Vehicles Accessories

Claim For Brain Injury In Vehicle Crashes

Submitted by: Harvey Brown

If we can compare facts, it is an acknowledged fact that vehicle crashes do happen due to the carelessness of the other large car or from hazardous weather. One thought that comes in your mind when you visualize automobile collisions is collision of cars with heavy vehicles. Being struck by a truck is your worst nightmare come true, the injury can be lethal and threatening. As soon as this kind of injury happens, having the prospects to your benefit at the time of processing a case would be difficult. There are a large number of problems that victims and their attorney need to manage before you might fruitfully win a claim against a bad person.

Whenever traumas such as these takes place, it’s overwhelming in such a condition to take care of the claim as one is in a state of anxiety. Truck accident lawyers who are aware of the terms may assist in your matter, they have an understanding of the lawful terminology a lot better than any other lawyer. As soon as major crash occurs, they might be fatal and the most severe type of injury in the way of brain injury occurs. It is quite impossible to recognize the implications of the trauma, the effects are very grave and at times these traumas could expose symptoms as time goes by. The span of time might extend from weeks to months to perfectly recognize the damage caused in these conditions.

YouTube Preview Image

Terrible climate, damaged tires, negligent driving might just be a couple of contributors however the bearing of such a mishap is getting struck by a truck that is 3 times bigger in magnitude and structure. The pressure with which it’s hit might harm the car s shape but could also contribute to nasty head and neck trauma. A spinal cord injury or a brain injury will only materialize in bad collision scenario. With both the examples the sufferer not only has to address bodily disability nevertheless mental tension too. The vital action to take is to get physicians’ help instantaneously to have a CT scan performed to understand and estimate the degree of trauma.

In cases where you suffer a serious brain injury, you might almost certainly require extensive medical treatment for a protracted amount of time. In cases where ignored, a brain injury may cause long term damage or even death. The idea is that you have the reimbursement you deserve and receive what’s justifiably yours. You can expect to get an upper hand once you find an attorney that looks after the brain injury and assists in eliminating the healthcare spending to suit your needs.

You have very little to lose as a complainant; you’d actually enjoy the authority to prefer an attorney that accomplishes the task. They deliver the results with a contingency basis; they ask for their payments according to a no win no payment set up. The experienced lawyers obtain their percentage if they are victorious in the claim. This denotes that you will not have to compensate your attorney before you succeed with your court case. They will likely keep your welfare in mind and would help you and steer you through the legal vocabulary successfully. Take note, I’m not a lawyer, this is not a legal advice, it is my individual belief, but for great legal advice, check out gluckstein website now.

About the Author: Harvey is an expert in the field. For more information on

Personal Injury Lawyer

, and

Best Personal Injury Lawyers in Toronto

Please visit: http://www.gluckstein.com/

Source:

isnare.com

Permanent Link:

isnare.com/?aid=1802046&ca=Legal

Uncategorized

NTSB releases updates on status of 3 major US investigations

Sunday, June 17, 2007 

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), the agency responsible for investigating transportation accidents in the United States, released updates on three major investigations on June 14.

The NTSB, well known publicly for its involvement in the investigation of aviation incidents which involve harm or loss of human life, is also an agency that oversees the transportation of refined petroleum and gas products, chemicals and minerals.

The agency determined the cause of a natural gas pipeline explosion that killed six. It also detailed the cause of an accidental release of 204,000 gallons of anhydrous ammonia from a pipeline in an environmentally sensitive area, and released preliminary information involving two commercial aircraft coming within 30-50 feet of each other on a runway.

In the gas explosion disaster, the towing vessel Miss Megan, which was of specifications that did not require inspection by the United States Coast Guard, was being operated in the West Cote Blanche Bay oil field in Louisiana by Central Boat Rentals on behalf of Athena Construction on October 12, 2006. The Miss Megan was pushing barge IBR 234, which was tied along the starboard side of barge Athena 106, en route to a pile-driving location. Athena Construction did not require its crews to pin mooring spuds (vertical steel shafts extending through wells in the bottom of the boat and used for mooring) securely in place on its barges and consequently this had not been done. During the journey, the aft spud on the Athena 106 released from its fully raised position. The spud dropped into the water and struck a submerged, high-pressure natural gas pipeline. The resulting gas released ignited and created a fireball that engulfed the towing vessel and both barges. The master of the towing vessel and four barge workers were killed. The Miss Megan deckhand and one barge worker survived. One barge worker is officially listed as missing.

The NTSB blames Athena Construction for the disaster, citing in the final report that Athena Construction’s manual contained no procedures mandating the use of the safety devices on the spud winch except during electrical work. It was found that if the Athena 106 crew had used the steel pins to secure the retracted spuds during their transit, a pin would have prevented the aft spud from accidentally deploying. Furthermore, the spud would have remained locked in its lifted position regardless of whether the winch brake mechanism, the spud’s supporting cable, or a piece of connecting hardware had failed.

The NTSB also found that contributing to the accident was the failure of Central Boat Rentals to require, and the Miss Megan master to ensure, that the barge spuds were securely pinned before getting under way. The Board noted that investigators found no evidence that the Miss Megan master or deckhand checked whether the spuds had been properly secured before the tow began. While Central Boat Rentals had a health and safety manual and trained its crews, the written procedures did not specifically warn masters about the need to secure spuds or other barge equipment before navigating. The NTSB stated that the company’s crew should have been trained to identify potential safety hazards on vessels under their control.

NTSB Chairman Mark Rosenker said of the investigation’s results, “Having more rigorous requirements in place could have prevented this accident from occurring. Not only do these regulations need to be put in place but it is imperative that they are enforced and adhered to.”

The NTSB has made a number of safety recommendations as a result of this accident and the subsequent investigation. Recommendations were made to Athena Construction and Central Boat Rentals to develop procedures and train the employees of its barges to use the securing pins to hold spuds safely in place before transiting from one site to another.

The most major of the other recommendations are:

To the Occupational Safety and Health Administration:

To the U. S. Coast Guard

The NTSB also released the result of its investigation into an environmental disaster in Kansas on October 27, 2004 in which 204,000 gallons (4,858 barrels) of anhydrous ammonia was spilled from a ruptured pipeline in Kingman into an environmentally sensitive area. Chemicals from the pipeline entered a nearby stream and killed more than 25,000 fish, including some fish from threatened species.

The incident reached the scale that it did due to operator error after the initial rupture. The 8 5/8-inch diameter steel pipeline, which was operated by Enterprise Products Operating L.P., burst at 11:15 a.m. in an agricultural area about 6 miles east of Kingman, Kansas. A drop in pipeline pressure, indicating abnormal conditions or a possible compromise in pipeline integrity, set off alarms displayed on the computerized pipeline monitoring system. Shortly after the first alarm the pipeline controller, in an attempt to remedy the low pressure, increased the flow of anhydrous ammonia into the affected section of pipeline. A total of 33 minutes elapsed between the time when the first alarm indicated a problem with the pipeline and the initiation of a shutdown.

In its initial report to the National Response Center (NRC), the pipeline operator’s accident reporting contractor reported a release of at least 20 gallons of ammonia, telling the NRC that an updated estimate of material released would be reported at a later time. No such report was ever made. Because of the inaccurate report, the arrival of representatives from the Environmental Protection Agency was delayed by a full day, affecting the oversight of the environmental damage mitigation efforts.

The cause of the rupture itself was determined to be a pipe gouge created by heavy equipment damage to the pipeline during construction in 1973 or subsequent excavation activity at an unknown time that initiated metal fatigue cracking and led to the eventual rupture of the pipeline.

“We are very fortunate that such highly toxic chemicals of the size and scope involved in this accident were not released in a populated area,” commented Rosenker. “Had this same quantity of ammonia been released near a town or city, the results could have been catastrophic.”

As a result of this accident, the NTSB made the following safety recommendations:

To the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration:

To Enterprise Products Operating L.P.:

“The severity of this release of dangerous chemicals into the community could have been prevented,” said Rosenker. “The safety recommendations that we have made, if acted upon, will reduce the likelihood of this type of accident happening again.”

As well as concluding their investigation of the above accidents, the NTSB also released preliminary information regarding a serious runway incursion at San Francisco International Airport between two commercial aircraft on May 26, 2007.

At about 1:30 p.m. the tower air traffic controller cleared SkyWest Airlines flight 5741, an Embraer 120 arriving from Modesto, California, to land on runway 28R. Forgetting about the arrival airplane, the same controller then cleared Republic Airlines flight 4912, an Embraer 170 departing for Los Angeles, to take off from runway 1L, which intersects runway 28R.

After the SkyWest airliner touched down, the Airport Movement Area Safety System (AMASS) alerted and the air traffic controller transmitted “Hold, Hold, Hold” to the SkyWest flight crew in an attempt to stop the aircraft short of runway 1L. The SkyWest crew applied maximum braking that resulted in the airplane stopping in the middle of runway 1L. As this was occurring, the captain of Republic Airlines flight 4912 took control of the aircraft from the first officer, realized the aircraft was traveling too fast to stop, and initiated an immediate takeoff. According to the crew of SkyWest 5741, the Republic Airlines aircraft overflew theirs by 30 to 50 feet. The Federal Aviation Administration has categorized the incident as an operational error.

The NTSB sent an investigator to San Francisco, who collected radar data, recorded air traffic control communications, and flight crew statements, and interviewed air traffic control personnel prior to the NTSB making the preliminary release.

Uncategorized

NTSB releases updates on status of 3 major US investigations

Sunday, June 17, 2007 

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), the agency responsible for investigating transportation accidents in the United States, released updates on three major investigations on June 14.

The NTSB, well known publicly for its involvement in the investigation of aviation incidents which involve harm or loss of human life, is also an agency that oversees the transportation of refined petroleum and gas products, chemicals and minerals.

The agency determined the cause of a natural gas pipeline explosion that killed six. It also detailed the cause of an accidental release of 204,000 gallons of anhydrous ammonia from a pipeline in an environmentally sensitive area, and released preliminary information involving two commercial aircraft coming within 30-50 feet of each other on a runway.

In the gas explosion disaster, the towing vessel Miss Megan, which was of specifications that did not require inspection by the United States Coast Guard, was being operated in the West Cote Blanche Bay oil field in Louisiana by Central Boat Rentals on behalf of Athena Construction on October 12, 2006. The Miss Megan was pushing barge IBR 234, which was tied along the starboard side of barge Athena 106, en route to a pile-driving location. Athena Construction did not require its crews to pin mooring spuds (vertical steel shafts extending through wells in the bottom of the boat and used for mooring) securely in place on its barges and consequently this had not been done. During the journey, the aft spud on the Athena 106 released from its fully raised position. The spud dropped into the water and struck a submerged, high-pressure natural gas pipeline. The resulting gas released ignited and created a fireball that engulfed the towing vessel and both barges. The master of the towing vessel and four barge workers were killed. The Miss Megan deckhand and one barge worker survived. One barge worker is officially listed as missing.

The NTSB blames Athena Construction for the disaster, citing in the final report that Athena Construction’s manual contained no procedures mandating the use of the safety devices on the spud winch except during electrical work. It was found that if the Athena 106 crew had used the steel pins to secure the retracted spuds during their transit, a pin would have prevented the aft spud from accidentally deploying. Furthermore, the spud would have remained locked in its lifted position regardless of whether the winch brake mechanism, the spud’s supporting cable, or a piece of connecting hardware had failed.

The NTSB also found that contributing to the accident was the failure of Central Boat Rentals to require, and the Miss Megan master to ensure, that the barge spuds were securely pinned before getting under way. The Board noted that investigators found no evidence that the Miss Megan master or deckhand checked whether the spuds had been properly secured before the tow began. While Central Boat Rentals had a health and safety manual and trained its crews, the written procedures did not specifically warn masters about the need to secure spuds or other barge equipment before navigating. The NTSB stated that the company’s crew should have been trained to identify potential safety hazards on vessels under their control.

NTSB Chairman Mark Rosenker said of the investigation’s results, “Having more rigorous requirements in place could have prevented this accident from occurring. Not only do these regulations need to be put in place but it is imperative that they are enforced and adhered to.”

The NTSB has made a number of safety recommendations as a result of this accident and the subsequent investigation. Recommendations were made to Athena Construction and Central Boat Rentals to develop procedures and train the employees of its barges to use the securing pins to hold spuds safely in place before transiting from one site to another.

The most major of the other recommendations are:

To the Occupational Safety and Health Administration:

To the U. S. Coast Guard

The NTSB also released the result of its investigation into an environmental disaster in Kansas on October 27, 2004 in which 204,000 gallons (4,858 barrels) of anhydrous ammonia was spilled from a ruptured pipeline in Kingman into an environmentally sensitive area. Chemicals from the pipeline entered a nearby stream and killed more than 25,000 fish, including some fish from threatened species.

The incident reached the scale that it did due to operator error after the initial rupture. The 8 5/8-inch diameter steel pipeline, which was operated by Enterprise Products Operating L.P., burst at 11:15 a.m. in an agricultural area about 6 miles east of Kingman, Kansas. A drop in pipeline pressure, indicating abnormal conditions or a possible compromise in pipeline integrity, set off alarms displayed on the computerized pipeline monitoring system. Shortly after the first alarm the pipeline controller, in an attempt to remedy the low pressure, increased the flow of anhydrous ammonia into the affected section of pipeline. A total of 33 minutes elapsed between the time when the first alarm indicated a problem with the pipeline and the initiation of a shutdown.

In its initial report to the National Response Center (NRC), the pipeline operator’s accident reporting contractor reported a release of at least 20 gallons of ammonia, telling the NRC that an updated estimate of material released would be reported at a later time. No such report was ever made. Because of the inaccurate report, the arrival of representatives from the Environmental Protection Agency was delayed by a full day, affecting the oversight of the environmental damage mitigation efforts.

The cause of the rupture itself was determined to be a pipe gouge created by heavy equipment damage to the pipeline during construction in 1973 or subsequent excavation activity at an unknown time that initiated metal fatigue cracking and led to the eventual rupture of the pipeline.

“We are very fortunate that such highly toxic chemicals of the size and scope involved in this accident were not released in a populated area,” commented Rosenker. “Had this same quantity of ammonia been released near a town or city, the results could have been catastrophic.”

As a result of this accident, the NTSB made the following safety recommendations:

To the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration:

To Enterprise Products Operating L.P.:

“The severity of this release of dangerous chemicals into the community could have been prevented,” said Rosenker. “The safety recommendations that we have made, if acted upon, will reduce the likelihood of this type of accident happening again.”

As well as concluding their investigation of the above accidents, the NTSB also released preliminary information regarding a serious runway incursion at San Francisco International Airport between two commercial aircraft on May 26, 2007.

At about 1:30 p.m. the tower air traffic controller cleared SkyWest Airlines flight 5741, an Embraer 120 arriving from Modesto, California, to land on runway 28R. Forgetting about the arrival airplane, the same controller then cleared Republic Airlines flight 4912, an Embraer 170 departing for Los Angeles, to take off from runway 1L, which intersects runway 28R.

After the SkyWest airliner touched down, the Airport Movement Area Safety System (AMASS) alerted and the air traffic controller transmitted “Hold, Hold, Hold” to the SkyWest flight crew in an attempt to stop the aircraft short of runway 1L. The SkyWest crew applied maximum braking that resulted in the airplane stopping in the middle of runway 1L. As this was occurring, the captain of Republic Airlines flight 4912 took control of the aircraft from the first officer, realized the aircraft was traveling too fast to stop, and initiated an immediate takeoff. According to the crew of SkyWest 5741, the Republic Airlines aircraft overflew theirs by 30 to 50 feet. The Federal Aviation Administration has categorized the incident as an operational error.

The NTSB sent an investigator to San Francisco, who collected radar data, recorded air traffic control communications, and flight crew statements, and interviewed air traffic control personnel prior to the NTSB making the preliminary release.

Uncategorized

NTSB releases updates on status of 3 major US investigations

Sunday, June 17, 2007 

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), the agency responsible for investigating transportation accidents in the United States, released updates on three major investigations on June 14.

The NTSB, well known publicly for its involvement in the investigation of aviation incidents which involve harm or loss of human life, is also an agency that oversees the transportation of refined petroleum and gas products, chemicals and minerals.

The agency determined the cause of a natural gas pipeline explosion that killed six. It also detailed the cause of an accidental release of 204,000 gallons of anhydrous ammonia from a pipeline in an environmentally sensitive area, and released preliminary information involving two commercial aircraft coming within 30-50 feet of each other on a runway.

In the gas explosion disaster, the towing vessel Miss Megan, which was of specifications that did not require inspection by the United States Coast Guard, was being operated in the West Cote Blanche Bay oil field in Louisiana by Central Boat Rentals on behalf of Athena Construction on October 12, 2006. The Miss Megan was pushing barge IBR 234, which was tied along the starboard side of barge Athena 106, en route to a pile-driving location. Athena Construction did not require its crews to pin mooring spuds (vertical steel shafts extending through wells in the bottom of the boat and used for mooring) securely in place on its barges and consequently this had not been done. During the journey, the aft spud on the Athena 106 released from its fully raised position. The spud dropped into the water and struck a submerged, high-pressure natural gas pipeline. The resulting gas released ignited and created a fireball that engulfed the towing vessel and both barges. The master of the towing vessel and four barge workers were killed. The Miss Megan deckhand and one barge worker survived. One barge worker is officially listed as missing.

The NTSB blames Athena Construction for the disaster, citing in the final report that Athena Construction’s manual contained no procedures mandating the use of the safety devices on the spud winch except during electrical work. It was found that if the Athena 106 crew had used the steel pins to secure the retracted spuds during their transit, a pin would have prevented the aft spud from accidentally deploying. Furthermore, the spud would have remained locked in its lifted position regardless of whether the winch brake mechanism, the spud’s supporting cable, or a piece of connecting hardware had failed.

The NTSB also found that contributing to the accident was the failure of Central Boat Rentals to require, and the Miss Megan master to ensure, that the barge spuds were securely pinned before getting under way. The Board noted that investigators found no evidence that the Miss Megan master or deckhand checked whether the spuds had been properly secured before the tow began. While Central Boat Rentals had a health and safety manual and trained its crews, the written procedures did not specifically warn masters about the need to secure spuds or other barge equipment before navigating. The NTSB stated that the company’s crew should have been trained to identify potential safety hazards on vessels under their control.

NTSB Chairman Mark Rosenker said of the investigation’s results, “Having more rigorous requirements in place could have prevented this accident from occurring. Not only do these regulations need to be put in place but it is imperative that they are enforced and adhered to.”

The NTSB has made a number of safety recommendations as a result of this accident and the subsequent investigation. Recommendations were made to Athena Construction and Central Boat Rentals to develop procedures and train the employees of its barges to use the securing pins to hold spuds safely in place before transiting from one site to another.

The most major of the other recommendations are:

To the Occupational Safety and Health Administration:

To the U. S. Coast Guard

The NTSB also released the result of its investigation into an environmental disaster in Kansas on October 27, 2004 in which 204,000 gallons (4,858 barrels) of anhydrous ammonia was spilled from a ruptured pipeline in Kingman into an environmentally sensitive area. Chemicals from the pipeline entered a nearby stream and killed more than 25,000 fish, including some fish from threatened species.

The incident reached the scale that it did due to operator error after the initial rupture. The 8 5/8-inch diameter steel pipeline, which was operated by Enterprise Products Operating L.P., burst at 11:15 a.m. in an agricultural area about 6 miles east of Kingman, Kansas. A drop in pipeline pressure, indicating abnormal conditions or a possible compromise in pipeline integrity, set off alarms displayed on the computerized pipeline monitoring system. Shortly after the first alarm the pipeline controller, in an attempt to remedy the low pressure, increased the flow of anhydrous ammonia into the affected section of pipeline. A total of 33 minutes elapsed between the time when the first alarm indicated a problem with the pipeline and the initiation of a shutdown.

In its initial report to the National Response Center (NRC), the pipeline operator’s accident reporting contractor reported a release of at least 20 gallons of ammonia, telling the NRC that an updated estimate of material released would be reported at a later time. No such report was ever made. Because of the inaccurate report, the arrival of representatives from the Environmental Protection Agency was delayed by a full day, affecting the oversight of the environmental damage mitigation efforts.

The cause of the rupture itself was determined to be a pipe gouge created by heavy equipment damage to the pipeline during construction in 1973 or subsequent excavation activity at an unknown time that initiated metal fatigue cracking and led to the eventual rupture of the pipeline.

“We are very fortunate that such highly toxic chemicals of the size and scope involved in this accident were not released in a populated area,” commented Rosenker. “Had this same quantity of ammonia been released near a town or city, the results could have been catastrophic.”

As a result of this accident, the NTSB made the following safety recommendations:

To the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration:

To Enterprise Products Operating L.P.:

“The severity of this release of dangerous chemicals into the community could have been prevented,” said Rosenker. “The safety recommendations that we have made, if acted upon, will reduce the likelihood of this type of accident happening again.”

As well as concluding their investigation of the above accidents, the NTSB also released preliminary information regarding a serious runway incursion at San Francisco International Airport between two commercial aircraft on May 26, 2007.

At about 1:30 p.m. the tower air traffic controller cleared SkyWest Airlines flight 5741, an Embraer 120 arriving from Modesto, California, to land on runway 28R. Forgetting about the arrival airplane, the same controller then cleared Republic Airlines flight 4912, an Embraer 170 departing for Los Angeles, to take off from runway 1L, which intersects runway 28R.

After the SkyWest airliner touched down, the Airport Movement Area Safety System (AMASS) alerted and the air traffic controller transmitted “Hold, Hold, Hold” to the SkyWest flight crew in an attempt to stop the aircraft short of runway 1L. The SkyWest crew applied maximum braking that resulted in the airplane stopping in the middle of runway 1L. As this was occurring, the captain of Republic Airlines flight 4912 took control of the aircraft from the first officer, realized the aircraft was traveling too fast to stop, and initiated an immediate takeoff. According to the crew of SkyWest 5741, the Republic Airlines aircraft overflew theirs by 30 to 50 feet. The Federal Aviation Administration has categorized the incident as an operational error.

The NTSB sent an investigator to San Francisco, who collected radar data, recorded air traffic control communications, and flight crew statements, and interviewed air traffic control personnel prior to the NTSB making the preliminary release.

Migration Expert

World Series Game Tickets : Buy Them Today

Submitted by: Alexis Fuego.

Are you completely crazy for baseball? There is no event as big as the Baseball World Series in America. The whole nation is completely in the colors of the game supporting their favorite baseball team.

Are you completely crazy for baseball? There is no event as big as the Baseball World Series in America. The whole nation is completely in the colors of the game supporting their favorite baseball team. So which team are you supporting this season? Whether it is American League, Boston Red Sox, NY Yankees, Texas Rangers or some other team, the main goal at the moment is to acquire the 2011 World Series Tickets at any cost. So have you been lucky enough to have the ticket of this biggest sporting event? Fortunately, with the presence of some of the most reliable sites offering game tickets, it is now possible to enjoy the live performance of your favorite game.

YouTube Preview Image

So would you like to miss a great opportunity of viewing your favorite players playing a memorable event of a lifetime? If the answer is positive, you would definitely enjoy it to the core by buying the World Series Game Tickets at an affordable price range. Greatest moments of lifetime are possible to capture by sitting among the biggest fan crowd. Buy 2011 World Series Tickets today to enjoy the spirit of game to the fullest. Sporting history would be written when exhilarating matches are held at the Baseball World Series. You would surely enjoy a fabulous series watching the Baseball giants having a head to head match. You can be a witness to some of the most glorious moments in the history of Baseball by buying your very own tickets. The series is commencing in October end, so if you haven?t yet bought the tickets, its better you start hunting for them today.

Delay of even a moment can rob you of witnessing the most glorious moments in the history of Baseball. Enjoy every moment of pride by acquiring your very own 2011 World Series Tickets. So what are you waiting for? Check out the web for the best site offering Phillies World Series Tickets? This would definitely be a rare opportunity to see the best Baseball players on a common platform. On the official sites, it would be quite difficult to find the tickets at this time, as most of tickets are booked in advance. Unique opportunity of viewing the greatest players in an action up close and in person is possible only after buying the tickets. Surely, the tickets of this thrilling event are going to sell out fast. So what are you waiting for? Don?t waste this golden opportunity. A few web portals are offering the tickets to fans at a reasonable price.

Whether the game is being held in your very own neighborhood or thousand miles away, getting the ticket of this massive event is going to be incredibly tough. However, it is indeed an experience of a lifetime which would be simply impossible to match. Watching your favorite game on television is entirely different from watching it sitting in the fan crowd cheering your favorite team. Check out the web for cheapest 2011World Series Tickets today.

About the Author: Vanessa Vicara is the author of this article on World Series Tickets.Find more information, about Phillies World Series Tickets hereVisit

worldseriestickets.net

for more information.

Source:

isnare.com

Permanent Link:

isnare.com/?aid=1108185&ca=Travel

Uncategorized

Portal:Migration

Uncategorized

Portal:Migration

Uncategorized

Category:Sydney

This category has the following 4 subcategories, out of 4 total.

The following 102 pages are in this category, out of 102 total.

This category contains only the following file.

Cars

5 Ways To Reduce Classic Car Insurance Costs

More On This Topic:

Submitted by: Alvin Barik

Now you can save up to 50 percent on your classic car insurance premium costs. There are methods to reduce car insurance premium without compromising with total insurance coverage for your car. These methods are easy to follow so let have a look.

1. Sum up all insurance policies

Almost all insurance companies are providing every type of insurance whether it is car insurance, home insurance, personal insurance, medical insurance, etc. You can avail heavy discount if you accumulate your all insurance policies with single insurance company. It will cost nothing to you while you pay reduced insurance premium for your classic car insurance. Moreover company adds your name in its list of potential consumers to facilitate other insurance benefits.

2. Become a safe drive

YouTube Preview Image

Safe driving secures you and your car insurance premiums. Car insurance companies consider safe driving as an important factor into calculating your car insurance costs. You may be benefited this offer by obtaining a safe driving certificate from approved car driving institute by the insurance company or state government.

3. Install car safety utilities

Car safety is most important factor for car insurance companies they can t avoid. They would be pleased if your car is equipped with car safety utilities like speed controller device, anti-theft devices, safety air-bags and others. These accessories assist you to minimize damage during collision since car insurance companies do not have to pay high compensation for accidental injuries.

4. Do not add a young driver in your car insurance policy

Adding teenagers and young drivers is not financially beneficial for car insurance policy. According to national statistics of car accidents data over 70 percent of total accidents were caused by young drivers. In this condition car insurance companies prefer to charge higher insurance premium for young drivers. If you want to add their name in your classic car insurance policy you will have to pay higher insurance premium sometimes up to double amounts.

5. Buy unpopular cars

You have read that some car models are popular among thieves as they are often stolen by them. Usually SUV and luxury models are most favorite of car pickers thus they do not touch other less famous car. Car insurance companies know this interesting statistics that s why they charge more premium rates for such models to cover up their loss due to car theft. You may reduce your car insurance premium by purchasing an unpopular car having all safety features at least mischievous people will not look at your car.

Get Lower Car Insurance Rates

You can minimize your car insurance premium by following above methods as well as you can do this by negotiating with company executives too. Similar to other trade insurance sector has tough competitions; insurance companies are providing extraordinary services and offers to consumers with superb customer care services. Perhaps you do not know they do bargaining with potential car owners especially who have good credit score, safe driving habits and mature age. Besides this female drivers and matured males are also exempted in car insurance rates.

About the Author: I would like to share some clever ways to help reduce the price of car insurance and a chance to save half of your car insurance premiums.For Further Details:-

carinsurancediary.com/7-smart-ways-to-cut-auto-insurance-rates

Source:

isnare.com

Permanent Link:

isnare.com/?aid=1370793&ca=Finances

Uncategorized

Electric vehicles can be less green than classic fuel cars, Norwegian study finds

Sunday, October 7, 2012 

A Norwegian University of Science and Technology study released Thursday found electric vehicles have a potential for higher eco-toxicity and greenhouse impact than conventional cars. The study includes an examination of the electric car’s life cycle as a whole rather than a study of the electric car’s environmental impact during the use phase.

The researchers conducted a comparison of the environmental impact of electric cars in view of different ratios of green-to-fuel electricity energy sources. In the case of mostly coal- or oil-based electricity supply, electric cars are disadvantageous compared to classic diesel cars with the greenhouse effect impact being up to two times larger.

The researchers found that in Europe, electric cars pose a “10% to 24% decrease in global warming potential (GWP) relative to conventional diesel or gasoline vehicles”.

The researchers suggest to improve eco-friendliness of electric vehicles by “reducing vehicle production supply chain impacts and promoting clean electricity sources in decision making regarding electricity infrastructure” and using the electric cars for a longer time, so that the use phase plays a more important role in the electric vehicle life cycle.