Are helmets a false sense of security?

July 20, 2017 by Levinson and Stefani Leave a Comment

While the public continues to scrutinize the world of football for its high concussion rates, one thing’s clear: the development of safer equipment is finally catching up to the modern era. But these new developments often neglect that helmets aren’t foolproof; no matter how much impact a helmet might absorb, the fact remains that helmets are mostly a false sense of security.

Now let’s take a closer look at cyclists. The perception that cycling is safe as long as you wear a helmet is a scenario similar to that of football players, perpetuating a false sense of security and ignoring the need to learn safe-riding skills; you wouldn’t give a driver’s license to a teenager simply because they know how to use a seat belt, so why should it be different for those riding bikes?

Controversy swirls around the debate over whether helmets actually benefit cyclists in the long run. In the 1990s when helmet usage began to increase in the U.S., the Consumer Product Safety Commission found that head injuries among cyclists increased by 51 percent, despite the fact that the total number of riders decreased. While it’s not clear what caused the spike, the statistics underline the idea that helmets, while beneficial, are not foolproof or even effective. More important is the need for cyclists to understand and put to practice the techniques of defensive riding.

As more people study the types of problems associated with helmet use, football seems to have found a way to address the issue by changing how the game is played. It’s notable that football coaches are beginning to take a page from the book of rugby and force their players to tackle opponents without making head contact, as if they had no helmets at all. Many speculate that it would change the game for the better, eliminating or at the very least minimizing severe head injuries by discouraging helmet-to-helmet contact.

The same type of techniques should theoretically apply to cyclists by prioritizing safe-riding skills instead of creating a dependency on helmets alone. The state legislature continues to pass bike helmet laws that, ironically, draw attention away from the need to teach safe-riding skills. If we’re serious about making the roads better, it starts with better education.

Ken and Jay head to Boston for annual AAJ Convention

July 18, 2017 by Levinson and Stefani Leave a Comment

Founding Partner Ken Levinson and Managing Partner Jay Stefani will attend the American Association for Justice 2017 annual convention at the Hynes Convention Center, July 22-25 in Boston, Massachusetts. The annual AAJ convention welcomes thousands of accomplished trial lawyers from around the country for a combination of networking events and seminars to discuss the latest developments in trial advocacy.

As leaders of the AAJ’s Interstate Trucking Litigation Group and other sections, Ken and Jay will both moderate discussions related to trucking litigation and ways for lawyers to improve relationships with their clients. They will also touch on recent developments related to federal de-regulation and how trial lawyers must act to protect crash victims from special interests.

Ken currently serves as the ITLG section’s Chair of the Education Committee, Vice Chair of the Motor Vehicle Collision, Highway & Premises Liability Section, and Secretary of Motor Vehicle Collision, Highway, and Premises Liability Section. Ken is also the co-author of 2016-17 edition of Litigating Major Automobile Injury and Death Cases, a comprehensive litigation series published by AAJ Press/Thomson Reuters. Ken recently oversaw the successful $6.25 million settlement related to a wrongful death case involving a van owned and operated by a major trucking company.

Jay serves as Parliamentarian for the AAJ’s Sole Practitioner & Small Firm Section. He is a member of the AAJ’s Trucking Litigation Group, Motor Vehicle Collision, Highway and Premises Liability Section, and the Nursing Home Litigation Group. He also works with the Trucking Litigation Group’s Side Underride Guard Task Force, advocating for a federal mandate that would require all large trucks to equip their vehicles with protective side guards. He has been recognized by various publications, including the local Chicago Reader, for his advocacy.

Makeover coming for Lake Shore Drive?

July 12, 2017 by Levinson and Stefani Leave a Comment

If you’re a fan of public parks and bike trails, a new proposal to expand the city’s lakefront is welcome news.

Crain’s Greg Hinz unveiled a series of renderings this morning in advance of a public forum at DePaul University, where state and city transportation officials will discuss ideas for altering North Lake Shore Drive, one of which allows for an expansion of public access in areas that are currently well populated.

Among the highlights from the Crain’s story is a significant alteration of Oak Street Beach, using lakefill to expand the beachfront hundreds of feet northeast. Running parallel to the beach would be a major new park that extends a mile past North Avenue. A bike path and a pedestrian path are also featured in the renderings and a proposed pedestrian/bike ramp connecting Lake Shore Drive to the Lincoln Park Boat Club.

Two prospective (and welcome) features: A retaining wall at the Belmont Avenue exit ramp, where auto and pedestrian traffic often intersect; and an overpass at Chicago Avenue that would replace a stop light to improve traffic flow.

Chicago takes first step toward mandatory side guards

July 10, 2017 by Levinson and Stefani Leave a Comment

City-owned trucks are on the verge of a safety-centric makeover

The long road to safety involves many twists and turns but Chicago is finally heading in the right direction.

Late last month, as part of the newly unveiled Vision Zero initiative, the mayor’s office and the Chicago Department of Transportation introduced a proposed ordinance that would require contractors to install protective safety equipment on large trucks, including side guards and convex mirrors.

“Chicago is using a data-driven approach to improve traffic safety, and the data shows we can save lives and prevent serious injuries by installing this type of safety equipment,” said Mayor Rahm Emanuel in a press release. “I applaud private sector fleet managers who have already taken steps to enhance the safety of their truck fleets.”

By January 1, 2018, all contractors will be required to implement the proposed safety equipment with full compliance becoming mandatory by January 1, 2021. The ordinance would impact new contracts over $2 million related to construction, job order contracts, and non-construction projects that involve the use of large vehicles weighing over 10,000 pounds.

If you follow our blog, we’ve written extensively about the need for Chicago to follow suit with other major cities like New York, Boston, and Seattle, all of which require city-owned fleets to be outfitted with side guards. The release provided by the city noted that the 33 pedestrian and cyclist fatalities involving large trucks have occurred since 2010. And of all bike and pedestrian crashes since 2010, those that involved a large truck proved to be three times more likely to be fatal.

By integrating side guards, Chicago is making a significant investment on pedestrian and cycling safety. In a recent post, we re-hashed a video produced by the TK in which they compared the force of impact between a car and truck outfitted with side guards, and one without. The video clearly shows that side guards prevent potentially gruesome and fatal crashes from occurring. It’s hard to argue against them.

Some reminders about side guards:

Side guards are proven to reduce injuries and death: The U.K. began requiring side guards on most new trucks beginning in 1986. Since then, the fatality rate for turning-truck crash rates dipped by 20 percent for pedestrians and 61 percent for cyclists.
The National Transportation Safety Board recommended that side guards be fitted on large trucks in 2013, though the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has yet to approve a requirement to make them mandatory.
Like the U.K., many European cities, as well as countries like Canada, have adopted and/or implemented safety measures on large trucks that go well beyond the standards we’ve established here in the U.S. A national proposal by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration recently flirted with the idea of replacing a 20-year-old standard for side guards with a 10-year-old Canadian standard, meaning that the U.S., despite the warnings, is still catching up with the rest of the world.
Chicago’s Vision Zero plan aims to eliminate all traffic-related fatalities by the year 2026. It’s a data-driven plan, meaning proposals and recommendations are based on analytical evidence; the evidence here is that side guards are one of the most cost-effective preventative safety measures we can accomplish in the short term.

Illinois budget: Drivers advised to use caution as construction resumes

July 7, 2017 by Levinson and Stefani Leave a Comment

Crews and workers are expected back today

After more than two years, Illinois lawmakers ended the longest state budget impasse in modern history, overriding Governor Bruce Rauner’s veto attempt of budget-related legislation. The money and the votes didn’t come easy, and there will be residual effects.

We’re not talking about the $5 billion tax increase. In the short-term, we’re talking about state roads. As we noted last month, roughly 900 statewide construction and transportation projects worth $3.3 billion had been put on hold while the budget was in limbo. On July 1 the Illinois Department of Transportation warned that the shutdown would impact “highway, rail, transit, and aeronautics projects.” On July 4, as tense negotiations inched forward at a strained pace, the department updated its website to say that construction would stay suspended.

Yesterday, the IDOT updated its site yet again to announce that construction will resume today now that a budget is in place. But it also warned the public to be especially cautious traveling in or around work zones, as projects rev up, traffic slows, and nearly 22,000 workers affected by the stoppage are put back to work.

That means: Keeping an eye out for workers, construction crews and vehicles, and anyone in orange vests. The delay of a state budget forced state-funded crews and contractors to abandon all construction sites, no matter the condition. Highways that were once saturated with people putting in long hours went dark for a week, and it’s likely that motorists grew accustomed to that. Now that workers are back, drivers should expect slower speed zones and more congestion as construction gets back on track.

Also be aware of: Construction zones that are technically active, but have yet to see crews on site. The state budget doesn’t necessarily mean that all contractors are obligated or have sorted through the logistics of scheduling or assignments. Some sites may take priority over others, leaving voids in certain areas. Active construction or not, drivers are required to obey all traffic signs and speeds while traveling through work zones and to stay alert.

Construction areas and interstates to know: As noted by the IDOT in recent weeks for pothole patching utility work, bridge repair work, and other closures: I-55, I-72, I-80, I-57, I-280, which have seen construction at various points of the interstate; check the IDOT’s Twitter for real-time updates.

Video: Truck drivers are victims too

July 5, 2017 by Levinson and Stefani Leave a Comment

Ken explains why it’s a terrible misconception to believe trial attorneys dislike truck drivers

Please note: Transcript edited for clarity, brevity, and readability.

Do trial attorneys dislike truck drivers?

People ask if we dislike truck drivers. We don’t dislike truck drivers. In fact, the truck driver involved in a crash—even a crash with serious injuries or a fatality—is just as much of a victim as the families we represent. Often, dangerous trucking companies don’t care about safety. They put their truck drivers in horribly dangerous situations by requiring them to drive too many hours, using improper equipment, not training them properly. For a lot of reasons, it’s not the truck driver that we’re litigating. Really it comes down to a dangerous trucking company; our job is to hold the company accountable for the consequences of a truck crash, not necessarily the truck driver.

What are some misperceptions that people have about lawyers and truck cases?

I think there’s a couple misperceptions. One, people think, “Well, you’re just suing the truck driver,” when in fact we’re suing the trucking company for a variety of reasons, including the fact that they’re putting drivers in dangerous situations that can cause serious harm. And two, the trucking companies are required to carry insurance, so if someone on the highway is injured or killed, the insurance would cover any damages. So really, we’re suing the trucking company and the money we recover generally comes from the insurance company. We’re not taking any money out of the truck driver’s pocket.

Do you think there’s a stereotype when it comes to truck litigation?

Certain trucking companies want to talk about lawsuits not being meritorious, that there’s too many lawsuits, and that it’s causing them to lose business or lose profits, when the fact remains that a responsible, safe trucking company should have no problem being held accountable if there’s a mistake, especially if someone gets killed or paralyzed by a crash. You would think they would want to step up, do the right thing and make sure people are protected when a crash occurs where their company is responsible.

Is there a big difference between working with truck drivers vs. average drivers?

Often, we represent truck drivers because there’s more than one trailer involved, or sometimes an automobile can be the cause of the collision. But we’ve represented a lot truck drivers throughout the years and they’re a pleasure to represent. They know the federal and safety regulations that apply, so it’s great to get insights from them. They offer almost expert opinion on safe driving and truck company procedures that can really add insight. We love representing truck drivers and we’ve done it many times.

How do you determine fair compensation in a trucking case?

By definition, if a regular passenger vehicle is involved with a crash with a tractor trailer that weighs 70-80,000 pounds, the force of the collision can cause very serious injuries or, unfortunately, death. We’ve seen cases where people have traumatic brain injury where they have problems the rest of their lives, orthopedic injuries—broken bones, neck problems, back problems with permanent disability. We sue to make sure that our clients get compensated and can get back to square one. It’s often just getting reimbursed for medical bills. And that doesn’t put extra money in our client’s pocket to recoup medical bills. Then recouping things like lost income—if someone can’t work ever again, or can’t work to the same extent. We want to make sure people are made whole after a crash. If they’re going to have permanent disability or pain the rest of their life, it takes a significant amount of money to make our clients and their families whole, and balance the scale of justice.