Tag: Transportation

Are Helmets Required in Pennsylvania and New Jersey?

As most riders know, wearing a helmet is mandatory in New Jersey. Not so in Pennsylvania where anyone 21 years of age or older and has been licensed to operate a motorcycle for not less than two full calendar years OR has completed a motorcycle safety course approved by PennDOT or the Motorcycle Safety Foundation can ride without one. Beyond the arguments for or against mandatory helmet laws is the reality of the dangers associated with riding without one. A few years ago, the Philadelphia Inquirer published an article on the Pennsylvania law that permits riders to forgo a helmet and State Representative Dan Frankel’s effort to reinstate a mandatory helmet law.

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Institute, in New Jersey for the year 2007, there were 85 motorcycle related fatalities of which 82 % were wearing helmets. The National Highway Safety Institute estimated that 42 people’s lives were saved by wearing helmets and that 6 fatalities would have been prevented with 100% use of helmets. In 2008, 82 fatalities with 87% wearing helmets and NHTSA estimates another 42 lives saved because of helmets and 4 fatalities would have been prevented with 100% use of helmets.

In Pennsylvania in 2007 there were 225 motorcycle related fatalities. 46 % were wearing helmets and another 61 people’s lives were saved by wearing helmets. In 2008, 239 fatalities with 49% wearing helmets and another 70 lives saved because of helmets. The NHTSA also estimated that in 2007 45 lives would have been saved and in 2008 45 lives would have been saved if they were wearing helmets.

Across the US there were over 5000 fatalities in both 2007 and 2008 from motorcycle accidents with only 58% wearing helmets. NHTSA estimated that in those two years there were 3615 lives saved by the use of a helmet and another 1627 lives would have been saved if they were wearing helmets. More recently, in 2012, NHTSA estimates helmets saved the lives of 1,699 motorcyclists and that an additional 781 lives could have been saved if all motorcyclists had worn helmets. In states without universal helmet laws, 62% of the motorcyclists killed in 2012 were not wearing helmets compared to 9% in the states with universal helmet laws. Think about that for a minute.

In addition, NHTSA sponsored a study in 1996 to assess the effect of wearing a helmet upon the ability of motorcycle riders to: (1) visually detect the presence of vehicles in adjacent lanes before changing lanes and (2) to detect traffic sounds when operating at normal speed. The results indicate that wearing helmets does not restrict the ability to hear auditory signals or the likelihood of seeing a vehicle in an adjacent lane prior to changing lanes.

I have no reason to doubt these figures. A few years ago while traveling to Court in rush hour traffic on I 95 towards Philadelphia I saw a rider go flying over his handle bars onto the roadway. It was shocking to say the least. I thought he was unconscious. I pulled over the side of the road and watched as he got up. Another motorist an I assisted the rider to the side of the road. He had a full face helmet and a motorcycle leather jacket and blue jeans. He was disoriented and almost lost consciousness a few times. His knees were scraped through his jeans and bleeding. His jacket showed the signs of a serious incident. His helmet showed damage that would have caused a serious injury to a rider without one. Despite his protective gear, I was sure that he had suffered serious injuries. I am happy to report that he called me the next day to tell me that but for his bruised/scraped knees, he was fine. It is clear to me that his helmet and jacket had adequately protected him from more serious harm. As a rider I routinely see other riders in Pennsylvania riding without helmets. In both states it is common to see riders in shorts, sneakers and T shirts. I rode for many years in jeans and a T shirt but always with a helmet. It is great to ride on a warm summer day without the bulk of protective clothing. It’s also dangerous. At many of the rally’s I attend I am often engaged by visitors about their right to ride without a helmet. It’s a debate worth having. What is often overlooked are the true consequences of that action. As indicated above, helmets save lives. That’s indisputable.

What is missing from those statistics are the consequences of sustaining an injury as a result of not wearing a helmet and surviving. NHTSA estimates on a national level we would have saved 2.7 billion dollars in 2007 and 2.9 billion dollars in 2008 if there was 100% helmet use. This of course fails to consider the impact to the rider and their families. Many head injuries are quite serious and have long term consequences, job loss, medical bills and other financial strains. Many of the more serious head injuries lead to long term disability and regular care. We see this regularly when representing injured riders. As many of us in the motorcycle community know, motorcycle insurance provides in most cases no medical benefit and in others, very little coverage. Riders without insurance who suffer serious head injuries become dependent on Federal programs such as SSI and Medicaid. Even people with insurance don’t have enough coverage for a lifetime of care.

I urge anyone reading this to reconsider riding without a helmet. I’m sure the families of those who lost loved ones or who are now watching someone suffer because they were not wearing a helmet would join in my request. Every motorcycle rider understands that there is some danger associate with riding but that doesn’t mean that you should not be prudent and take precautions to minimize your risk.

COPYRIGHT © 2015, STARK & STARK     Authored By:  Joel R. Rosenberg

New Ridesharing Legislation in California and Oregon Highlights Insurance Uncertainty in Emerging Industries

Proskauer Law firm

Managing a company’s exposure to new types of risks is often a complicated endeavor.  We’ve previously reported on the uncertainty that can arise when existing coverage models are applied to a new risk—such as losses arising from data breaches and other cyber-attacks.  Applying existing coverage models to emerging industries presents similar challenges.  These challenges were highlighted recently in the years-long dispute over insurance of ridesharing companies, like Lyft and Uber, which recently reached some degree of closure in California with the enactment of new insurance legislation for these companies.

Ridesharing companies have arisen in the past few years as an alternative to traditional forms of transportation, such as taxis.  These companies neither employ the drivers nor own the cars used for transportation; they essentially serve as an online “middleman” connecting passengers with freelance drivers for hire and expressly disavow that they provide any sort of “transportation services.”  This new business model—blurring the lines between traditional services and social media—presented many questions as to liability and, consequently, risk management.  These questions were brought to the fore earlier this year, when the family of a six year old girl killed by a ridesharing driver sued the ridesharing company.  The company disclaimed liability on the basis that it is not responsible for the acts of its drivers, especially when the drivers do not have ridesharing passengers or are not en route to pick up one.

Many ridesharing drivers have relied primarily on their personal automobile policies, eschewing business coverage altogether, reportedlyat the recommendation of the ridesharing companies themselves.  While ridesharing companies have carried excess insurance policies to cover ridesharing accidents, the insurance industry took the position that these policies did not cover such accidents because there was no primary coverage.  In other words, because the only “primary” insurance policies were personal use automobile policies that did not cover commercial livery use, the excess insurance could not be triggered.

On September 17, 2014, California AB-2293 was enacted to address this uncertainty of coverage.  The statute was the result of discussions between legislators, ridesharing companies, insurers, and traditional taxi companies.  It requires ridesharing companies in the state to provide $100,000 in coverage for their drivers that takes effect the moment a driver connects to the ridesharing company’s dispatch software and increases to $1 million once the driver agrees to pick up a passenger.  It also states that a personal automobile insurer does not have the duty to defend or indemnify claims arising out of ridesharing, unless the policy expressly provides such coverage, and it requires ridesharing companies to disclose this fact to their drivers.

Whether other states will follow California’s lead remains to be seen.  Legislation addressing ridesharing has been introduced across the country, and as one Pennsylvania state legislator observed, “By far the biggest issue is insurance.”  In other states, regulators are addressing the possible insurance gap.  Just days after California’s new statute was enacted, Oregon’s State Insurance Division issued a consumer advisory, warning of the potential unavailability of insurance coverage under personal insurance policies for ridesharing and other services provided in the peer-to-peer marketplace.

As Oregon Insurance Commissioner Laura Cali observed in connection with ridesharing, “When a new industry emerges, it often creates unique insurance situations.”  New industries may exist under insurance uncertainty for years or decades before legislation, regulation, or litigation clarifies the issue.  It is therefore critical when expanding into a nascent industry to consider how the risks of that industry may be managed, under either new or existing types of insurance coverage.

ARTICLE BY

Shawn Ledingham
OF
Proskauer Rose LLP

New Transportation Investment Center Boosts P3 (Public-Private Partnerships) Projects: “P3 or Not P3?” That is the Question. Obama Says: “P3.”

Beveridge Diamond Logo

 

President Obama last week formally embraced the expansion of Public-Private Partnerships (P3s) as a means to fill the gap in public sector transportation financing. Infrastructure developers and project sponsors should look to a planned September 9 summit on infrastructure investment hosted by the U.S. Treasury Department to learn more about how they may gain access to/benefit from expanded resources for P3s.

In an announcement culminating after a series of events aimed at cajoling Congress into addressing the looming deficit in the Highway Trust Fund, the President established the “Build America Transportation Investment Center,” a new office in the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) focused on encouraging P3s. Citing the potential for domestic and foreign investment in American infrastructure, the President moved to create this resource center within DOT to assist states and local governments find ways to expand the use of innovative financing to build needed projects.

For many years, the Office of Innovative Program Delivery Finance was housed within theFederal Highway Administration (FHWA). This latest move will centralize P3 resources at DOT for highway, transit and other crucial projects, particularly those considered to be of regional and national significance and “those that cross state boundaries,” according to the White House statement.

If those sorts of projects are truly the focus of this initiative, perhaps there could be new life (or added momentum) for long-planned, but delayed projects like the Columbia River Crossing in Washington State/Oregon or the New International Trade Crossing between Detroit and Windsor, Ontario or even a variety of high-speed rail proposals that fell victim to budgetary politics during President Obama’s first term.

The President’s announcement offers the promise of additional access to existing DOT credit programs, including the highly successful Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) program. According to government estimates, each dollar of TIFIA loans leverages an additional $10 in private loans, guarantees, and lines of credit. The new Investment Center will also offer technical assistance to states that wish to expand private infrastructure investment and the 20 states that have not yet entered the P3 market at all. The Center may offer case studies of successful projects, examples of deal structures, and analytical toolkits.

The White House also announced that the Treasury Department will host a summit on infrastructure investment in the U.S. on September 9, 2014 for state and local officials to meet with their federal counterparts.

Article By:

James M. Auslander
Brian C. Levey
Fred R. Wagner
Of:
Beveridge & Diamond PC

Proposal to Resuscitate Federal Highway Funding

COV_cmyk_C

House Republican leaders, Boehner, Cantor, and McCarthy have a proposal to address the Highway Trust Fund’s desperate funding problems and the reauthorization of MAP-21, which is set to expire on September 30, 2014.

As discussed in an earlier post, one of the biggest challenges facing Congress in the MAP-21 reauthorization process is what to do about the fiscal condition of the Highway Trust Fund (HTF) which supports funding of the federal highway and transit programs.  Simply stated, the HTF is on the verge of insolvency.  It has both a short term and long term problem.  In the short term, the HTF will not have sufficient revenue to pay the bills through September 30 and it will go into the red sometime in August.  In the long term, the HTF simply cannot support current highway and transit funding levels much less the higher levels that are needed to modernize the Nation’s national transportation network so that American businesses can compete in today’s highly-competitive global marketplace.

The House Republican Leaders’ proposal has three parts to it.  First, the proposal would transfer about $12 billion in general revenues into the Highway Trust Fund.  This would keep the HTF solvent until May 2015 at current funding levels.  Under current House Rules and under recent practice, a transfer of general funds into the Highway Trust Fund must be offset.  The Leaders’ memorandum suggests two potential offsets:  ending the delivery of some Saturday mail; and transferring the current balance remaining in the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund.

Adoption of both suggestions would offset the $12 billion general fund transfer into the HTF and would allow MAP-21 to be extended until May 2015 at current funding levels.  It would solve the HTF’s short-term funding problem but it would not address the long-term issues.

Second, with MAP-21 expiring this September 30th, the memorandum contemplates a short-term extension, probably until May 2015, of MAP-21 programs rather than a multi-year reauthorization of the programs.  This short-term extension would be combined with the HTF short-term fix discussed above into one bill that Congress would consider over the next couple of months.  The goal would be to enact it before the August recess.

Third, consideration of the HTF’s long-term funding problems and MAP-21 reauthorization would be put off until 2015.  The rationale for this approach is that the serious work needed to achieve this structural reform has not been done yet.

This overall approach will undoubtedly disappoint many in the House and Senate who wanted to enact a long-term reauthorization bill this year.  There will also be considerable controversy over the postal reform offset.  But the bottom line is that something has to be done by the end of July or there will be a disruption of ongoing construction projects in August—right in the middle of the construction season and just months before congressional elections.

Article By:

Jack L. Schenendorf
Of:
Covington & Burling LLP

Miami-Dade County Road Impact Fees Increasing by 23% on April 22, 2014

Bilzin_logo300 dpi

On April 22, 2014, the roadway impact fee will increase by 23%. Developers should be aware of these increases in impact fees, as substantial cost savings can be achieved by paying the applicable impact fees and pulling building permits on or before April 21, 2014, which is the last day to pay fees at current rates.

Miami-Dade County Impact Fees

If plans have been filed but the building permit is not yet ready for issuance, it would be worthwhile to attempt to pay the impact fee at the current rate prior to April 22. In addition, some exemptions or credits against road impact fees may be available for certain projects and locations, particularly for many uses proposed in the downtown Miami or Brickell area.

This increased amount is only for road impact fees; other applicable impact fees will also be due.

 

Unless subject to an applicable exemption or credit (such as certain uses in a development of regional impact), new developments in both unincorporated and incorporated areas of Miami-Dade are levied Miami-Dade County roadway impact fees. These fees must be paid or bonded prior to obtaining a building permit for new construction or increased development.

Miami-Dade County adopted a schedule to increase road impact fees in phases commencing in 2009. The phases were expressed as a discount off of the eventual full impact fee rate to be implemented in the future. However, in order to help alleviate the impact of the increased fees during the economic downturn, the Board of County Commissioners twice-passed legislation that delayed implementation of the increased fees, thus extending the discount. The discount is slated to increase on April 22, 2014 from 65% of the full rate to 80% of the full rate. While this may appear to be a 15% change, the net result is actually a 23% increase over current rates. However, coupled with the “present day cost multiplier” annual increase incorporated into the County Code, the fees have increased exponentially over the last several years.

As noted above, although the County has, in the past few years, extended the discount in recognition of the downturn in the economy, there has been no County legislation filed as of yet that would do the same this year.

Represented below are the differences in roadway impact fees between April 1, 2014 and April 22, 2014:

Miami-Dade

As an example, roadway impact fees for a 200 unit condominium located in the urban infill area (UIA) would increase from $610,138 to $750,940, for an increase of $140,802.

Article By:

Brian S. Adler
Of:
Bilzin Sumberg