know there are practical reasons for maintaining your momentum. One of the more interesting takeaways from the research collected at DePaul was the notion that “women are more vulnerable to truck collisions due to their tendency to be less likely to disobey red traffic signals than men,” a theory that was originally proposed by The Transport for London, saying that men avoided getting caught in a truck driver’s blind spot by deciding to judge traffic for themselves.

Thinking about it from the perspective of Idaho state legislators back in the ’80s: If cyclists are going to ignore traffic signals, anyway, shouldn’t we consider changing our objectives?

Promoting a state of mind

As it pertains to the law, proponents of the Idaho Stop base their logic on relatively simple principles, and even more so, on the statistics. Several states have lobbied to adopt the Idaho Stop, including Colorado and Oregon, always with numbers at their disposal and a goal to change conventional thinking.

“Cities with high biking rates tend to have a lower risk of fatal crashes for all road users,” continues the Chaddick study. “This benefit is likely due to the ‘safety in numbers’ phenomenon, the idea that drivers adjust their behavior in accordance with the perceived probability of encountering a bicyclist.”

And here we arrive at the crux of how the Idaho Stop works: by promoting a state of mind. The “safety in numbers” phenomenon is yet another controversial but obscure philosophy that, put in context, is a philosophy reinforced by facts.

In 2008, Jason Meggs, a member of UC Berkeley’s Environmental Health Science Division, contacted Idaho’s Office of Highway and Traffic Safety to analyze a years-worth of traffic injuries and fatalities. For the sake of time, here’s a brief summary of what he concluded: No evidence of long-term increase of injury or fatality rates; cycling injury rates dropped by 14.5 percent in 1983 with no change in the number of cycling fatalities.

Does Meggs’ research reflect the “safety in numbers” philosophy? I’m willing to bet there’s a good chance it did. Think of it this way: Bike lanes — especially protected ones — represent a significant change in the way we view traffic patterns/expectations, and they are known to greatly improve safety.

Herein lies the logic of the Chaddick Study and Idaho Stop, which as it stands, seems as logical a proposal as they come: awareness. And consider for a moment that Chicago implemented the Chicago Stop. Isn’t it conceivable that a driver is more likely to be aware of a cyclist whenever they happen to be in the vicinity? That’s the argument, basically. For a city that purports to be bike-friendly, would it be so wrong to try something new?

Five things you’ll learn during Child Passenger Safety Week

September 22, 2016 by Jay Stefani Leave a Comment

Parents and caregivers need reminders from time to time. That’s one of the reasons why Child Passenger Safety Week, happening now through Saturday, is a program that adults should pay attention to.

A 2015 survey conducted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration found that 37.4 percent of children ages 4 to 7 in the U.S. were not being properly restrained. In fact, more than 25 percent were being restrained by a seat belt and more than 11 percent weren’t restrained at all. Of those numbers, 13 percent of children between the ages of 1 and 3 were prematurely transitioned to booster seats, marking a steep increase from last year’s numbers.

It boils down to this: Even parents with the best intentions don’t realize they’re making potentially life-threatening mistakes. Since the two years that our firm has been around, we’ve encouraged families to take advantage of what the week has to offer.

What you’ll learn: The importance of the chest clip

The chest clip is one of the central components to protecting a smaller child in the event of a crash. It’s the buckle that prevents them from things like whiplash. But placing the clip awkwardly has the potential to do more harm than good. A telltale sign that you need to adjust your protocol: if you can easily move your child in and out of the seat without fussing with the straps. During Safety Week, experts are on hand to show you how to make sure the clip is placed properly.

What you’ll learn: Not all cars are created equal

While one seat may fit perfectly in the back of a Toyota, that doesn’t necessarily mean it’ll fit in the back of an Escalade. And that’s a problem. In many cases, families make the mistake of installing old car seats in new cars. That’s dangerous on a few levels, the most notable of which is rendering the seat obsolete. Child car seats are designed to protect children from collisions. It’s pointless if the seat itself has the potential to come undone. Manufacturers adjust their designs on a regular basis to account for these issues, some a better fit than others. Fortunately, you have the option to ask an expert during Safety Week.

What you’ll learn: Car seats need to be checked annually

Parents will go months before realizing that their child’s car seat is outdated or has been recalled by the manufacturer. Others will simply reuse seats for new infants. Like most products, all car seats have a lifespan, some no more than a few years. Having your seat inspected annually (which you can often achieve for free by making an appointment with your local fire department) is a necessary step to ensure all your gear is functioning properly. No appointment necessary at designated stations during Safety Week .

What you’ll learn: It’s not just about car seats

As your kids get older, instinct kicks in. Your youngster wants to hand with the adults. Think about it: How many times has your child asked to sit in the front seat? In Illinois, it’s illegal for kids under the age of 12 to travel in the front passenger seat of a car, yet parents don’t always have a tough time convincing them to do otherwise. Setting the limit is important, but it’s also important to teach older kids the proper way to sit in the backseat, harness in three-point position (no putting your arm over the strap! We all know that trick).

What you’ll learn: National Seat Check Saturday is the best

This coming Saturday, experts will station themselves in neighborhoods around the country to inspect seats and provide parents with practical safety advice related to seat belts. The best part: Drop-in stations are quick, easy, and free. You’ll get your inspection and still have time to take your kids out for a scoop of ice cream.

Chicago surpasses NYC as best bike-friendly city in the U.S.

September 19, 2016 by Jay Stefani Leave a Comment

It’s official: There’s no better place to ride your bicycle than the city of Chicago, according to the prominent Bicycling magazine. It’s the first time the Second City has claimed the publication’s top spot since it began appearing in the magazine’s top ten list six years ago.

Chicago beat out perennial contenders like New York and San Francisco after a steady rise in the ranks. One of the reasons the Windy City claimed the top spot this year, says the Tribune: it emphasizes an infrastructure that separates cyclists from motorists. That includes the establishment of better bike laws, the implementation of dedicated bike lanes, and working to provide progressive legal protection for cyclists.

The Divvy bike-sharing program also earned kudos from the magazine’s editors for spreading the Divvy concept to lower-income communities and providing alternative means of transportation to places that have high-density populations. Also something to note from the Trib article: Chicago has added roughly 148 miles of bike lanes—108 of which are buffer-protected—in the city since 2011. Numbers from the U.S. Census also point out that the number of bike commuters in Chicago has jumped 157 percent over the past decade.

Though the distinction should prove to be a nice boon to the city and its cyclists, many continue to raise concerns about the long-term protection of riders. Several recent collisions, two of which proved to be fatal, have brought cycling safety back into the public’s general awareness. One of those collisions involved a city tour bus that witnesses have described as avoidable.

The shout out in Bicycling mag is a nice reminder that we’re making progress. But let’s not kid ourselves: we can and should do more to protect riders and make cycling in the city as safe as possible.

Will Illinois’s budget woes derail the Safe Roads Amendment?

September 15, 2016 by Jay Stefani Leave a Comment

Yesterday the Chicago City Council took another controversial step towards fixing Chicago’s precarious pension crisis. That step will eventually cost homeowners an additional 29 percent in utility taxes over four years, billed as a revenue generator to eat away at the city’s large-scale money debacle.

The tax hike will undoubtedly enrage property owners and force some council members into early retirement. Alderman Ed Burke described the increase as the “alternative that makes the most sense” to save the city’s largest city employee pension. He could have also described it as the least terrible option.

And apart from declaring bankruptcy (a-la Detroit) Chicago has very few options at its disposal. Over the past few years, residents have bared the brunt of those options as the state and local legislature continues to bump tax rates into the stratosphere. It’s not the hand we wanted but it’s the one we’ve been dealt.

But the pension is not the only thing we have to worry about, which brings me to the Safe Roads Amendment; a constitutional alteration that would ensure public funds intended for transportation would actually be used for transportation. The editorial board of the Tribune recently condemned the amendment, saying it was a bunch of bureaucratic nonsense: Essentially, why give constitutionally protected dibs on billions-of-dollars worth in revenue when we have more pressing issues to address?

It’s a fair question. Todd Maisch, president of the Illinois Chamber of Congress thinks it’s shortsighted. In a letter to the editorial board, Maisch pointed out that the amendment was essential to keeping Illinois’s roads safe without the threat of diverting its financial purse in different places. He also noted that for the last 13 years Illinois has moved nearly $7 billion from the state’s Road Fund for other needs.

“This amendment wouldn’t have saved every one of those dollars, “ Maisch wrote, “but it would have helped prevent Illinois from being on pace to have 1 in every 3 miles of roadway, and 1 in 10 bridges, rated in ‘unacceptable’ condition.”

It’s also worth noting that the traffic fatality rate in Illinois is on the rise, set to pass 1,000 for the first time since 2008. That’s a consequence of more miles being driven and more people on the road. The Safe Roads Amendment certainly has its share of problems, but better roads means safer roads, and that shouldn’t be ignored.

According to Maisch, 30 other states have constitutionally-protected transportation funds, so why shouldn’t Illinois join them? His plea may not be convincing, however. With just two months to go until election day, there’s little reason to believe that Illinois taxpayers will be thinking about anything but the pension crisis, if only to find a way to rid themselves of a financial drain that has led to more peripheral problems, more tax increases, and more headaches.

Whatever happens, we know this: After November 8, Illinois will have a fresh controversy to add to its list.