According to American Motorcyclist, there is no overall best motorcycle. When searching for your ideal bike, you must first figure out what you intend to use it for. Someone that enjoys easy riding will need a different bike than someone who wants to go hog wild. Here are some recommendations for you to make an informed decision about which motorcycle is right for you.
A standard is a bike for those that want to do a little bit of everything. These motorcycles make you feel more comfortable and like you have a better sense of control of the bike. Their tip-overs tend to also be less costly. For new riders, be wary of some of the larger standards. They can exceed 100 horsepower, which can sometimes be a lot for an inexperienced rider to handle.
If you want a motorcycle with speed, a sport-bike is right for you. They are usually lighter than other types of motorcycles, making them easier to transport. However, because these bikes are built for speed, their insurance runs higher.
Cruiser bikes are great for people who want a relaxed, smooth ride. These models have low seats and a low center of gravity. Although this is a preference for many people, for new riders the positioning may create some awkwardness at first.
If you want to road trip with your motorcycle, a tourer is your kind of bike. Tourers are comfortable and are made to combat the weather. They also come with integrated luggage to store your belongings in. Tourers are, however, more expensive, but for those that see their distinctive qualities as necessities they are worth the price tag.
Although riding motorcycles is a fun and popular hobby, it is not without risk. A personal injury attorney in Louisville can explain that since motorcyclists have very little to protect them in accidents, their injuries tend to be worse than those involved in regular car accidents,
Clinical trials are supposed to be carried out for any kind of drug before they are sold to the public to determine if they are safe for use, not after. They are also designed to identify certain classes of people or conditions which will be adversely affected by it. This is true for over-the-counter medication and prescription drugs, and it is the responsibility of the drug manufacturer to carry them out. In most cases, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) will require these trials prior to approval for use for specific conditions.
In the case of the anti-emetic drug Zofran (ondansetron) produced and marketed by GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), the drug company carried out clinical trials that showed it was highly effective for suppressing nausea associated with chemotherapy, radiation therapy, and post surgery. However, the clinical trials presumably did not go far enough, because recent studies show that it could increase the risk of developing heart arrhythmia. And that isn’t even the biggest problem. The problem is with its off-label use to treat severe nausea and vomiting of pregnancy (NVP). Zofran has been associated with causing birth defects.
Studies were undertaken to prove it one way or the other. The results, however, are maddeningly vague. There are “indications” or “failed to find” results that instead of clearing up the matter for the public, merely muddy up the waters. According to Williams Kherkher’s website about the Zofran lawsuit, it falls on affected patients to come forward and tell their stories in order to gather evidence that will prove the drug does cause birth defects.
GSK has already been made to pay for encouraging the drug’s use for NVP although it was not approved for that purpose by the FDA. However, because GSK insists that Zofran is safe for pregnant women and studies show conflicting results, women continue to be prescribed with the drug for NVP.
If you have been prescribed with Zofran for NVP, and you child had birth defects, you may be able to help. Contact a Zofran lawyer in your area to add your voice to women who have been similarly harmed.
Child safety is one of the paramount concerns of parents, which is why most would make considerable effort to ensure that the products they buy for their children are safe. This includes their food, clothes, shoes, beds, strollers, and car seats. Most would pay a premium to buy brands that have a reputation for strict safety standards. As pointed out on the Habush Habush & Rottier S.C. ® website, however, it doesn’t matter what brand your car seat is; if the manufacturer fails to properly test their products before selling them, your child is in danger. As it is turning out, one of these is Graco.
Graco is perhaps one of the more recognizable brands of child car seats and other baby products, with an income of $1.1 billion reported for 2013. The Atlanta-based company was founded in 1942 and was acquired by Rubbermaid in 1996.
In 2010, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission announced that Graco was voluntarily recalling some of their most popular models of strollers and car seats because they had a high risk of laceration and fingertip amputation. More recently, Graco again issued a recall for more than 3 million of their harnessed booster and toddler convertible car seats manufactured between 2009 and 2013 for a defective buckle that could be difficult to unlatch in an emergency. Graco claims that no injuries caused by the defective party had been reported.
This claim may be true or not, but as one parent put it, children have been in a constant state of danger for years because the company knew about the defect but failed to warn them about it until recently. Events may also unfold that would reveal that some preventable child injuries and deaths in the past may have been due to these defective car seats.
If you suspect that your child was injured because of a defective car seat or other untested product meant for children, you could be right. Consult with an experienced defective car seat lawyer in your area to discuss your case.
The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) prohibits any discriminatory acts (based on age) against persons 40 years and older in matters wherein employment conditions or privileges are the issues; these, of course, include hiring, promotion, retention of employment, job assignment, compensation and benefits, training, layoff, and all other employment-related issues. The protection provided by ADEA is intended for both job applicants and employees and the Act itself applies to state and local governments, labor organizations, employment agencies and all private companies with 20 or more employees (this Act also provides protection for US citizens hired and working for US employers overseas, so long as no laws of that country will be violated by the Act).
ADEA offers protection against discrimination based on age as well as against any form of retaliatory acts. This latter protection is also provided by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which makes it unlawful for an employer or manager to retaliate against an employee who: complains about age discrimination practices in the workplace; files a complaint to the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) about a violation on any of the stipulations of ADEA (or other discriminatory acts based on other reasons); or, participates or testifies in an investigation or lawsuit proceedings regarding employment discrimination.
Some of the other types of protection that ADEA provides include:
- The non-inclusion of age specification, limit or preference in job advertisements and notices, unless in jobs where age is a bona fide occupational qualification, such as an actor supposed to play the role of a young adult in a film
- Strictly limiting inquiries regarding a person’s age (during job interviews) for lawful purposes, such as to determine the possible length of service a person may be able to render. This is applicable in jobs like an airline pilot or bus driver which requires a mandatory retirement age
- Prohibition of offensive remarks about a person’s age, which may be construed as harassment (except when such remarks are made as offhand comments or simple ways of teasing and not as insults on the person concerned)
- Prohibition on employers to deny older employees the work benefits that they legally deserve. However, since the law recognizes the fact that costs of certain benefits provided to older employees are higher than the cost of same benefits when provided for younger workers, the law allows employers, in limited circumstances, to reduce benefits based on age, so long as the cost of the reduced benefits to older workers and the cost of the benefits provided to younger workers are the same.
With regard to making remarks about a person’s age, the law firm of Cary Kane LLP explains on its website that if such remarks are made too often, leading to the creation of a hostile working environment or resulting to employment decisions that will demote or end the older worker’s employment, then it would be necessary to consult a legal counsel. Having a competent lawyer, to protect one’s rights, becomes more essential if the older employee gets to be asked to sign accept a severance package in exchange for signing a release form.
A report from the state adult protection agency estimates that there has been a significant rise in nursing home abuse and neglect incidents in Kentucky’s elder care facilities from 18% in 2010 to 28% in 2011.
The Cabinet for Health and Family Services are only able to estimate the actual incidence rates from existing data gathered for the Elder Abuse in Kentucky report because many of these go unreported. As an article on the Sampson Law Firm website points out, many of the elderly are unable or afraid to report neglect or abuse, something that abusers and negligent nursing home staff count on, enabling them to act with impunity. This may be the reason for the escalating numbers in nursing home abuse despite increasing attention on the problem.
Kentucky has one of the fastest aging population in the US, which means that there are more people over 60 in proportion to its total population than most other states. This is a serious problem as Kentucky is also among the worst ranking states when it comes to elder care according to the United Health Foundation and the American Association of Retired Persons.
The elderly are among the most vulnerable population segments, especially if they suffer from physical and/or mental problems that make them dependent on others. While elder abuse is certainly not confined to nursing homes or other long-term care facilities, the abuse or neglect is more likely to go unremarked because they have been pulled out of a regular community.
There have been increased efforts to improve the situation for elderly Kentuckians as a result of the governor’s initiative towards nursing home reform following an article series in the Lexington Herald-Leader entitled “Voiceless & Vulnerable: Nursing Home Abuse” published in 2010. Gov. Steve Beshear put the machinery into motion that would improve the outlook for the elderly in long-term care facilities.
In the meantime, nursing home abuse is ongoing and needs to be addressed. If you suspect nursing home abuse as a friend or relative of a nursing home resident in Kentucky, report it to the proper authorities. At the same time, consult with a skilled nursing home negligence lawyer to help you build a personal injury case against the responsible parties.