Each year, nearly 7,400 people are killed and more than 670,000 are injured in vehicle crashes. But not all wrecks are caused by driver error. Ivanhoe reveals what really factors into many of these accidents.
Rainy weather can wreak havoc on highways. When a big storm rolls in, drivers tend to either slow down too much or not enough. Drivers need to be wary of driving in any change in the weather. A new study by transportation engineers reveals that nearly one-quarter of all crashes occur in bad weather conditions. Most happen on wet pavement.
"We found that more fatal crashes occurred in the south," Lynette Goodwin, lead transportation engineer at Noblis in Falls Church, Va., told Ivanhoe News . "This region experiences the highest rainfall totals. It also has a very high population."
Unlike snow- and ice-covered roads that scare drivers into staying home or driving more carefully, many drivers don't consider rain as 'bad' weather. This results in more cars traveling on wet roads, and drivers don't slow down enough to avoid serious accidents.
"Weather can impact visibility, distance, pavement friction, vehicle performance, and travel speeds," Goodwin explains. "We need to have a better understanding of how weather impacts our roads and then we can make better travel decisions."
More wet-weather accidents can be avoided if drivers slow down and increase their distance from the car ahead. "I'm very cautious when I know that there's going to be inclement weather so I try and get ahead of the weather and drive either earlier on or much later," one driver says.
Keeping a step ahead may help you get to where you're going … alive! Researchers also found an increase in crash risk at the start of the winter season. Throughout the winter season, drivers seem to adjust and relearn how to drive in snow.
California Issues Order to Prohibit Contractor From Operating Due to Failure to Comply With Heat Illness Rules
The California Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) issued an order prohibiting Solis Farm Labor Contractor from operating in the fields because of the company’s failure to comply with heat illness regulations, which poses a substantial threat to worker safety as temperatures rise across the state.
“We are actively pursuing employers who fail to meet our heat illness standards, and, as we did with Merced Farm Labor yesterday, we are taking this step to ensure that workers employed by this company are not put at risk,” DIR Director John Duncan said. “We have evidence to suggest that this company has failed to train its employees, and this order will be in force until the company is in full compliance with California heat illness prevention regulations.”
Along with Merced Farm Labor, Solis Farm Labor Contractor was an employer at the Farmington vineyard where Maria Isabel Vasquez Jimenez, a 17-year-old farmworker, became ill and later died after working in high heat without water or shade. During the course of the investigation of Vasquez Jimenez’s death, Solis Farm Labor Contractor was identified.
California law requires outdoor employers to train supervisors and employees about the symptoms of heat illness, have an emergency medical assistance plan, and provide shade and water to workers.
In the ongoing investigation of the Vasquez Jimenez case, investigators uncovered evidence that leads them to suspect that Solis Farm Labor Contractor may be continuing to hire and place workers in unsafe and unhealthful working conditions and, as a result, issued the Order to Prohibit Use as a precaution.
In an enforcement sweep of more than 25 agricultural work sites in San Joaquin County last week, investigators found numerous violations including 10 employers without illness and injury prevention plans and 20 violations of the heat illness prevention standard. Similar sweeps of outdoor workplaces are conducted daily in most California counties with special teams dispersed when temperatures rise to 100 degrees or more, or when the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services State Warning Center issues a heat wave alert.
Free Safety and Health Evaluations for Small Business
The service is provided only at your request and is delivered at no cost. Employers who use the service to develop and operate an exemplary safety and health management system may also qualify to participate in the Safety and Health Achievement Recognition Program (SHARP).
Lawsuit Seeks Chemical Safety Testing and Labeling for Home Air Fresheners
The federal government needs to inform consumers about the chemical ingredients found in household air fresheners and the potential risks those chemicals pose to human health, according to a lawsuit served this week by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), Sierra Club, and Alliance for Healthy Homes (AHH). The lawsuit follows a 2007 NRDC analysis of more than a dozen common household air fresheners, which found that most contained chemicals called phthalates that may affect hormones and reproductive development, particularly in babies. Air fresheners also can contain other chemicals linked to increased rates of cancer and asthma.
Since the release of NRDC’s 2007 air fresheners report, “Clearing the Air,” this information is still not available to the public.
“Consumers deserve to know that the products they bring into their homes are safe for use. Picking an air freshener off the store shelf shouldn’t be a guessing game,” Natural Resources Defense Council Attorney Mae Wu said. “Air fresheners can contain chemicals that may cause cancer, reproductive defects, or respiratory problems like asthma, yet the government continues to turn a blind eye. Meanwhile, the manufacturers will not commit to testing all the chemical ingredients of their products for safety, or even sharing the ingredient lists with consumers.
“If manufacturers refuse to be up front about the chemicals in their products and the potential health risks they cause, then it is the government’s responsibility to demand that information for Americans. It’s impossible for consumers to make informed choices to protect the health of their families when basic information is being withheld.”
California Sues Natural Product Companies for Selling Products Containing Carcinogen
Reacting in part to a study released by the Organic Consumers Association (OCA) in March of this year, but also based on their own testing, the Attorney General of California has filed a major lawsuit against body care household-cleaning product companies whose products recently tested highest for the carcinogenic contaminant 1,4-Dioxane.
Under California's "Proposition 65," consumer products that contain toxic levels of 1,4-Dioxane must have warning labels stating they may cause cancer. 1,4-Dioxane is typically produced as a by-product when ingredients are ethoxylated with the petrochemical ethylene oxide, a process that has become standard practice for many cleansing and moisturizing products.
The suit, California vs. Avalon Natural Products (manufacturer of the Alba brand), also names Whole Foods Market California (manufacturer of the Whole Foods 365 brand), Beaumont Products (manufacturer of the Citrus Magic brand), and Nutribiotic. It is unclear exactly which products manufactured by these companies triggered the lawsuit, but all named companies have sold products that tested close to or in excess of 20 parts per million for 1,4-Dioxane in the OCA study released at the Natural Products Expo in Anaheim, Calif., in March.
Last week, OCA sent a letter to the four companies named in the California lawsuit to see if they are planning changes to their labeling or product formulations. Only one company responded. In a letter to the OCA, Beaumont Products wrote, "Upon being notified that there was a problem with our product, we verified that the problem existed, then took immediate action."
Beaumont has reformulated their products to remove the problematic ingredient, highlighting their dedication to providing safe products, in contrast to the lack of action taken by the other three companies.
The California Attorney General alleges these companies should have put warning labels on products containing high levels of 1,4-Dioxane, stating that they may cause cancer. The lawsuit states, "Plaintiff alleges that each defendant has known since at least May 29, 2004, that the body washes and gels and liquid dish soaps contain, 1,4-dioxane and that persons using these products are exposed to 1,4-dioxane."
Per Proposition 65, fines for mislabeled products are as high as $2,500 per day for each violation.
"These companies need to stop treating the inclusion of cancer-causing chemicals in their products as 'business as usual' and reformulate before consumer confidence in the natural products and organics industry is permanently damaged," says consumer activist David Steinman, who conducted the OCA study and originally exposed the presence of 1,4-Dioxane in baby bubble bath products in his book Safe Trip to Eden.
The Attorney General's complaint states that California wants: "…preliminary injunctions, permanent injunctions, or other orders prohibiting the defendant(s) from exposing persons within the State of California to 1,4-dioxane without providing clear and reasonable warnings…"
"The OCA's 1,4-dioxane study elevated the issue of fake 'natural' and 'organic' brands that utilize petrochemicals in their formulas in March, and now we are seeing labeling enforcement on a scale never seen before," OCA National Director Ronnie Cummins said. "We used an independent laboratory and found that numerous 'natural' and 'organic' brands tested positive for 1,4-Dioxane, a cancer-causing contaminant resulting from the petrochemical ethylene oxide being attached to one or more ingredients."
Delta Airlines Submits Application to VPP Corporate
. Criteria for participation include: a substantial commitment to VPP; a comprehensive, organization-wide safety and health management system; and pre-screening processes to ready sites for VPP approval prior to OSHA review. The five organizations already approved as VPP Corporate participants are The Dow Chemical Company, General Electric Company, the Georgia-Pacific Corporation, the United States Postal Service, and Washington Division of URS Corporation. Additionally, Fluor Corporation recently had their VPP Corporate on-site evaluation and is awaiting approval, and Parsons Corporation has submitted an application to participate.
OSHA Cites U.S. Army for Unsafe Working Conditions at Fort Richardson in Alaska
OSHA has cited the U.S. Army for eight alleged serious safety violations and seven repeat violations at Fort Richardson's Directorate of Public Works near Anchorage, Alaska.
OSHA's inspection found alleged serious violations involving: lack of forklift training; improper grinding wheel maintenance; lack of inspection on high voltage poles; lack of assessment and use of electrical personal protective equipment; open electrical wiring; and lack of annual safety inspections to correct hazardous conditions.
OSHA previously had cited the U.S. Army for violations at Fort Richardson involving hazards on walking working surfaces, exit signs missing in the power plant, personal protective equipment hazards, lack of mounted fire extinguishers, modification of forklift forks without manufacturer's approval, vertical shafts on water pumps that were not guarded, and electrical deficiencies.
"The Directorate of Public Works at Fort Richardson needs to upgrade its safety and health program so that a system is put in place to identify serious hazards, and then to correct or eliminate them," said Richard S. Terrill, regional administrator for OSHA in Seattle. "It is particularly disturbing that we found a number of serious violations of a repeated nature; that is to say, they have been identified in the past but continue to exist. This situation does not indicate an effective program is in place."
OSHA Cites Family Video Woodshop for Safety Violations
OSHA has proposed $161,550 in fines against Family Video Movie Club Inc., Springfield, Ill., for alleged multiple willful and serious violations of federal workplace safety standards, the agency announced today.
OSHA selected Family Video Movie Club for inspection after the company failed to respond to an inquiry about safety conditions at the Springfield facility, which houses an office, warehouse, and woodshop. As a result of that inspection, opened in December 2007, OSHA issued citations alleging 2 willful and 19 serious violations, with proposed penalties of $112,500 and $49,050, respectively.
The willful violations cited address safety problems with table saws, including failure to guard the portion of the saw above the table with an appropriate hood and to have safety devices that prevent materials from being kicked back during operation. The serious violations address hazards associated with noise exposure, fire and electrical issues, a lack of personal protective equipment, and improper handling of hazardous chemicals.
"Handling hazardous chemicals, electrical hazards, and machine guarding issues are problems that should not exist at any worksite," said Nick Walters, director of OSHA's area office in Peoria, Ill. "Employers must remain dedicated to keeping the workplace safe and healthful, or face close scrutiny by this agency."
The woodshop in Springfield, which constructs shelving, cabinetry, and countertops for all Family Video Movie Club rental stores, has been inspected by OSHA on two occasions since January 1995. OSHA issued nine serious violations that addressed machine guarding, noise exposure, electrical hazards, and hazard communication.
Fall and Cave-In Hazards Lead to More Than $120,000 in OSHA Fines
OSHA has cited two Massachusetts contractors for alleged violations of safety standards at a Concord construction site and proposed combined penalties totaling $120,200.
OSHA's inspection of a McDonald's restaurant construction site at 117 Loudon Road found employees of Shawnlee Construction, a Plainville, Mass., roofing contractor, exposed to fall hazards. Employees of James T. Lynch Contractors Inc., a Reading, Mass., excavation contractor, were found to be exposed to cave-in hazards. Shawnlee faces a total of $96,500 in proposed fines and Lynch a total of $23,700.
"These are two of the deadliest, yet most preventable, hazards in construction work," said Rosemarie Ohar, OSHA's area director in Concord. "Failing to ensure that the proper safeguards are in place and in use needlessly exposes employees to death or serious injuries from falls or being buried in a cave-in."
Specifically, Shawnlee employees were found to be working atop 15-foot high trusses without fall protection and were not adequately trained in anchoring their fall protection lifelines. These conditions resulted in two repeat citations, carrying $82,500 in proposed fines. OSHA had cited Shawnlee in 2005, 2006, and 2007 for similar conditions at worksites in Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island.
Shawnlee also has been issued two serious citations, with $12,000 in fines, for lack of eye protection for employees using nail guns and improper use of fall protection harnesses and lanyards. Two other-than-serious citations, with $2,000 in fines, were issued for the company's failure to maintain and provide the illness and injury log in a timely manner.
Employees of James T. Lynch Contractors were observed working in a 7-foot deep excavation that lacked adequate protection against a collapse of its sidewalls. This finding has resulted in one willful citation, carrying a $21,000 fine. Lynch also has been issued three serious citations, with $2,700 in fines, for an access ladder of insufficient height and for lack of a hazard communication program and training for its employees.
OSHA defines a willful violation as one committed with plain indifference to or intentional disregard for employee safety and health. A serious citation is issued when death or serious physical harm is likely to result from a hazard about which the employer knew or should have known. An other-than-serious violation is a hazardous condition that would probably not cause death or serious physical harm but would have an immediate relationship to the safety and health of employees.
Safety News Links