There was an error in this gadget

Friday, October 28, 2011

Inspiration...

I have not been on my bike in a week.  I feel lazy and unhealthy.  I could blame it on an injury, but that does not bother me too much when riding.  Really, I think it is the darkness at 5am and the constantly dropping temps this time of year.  Something about the feeling of a warm bed urges me to ignore the alarm and hibernate for another hour or so, and willingly, my mind and body agree.

So, I am in need of inspiration (and sun).  Nothing like Le Tour to pump me up.  And nothing like... "THE LOOK".

So, if like me, you have been in a funk, enjoy this clip and maybe it will encourage you to get back out riding, unless you liked Jan Ulrich, in which case this clip may encourage you to put your bike away for the winter and get fat and out of shape like he used to do in the off-season.  Inspiring...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7THIhZEP4QM



Friday, October 14, 2011

Hours of Darkness... Part 2

In an earlier entry, I posted about the coming fall season and discussed the use of lights on a bike.  In that post I mentioned the "hours of darkness"- the time during which you are required to use lights on your bike.  I also mentioned I had no idea what those hours actually are.

Well, I know you faithful reader(s?) have been on the edge of your seat waiting for an answer, and... I have one!

The hours of darkness are listed as "the period of time from one-half hour after sunset to one-half hour after sunrise and all other times when there is not sufficient natural light to render clearly visible any person or vehicle upon a highway or bicycle way at a distance of 500 feet."

So, there you go.  If you read this, you can congratulate yourself for learning something today.  Applause...

Tuesday, October 11, 2011

Watch Out for the... Antelope?

Away from politics and back to cycling for now.

Usually I write about the dangers associated with cycling on city streets- cars, buses, defects on the road, etc.  But, you need to be aware of your surroundings as there could be other dangers lurking depending on where you are biking.  Like antelope, in South Africa.

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/world/2011/10/11/safrica-biker-antelope.maxcluer-com

Thursday, October 6, 2011

Proposed Legislation by the Guillotine Governor...

In case you care about your civil rights and in case you want to be able to hold individuals and companies that harm you, intentionally or unintentionally, then you should read the following and contact your Representative and tell them to oppose the following proposed legislation.

Why?  Cause as I have said before, this is not about right versus left, or republican versus democrat.  No... this is about good versus evil.  This is about the citizens of Wisconsin versus the devil incarnate (Gov. Walker).  This is about protection of the rights of the citizens of Wisconsin.

You have to understand that these bills do not just effect lawyers or democrats adversely.  These proposed bills EFFECT EVERY SINGLE PERSON IN WISCONSIN, regardless of income, race or political affiliation.

Have a consumer problem with a bank- sorry, cannot help you because Guillotine Governor capped attorney's fees, so now you have to have a huge economic loss in order to make bringing the case viable.

Did and FDA approved drug kill a loved one?  To bad, we cannot help you because the Guillotine Governor has granted immunity in this area.  But condolences.

I have already discussed how his "jobs" bill/ legislation is just a cozy, inspiring front to what really is an all out attack on the citizens of Wisconsin.  He wants to demolish your right to hold someone accountable when that person or entity harms you.  He wants to sleep with big business and take the money they leave on the night stand after they are done with him.  And this is all at the expense of the rights of the citizens of Wisconsin, who he and big business could not give a shit about.  Screw accountability, make money!

Here are drafts of the proposed bills:


2011 − 2012 LEGISLATURE
2011 BILL
AN ACT to amend 895.047 (1) (intro.); and to create 895.0475 of the statutes; relating to: providing immunity from liability to drug and device manufacturers and sellers under certain circumstances.

Analysis by the Legislative Reference Bureau
            This bill provides immunity from liability to a manufacturer or a seller of a drug or device for any claim based on strict liability for a defect in the drug or device if the drug or device was approved by the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) at the time the drug or device left the control of the manufacturer or seller. The bill also provides immunity from liability to a manufacturer or seller of a drug or device for any claim based on the failure to warn of the risk of the drug or device if labeling for the drug or device was made available to the consumer or the person who prescribed the drug or device and the labeling was in compliance with applicable standards established by the FDA at the time the drug or device left the control of the manufacturer or seller.

            The bill defines a “device” as an instrument, apparatus, implement, machine, contrivance, implant, in vitro reagent or other similar or related article, including any component, part, or accessory, which does not achieve any of its principal intended purposes through chemical action within or on the body of a person or other animal, is not dependent upon being metabolized for the achievement of any of its principal intended purposes, and is: (a) recognized by the U.S. pharmacopoeia and national formulary or official homeopathic pharmacopoeia of the United States, or any supplement to either of them; (b) intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease or other conditions in persons or other animals; or (c) intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of persons or other animals. The bill defines a “drug” as: 1) any substance recognized as a drug in the official U.S. pharmacopoeia and national formulary or official homeopathic pharmacopoeia of the United States or any supplement to either of them; 2) any substance intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease or other conditions in persons or other animals; 3) any substance other than a device or food intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of persons or other animals; or 4) any substance intended for use as a component of any article specified in items 1) to 3), above, but does not include gases or devices or articles intended for use or consumption in or for mechanical, industrial, manufacturing, or scientific applications or purposes. The bill defines a “manufacturer” as an entity licensed or approved by the FDA to engage in the manufacture of drugs or devices. The bill defines an “entity” as a corporation, partnership, or association.

The people of the state of Wisconsin, represented in senate and assembly, do enact as follows:
SECTION 1. 895.047 (1) (intro.) of the statutes, as created by 2011 Wisconsin Act
2, is amended to read:
            895.047 (1) LIABILITY OF MANUFACTURER. (intro.) In Except as provided in s. 895.0475, in an action for damages caused by a manufactured product based on a claim of strict liability, a manufacturer is liable to a claimant if the claimant establishes all of the following by a preponderance of the evidence:
            SECTION 2. 895.0475 of the statutes is created to read:
895.0475 Product liability; drugs and devices. (1) DEFINITIONS. In this section:
            (a) “Device” has the meaning given in s. 450.01 (6).
            (b) “Drug” has the meaning given in s. 450.01 (10).
            (c) “Entity” means a corporation, partnership, or association.
            (d) “Manufacturer” means an entity licensed or approved by the federal food and drug administration to engage in the manufacture of drugs or devices, consistent with the definition of “manufacturer” under the federal food and drug administration’s regulations and interpreted guidances implementing the federal Prescription Drug Marketing Act.

            (2) LIABILITY OF MANUFACTURER OR SELLER; STRICT LIABILITY. Except as provided in sub. (4), a manufacturer or a seller of a drug or device is immune from civil liability for any claim based on strict liability for a defect in the design of a drug or device if the drug or device was approved for safety and efficacy by the federal food and drug administration at the time the drug or device left the control of the manufacturer or seller. A drug or device approved pursuant to the procedures under section 510 (k) of the federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, 21 USC 360, shall not be considered approved for safety and efficacy by the federal food and drug administration for the purposes of this subsection.

            (3) LIABILITY OF MANUFACTURER OR SELLER; FAILURE TO WARN. Except as provided in sub. (4), a manufacturer or a seller of a drug or device is immune from civil liability for any claim based on the failure to adequately warn of risk of a drug or device if labeling for the drug or device was made available to the consumer or to the person who prescribed the drug or device to the consumer and the labeling was in compliance with the federal food and drug administration’s applicable standards for labeling at the time the drug or device left the control of the manufacturer or seller.

            (4) EXCEPTION; FRAUD. Immunity under subs. (2) and (3) shall not extend to a claim brought against a manufacturer or a seller of a drug or device if the federal food and drug administration determines that the manufacturer or seller committed a fraud against the federal food and drug administration with regard to the product at issue in the claim.

            SECTION 3.0Initial applicability.

             (1) The treatment of section 895.0475 (2) of the statutes first applies to a claim based on strict liability commenced on the effective date of this subsection.
            (2) The treatment of section 895.0475 (3) of the statutes first applies to a claim based on failure to warn of risk commenced on the effective date of this subsection.
(END)



2011 − 2012 LEGISLATURE
2011 BILL
AN ACT to create 814.045 of the statutes; relating to: factors for determining the reasonableness of attorney fees.

Analysis by the Legislative Reference Bureau

            Under current law, in certain civil actions a court may grant reasonable attorney fees to a prevailing party or may be asked to determine whether attorney fees sought by a party are reasonable. Under this bill, to determine whether to award attorney fees and whether the attorney fees are reasonable, the court must consider several factors.

            Under the bill, the factors that the court must consider include the time and labor required by the attorney, the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved, and the complexity of the case; the skills needed to perform the legal service properly; the likelihood that the acceptance of the particular case prevented the attorney from accepting other work; the fee customarily charged in the locality for similar legal services; the amount involved in the legal dispute and the results obtained; the fees granted in similar cases; the time limitations imposed by the client or by the circumstances; the nature and length of the professional relationship with the client; the experience, reputation, and ability of the attorney performing the services; whether the fee is fixed or contingent; and the legitimacy of any defenses raised in the case.

            The bill also limits attorney fees to three times the amount of compensatory damages awarded, except in cases where only nonmonetary relief is awarded or in cases involving both compensatory damages and nonmonetary relief. The bill does not place a limit on attorney fees in cases where only nonmonetary relief is awarded, so long as the court considers the factors set forth in the bill. In cases where both compensatory damages and nonmonetary relief is awarded, the bill sets forth a presumption that a reasonable attorney fee is not more than three times the amount of compensatory damages awarded, but allows a court to determine that a greater amount is reasonable if the court considers all of the factors set forth in the bill.

The people of the state of Wisconsin, represented in senate and assembly, do
enact as follows:

            SECTION 1. 814.045 of the statutes is created to read:

            814.045 Attorney fees; reasonableness. (1) Subject to sub. (2), in any action involving the award of attorney fees that are not governed by s. 814.04 (1) or involving a dispute over the reasonableness of attorney fees, the court shall, in determining whether to award attorney fees and in determining whether the attorney fees are reasonable, consider all of the following:
            (a) The time and labor required by the attorney.
            (b) The novelty and difficulty of the questions involved in the action.
            (c) The skill requisite to perform the legal service properly.
            (d) The likelihood that the acceptance of the particular case precluded other employment by the attorney.
            (e) The fee customarily charged in the locality for similar legal services.
            (f) The amount of damages involved in the action.
            (g) The results obtained in the action.
            (h) The time limitations imposed by the client or by the circumstances of the action.
            (i) The nature and length of the attorney’s professional relationship with his or her client.
            (j) The experience, reputation, and ability of the attorney.
            (k) Whether the fee is fixed or contingent.
            (L) The complexity of the case.
            (m) Awards of costs and fees in similar cases.
            (n) The legitimacy or strength of any defenses or affirmative defenses asserted in the action.
            (p) Other factors the court deems important or necessary to consider under the circumstances of the case.

            (2) (a) Except as provided in par. (c), in any action in which compensatory damages are awarded, reasonable attorney fees may not exceed 3 times the amount of the compensatory damages awarded.
            (b) In any action in which compensatory damages are not awarded but injunctive or declaratory relief, rescission or modification, or specific performance is ordered, reasonable attorney fees shall be determined according to the factors set forth in sub. (1).
            (c) In any action in which compensatory damages are awarded and injunctive or declaratory relief, rescission or modification, or specific performance is ordered, the court shall presume that reasonable attorney fees do not exceed 3 times the amount of the compensatory damages awarded, but this presumption may be overcome if the court determines, after considering the factors set forth in sub. (1), that a greater amount is reasonable.
(END)





Also, check out this great article on the horrific impact these proposed will have if passed, which are similar to the bill passed in Michigan:

http://centerjd.org/archives/studies/MIDrugImmunityF.pdf

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE contact your Representative and tell them to oppose these bills.  This effects everyone on all sides of the political spectrum.