Green and performance luxury needn’t be mutually exclusive concepts. That’s a core belief at Audi. Today, that philosophy paid off with the all-new A3 TDI earning the prestigious title of 2010 Green Car of the Year at the Los Angeles Auto show.
The 2010 Audi A3 TDI arrived at U.S. dealerships last month and initial sales have been promising. The A3 TDI is the latest example of the fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions benefits provided by the critically acclaimed TDI clean diesel product line, following the wildly popular Q7 TDI, which launched in June 2009.
The revolutionary TDI 2.0 engine available in the A3 delivers 140 hp and 236 lb-ft of torque, yet achieves an EPA-estimated 42 mpg highway fuel economy that is the best of any luxury car sold in America. That means the Audi A3 TDI achieve 50 per cent better fuel economy than a comparable gasoline engine.
TDI clean diesel technology was first developed by Audi 20 years ago and has come to signify the brand’s commitment to trailblazing automotive performance executed in an environmentally responsible way. In addition to setting the new industry standard in fuel efficiency, the 2010 A3 TDI remains a stylistic pacesetter as well.
Toyota Motor Corp’s market-leading hybrid was widely seen as the front-runner for the prize by virtue of its huge commercial success and its status as the most fuel-efficient mass-market sedan on the road. But Ron Cogan, editor of Green Car, said jurors were impressed that the Audi A3 with TDI, which stands for turbo diesel direct injection, achieved “50 percent better fuel efficiency than the gasoline-engine (A3 model) without sacrificing anything.” “The Audi A3 TDI really defines what a ‘green’ car should be,” added Cogan.
When California Vehicle Code Section 27360 is cited as being the primary collision factor for an auto accident in California, and the person found to be in violation of this Vehicle Code Section is the other driver involved in your accident, this can greatly assist a personal injury lawyer in settling your accident insurance claim for a substantial settlement or even the policy limits if your injuries are extensive. This is even more true in the case of fatal accidents which cause one or more fatalities. Although a traffic collision report is not evidence, insurance companies treat them as if they are as discussed below.
However, due to how insurance companies treat individuals without an attorney, a person injured in an auto accident should always retain an attorney to represent them at the earliest possible date after an accident. Unless you haven’t been injured and won’t be needing medical treatment, an experienced and reputable personal injury lawyer will almost always be able to obtain a considerably larger settlement from an insurance company and a larger amount for you, even after the attorney’s fees and costs are paid.
At the Law Firm of Sebastian Gibson, we work on a contingency fee basis, which means that unless we obtain a settlement or judgement in your case, there is no fee payable to us. Even if we’ve incurred costs, such as the costs of obtaining your medical records, no fee is payable to us, unless we obtain a settlement or judgement in your favor. Starting with the personal injury consultation which is also free, and which can be by phone or in person depending on our mutual availability, you never receive a bill from us on any case we take on contingency. Unlike other attorneys who ask you to pay the costs involved with your case, we simply don’t believe you should have to pay those costs yourself.
We’ll also advise you how to obtain reimbursement for your car repairs or if your vehicle is totaled, for the value of your vehicle, and any amount you receive for the vehicle is yours to be used by you for the repairs or to replace your vehicle. At the Law Offices of Sebastian Gibson we never take any portion of your property damage settlement and we can also advise you how to obtain payment for a new child safety seat if one was in use at the time of the accident.
California Vehicle Code Section 27360 provides:
27360. (a) A parent or legal guardian, when present in a motor vehicle, as defined in Section 27315, may not permit his or her child or ward to be transported upon a highway in the motor vehicle without properly securing the child or ward in a rear seat in a child passenger restraint system meeting applicable federal motor vehicle safety standards, unless the child or ward is one of the following: (1) Six years of age or older. (2) Sixty pounds or more. (b) (1) A driver may not transport on a highway a child in a motor vehicle, as defined in Section 27315, without properly securing the child in a rear seat in a child passenger restraint system meeting applicable federal motor vehicle safety standards, unless the child is one of the following: (A) Six years of age or older. (B) Sixty pounds or more. (2) This subdivision does not apply to a driver if the parent or legal guardian of the child is also present in the vehicle and is not the driver. (c) (1) For purposes of subdivisions (a) and (b), and except as provided in paragraph (2), a child or ward under the age of six years who weighs less than 60 pounds may ride in the front seat of a motor vehicle, if properly secured in a child passenger restraint system that meets applicable federal motor vehicle safety standards, under any of the following circumstances: (A) There is no rear seat. (B) The rear seats are side-facing jump seats. (C) The rear seats are rear-facing seats. (D) The child passenger restraint system cannot be installed properly in the rear seat. (E) All rear seats are already occupied by children under the age of 12 years. (F) Medical reasons necessitate that the child or ward not ride in the rear seat. The court may require satisfactory proof of the child’ s medical condition. (2) A child or ward may not ride in the front seat of a motor vehicle with an active passenger airbag if the child or ward is one of the following: (A) Under one year of age. (B) Less than 20 pounds. (C) Riding in a rear-facing child passenger restraint system. (d) (1) (A) A first offense under this section is punishable by a fine of one hundred dollars ($100), except that the court may reduce or waive the fine if the defendant establishes to the satisfaction of the court that he or she is economically disadvantaged, and the court, instead, refers the defendant to a community education program that includes, but is not limited to, education on the proper installation and use of a child passenger restraint system for children of all ages, and provides certification to the court of completion of that program. Upon completion of the program, the defendant shall provide proof of participation in the program. If an education program on the proper installation and use of a child passenger restraint system is not available within 50 miles of the residence of the defendant, the requirement to participate in that program shall be waived. If the fine is paid, waived, or reduced, the court shall report the conviction to the department pursuant to Section 1803. (B) The court may require a defendant described under this section to attend an education program that includes demonstration of proper installation and use of a child passenger restraint system and provides certification to the court that the defendant has presented for inspection a child passenger restraint system that meets applicable federal safety standards. (2) (A) A second or subsequent offense under this section is punishable by a fine of two hundred fifty dollars ($250), no part of which may be waived by the court, except that the court may reduce or waive the fine if the defendant establishes to the satisfaction of the court that he or she is economically disadvantaged, and the court, instead, refers the defendant to a community education program that includes, but is not limited to, education on the proper installation and use of child passenger restraint systems for children of all ages, and provides certification to the court of completion of that program. Upon completion of the program, the defendant shall provide proof of participation in the program. If an education program on the proper installation and use of a child passenger restraint system is not available within 50 miles of the residence of the defendant, the requirement to participate in that program shall be waived. If the fine is paid, waived, or reduced, the court shall report the conviction to the department pursuant to Section 1803. (B) The court may require a defendant described under this section to attend an education program that includes demonstration of proper installation and use of a child passenger restraint system and provides certification to the court that the defendant has presented for inspection a child passenger restraint system that meets applicable federal safety standards. (e) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the fines collected for a violation of this section shall be allocated as follows: (1) (A) Sixty percent to health departments of local jurisdictions where the violation occurred, to be used for a community education program that includes, but is not limited to, demonstration of the installation of a child passenger restraint system for children of all ages and also assists an economically disadvantaged family in obtaining a restraint system through a low-cost purchase or loan. The county or city health department shall designate a coordinator to facilitate the creation of a special account and to develop a relationship with the court system to facilitate the transfer of funds to the program. The county or city may contract for the implementation of the program. Prior to obtaining possession of a child passenger restraint system pursuant to this section, a person shall attend an education program that includes demonstration of proper installation and use of a child passenger restraint system. (B) As the proceeds from fines become available, county or city health departments shall prepare and maintain a listing of all child passenger restraint low-cost purchase or loaner programs in their counties, including a semiannual verification that all programs listed are in existence. Each county or city shall forward the listing to the Office of Traffic Safety in the Business, Transportation and Housing Agency and the courts, birthing centers, community child health and disability prevention programs, county clinics, prenatal clinics, women, infants, and children programs, and county hospitals in that county, who shall make the listing available to the public. The Office of Traffic Safety shall maintain a listing of all of the programs in the state. (2) Twenty-five percent to the county or city for the administration of the program. (3) Fifteen percent to the city, to be deposited in its general fund except that, if the violation occurred in an unincorporated area, this amount shall be allocated to the county for purposes of paragraph (1).
When a Police or CHP Officer, or a Sheriff’s Deputy states in his or her report either that the primary collision factor in an auto accident was one party’s violation of a certain vehicle code section such as the one above, and that one of the parties is at fault for violating that code section, the Officer or Deputy is stating what he or she believes to be the underlying cause of the accident.
The reason insurance companies treat the collision reports as if they are admissible evidence is that they know if put on the witness stand, the investigating officer or deputy will almost always testify in a manner consistent with the conclusions in his or her report. That testimony becomes evidence and will often sway a jury in their determination of fault for an accident.
While an investigating officer’s job is to determine if there was a violation of the law and not to determine who should be at fault in a civil dispute such as a car accident claim, insurance companies often view these two determinations as one and the same.
A police officer assigned to investigate the scene of an accident does not have the role that a trier of fact does in a courtroom. The officer is not there to render a verdict and determine who is responsible for the damages. Rather, the officer is there to determine if any laws were broken. The officer makes such a determination based on his or her having seen the damage to the vehicles, and having spoken to the drivers and the witnesses when their memories are freshest. He or she is thus often in a position to make a well-educated determination of who caused the accident.
Unfortunately, despite the experience of most investigating officers who are dispatched to the scene of an accident, sometimes mistakes are made by these officers. Quite often one or both parties to an accident will lie to them and an officer or deputy will not always be able to determine which of the parties is telling the truth. The evidence from the scene, while important, may also be misleading as to what actually occurred to cause the accident.
If you’ve been injured in an auto, truck, motorcycle, bike, pedestrian or car accident, or if you’ve lost a loved one in a wrongful death vehicle accident, call our offices for a free personal injury consultation by phone. You can also e-mail Attorney Sebastian Gibson at sgibsonesq@aol.com Additionally, we invite you to visit the Sebastian Gibson law firm website for more information at www.CaliforniaAttorneysLawyers.com
Sometimes an Officer or Deputy cannot determine with any degree of certainty which party was at fault and will cite two possible Vehicle Code Sections, one for each party in a two-party collision, that may have been violated. In that case, the Police or CHP Officer or Deputy will often state that the primary collision factor is unknown.
Even if there are witnesses to an accident, the Officer of Deputy may discount the statements of some or all of the witnesses if they were friends or relatives of one of the drivers.
Although, as stated above, the conclusion of fault by an officer or deputy does not carry the same weight as a determination of fault by a judge or jury, the importance of the citation of this or any other California code section in the police report is that insurance companies treat the conclusions in these traffic collision reports in a great majority of cases as if the conclusions were written in stone and evaluate a party’s claim based on the findings of fault in these reports.
A traffic collision report may be amended by the police department or the CHP where it contains obvious mistakes, such as when the officer or deputy has mixed up the names of the parties. Supplemental reports are sometimes written when new evidence comes to light, such as when a hit and run party is located. But for the most part, most police departments, Sheriff’s offices and the California Highway Patrol will not amend a report when a party complains and states why he or she doesn’t feel they should have been found at fault for a collision. They will, however, in most cases allow a person to fill out a Counter Report, which, unfortunately simply does not carry much weight with an insurance company.
If the Primary Collision Factor for an accident is unknown, one should look on the traffic collision report to see if the Police or California Highway Patrol Officer or Sheriff’s Deputy cited any “Other Associated Factors” in the traffic collision report as having had a role to play in causing the collision. There may have been faulty equipment, as with some truck accidents, or the roadway itself may have been dangerous.
If you’ve been injured in an auto accident in California that has been determined by the investigating Police or CHP Officer or a Sheriff’s Deputy to be the fault of another driver as a result of his or her violation of Vehicle Code Section 27360, call the Law Offices of Sebastian Gibson as soon after an accident as possible before important evidence disappears, such as skid marks that are washed away with the rain.
At the Law Firm of Sebastian Gibson, we specialize in California auto accidents caused by violations of the California Vehicle Code, such as Section 27360, and will represent you to obtain the compensation you deserve for your injuries.
In over thirty years of practice, Attorney Sebastian Gibson has obtained millions of dollars in settlements and multiple million dollar or larger settlements. We handle auto accident cases on a contingency fee basis so there is no fee payable unless we win your case and obtain either a settlement, an arbitration, mediation, jury, judge or court award.
If you’ve been injured in an auto accident, call to speak with a lawyer at our offices for a free personal injury consultation by phone. You can speak to Attorney Sebastian Gibson personally by phone or you can e-mail Sebastian Gibson at sgibsonesq@aol.com or visit the Sebastian Gibson law firm website at www.CaliforniaAttorneysLawyers.com
blog that allows people to release, highlighting in the real world has been suppressed individuality and freedom, which are popular crowd. However, the blog are by no means entirely free, their freedom can only be enjoyed within the limits of the law. In fact, the blog they enjoy the blog, they is not easy.
Blog legal issues often involve two types of subjects: one for the blog, one for the blog service providers. Blog is the right blog page, but it may be infringing or offenders. Blog service providers mainly provide technical support, including web servers used to store blog space and used to create, modify, blog software, web pages, templates, or interface. By their nature, blog service providers belong to the IHP (Internet HostProvider, Internet storage service providers) rather than ICP (InternetContentProvider, Internet content provider). Blog and blog service providers may face a variety of legal issues, tentatively be grouped into two categories of public law issues and private issues.
Blog service providers is difficult to define the identity attributes
That the real problem is the network of public law regulation (InternetGovernance) problem. Although our regulatory system in the network there is evident lack of theoretical studies, but the network surveillance system of legal norms can not say that developed. Promulgated in 1994, “The People’s Republic of China Regulations on Protection of Computer Information System Security” to the newly published “electronic authentication service management approach”, rough math, laws, administrative regulations and departmental rules and regulations will have 50 or so, as local regulations, and regulations, it had too numerous to mention. Overall, they have three characteristics: First, rank is not high, with laws, rules and regulations majority; Second, the system confusing and even contradictory to each other; the three, less reasonable, or even inoperable. For example, first of all, according to the “Internet Information Services” (2000), engage in business information services, permission should be obtained (ICP license), engaged in non-commercial information service should record the registration; operational and non-operational distinction between the standard user fee for access to information. Blog service providers (hereinafter referred to as B-IHP) should fall within the types of services provided by it? The majority of cases, B-IHP was neither charged to your blog, or as visitors to the ordinary user fees, seem to be non-commercial sexual services. However, B-IHP usually exists in the form of companies and in advertising and other means of profit, with the traditional Sina, Sohu and other ISP (InternetServiceProvider, Internet service providers, ICP’s commonly known) is similar to another wrong classified as non-operating services. Go from here is really difficult decision. Of course, some B-IHP run by individuals to provide non-commercial sexual services. However, in order to fulfill the required non-business services, filing procedures, and they had anchored a particular institution, is affiliated units in the acquisition, “affiliated interests” at the same time, have to bear the legal obligations to be borne by ICP. In addition, in accordance with “The Internet Station Management in covering business, Interim Regulations” and other laws and regulations, which contain news, educational, medical, pharmaceutical and other information needed to access the blog site are specifically allowed by the competent department will undoubtedly increase the operation of B-IHP costs and legal risks. It is noteworthy that both the laws and regulations set over against the ISP, just ignore the occasion in the blog, the real information providers is not a B-IHP, but the blog. In other words, blog, or blog with the B-IHP, is the real information service providers; ordinary Internet users (those who blog web browsing, but also blog I) is the real recipients of information services. So let B-IHP alone as an administrative obligations are not appropriate.
Second, according to “Internet Information Services”, B-IHP as the Internet information service providers, shall not produce, reproduce, publish, disseminate illegal information, or bear administrative or criminal liability; while according to “Internet electronic bulletin service management requirements,” B-IHP are electronic bulletin board service providers, Internet users (blog) deal with responsibility for the information released, B-IHP is only after the discovery of illegal information on the negative obligations immediately removed. “Rules” and “provides that” B-IHP obligations require significantly different. The former belongs to administrative regulations, departmental rules and regulations as a rank higher than the latter; but the latter specifically for the purposes of the former by the legislature, release time than the former night, has a special law priority. One can imagine that — Web blog: The law gives little freedom — published from insurance information www.autoinsurancequotes3.com
Did you ever go on those family roadtrips growing up? Depending on how many kids there were in your family may have had an influence on whether you enjoyed them or not.
I, for one, loved family roadtrips at the start of the journey, but not so much on the way back home since everyone tends to be tired and just wants to get back home now.
My reason for loving them so much is because you get to go somewhere new, and it was always an adventure. And of course you have got to love those candy stops at the has stations.
Well, the reason this post is so late is because I am just on my way back from a roadtrip with my boyfriend. We didnt go very far, but it was a fun afternoon trip to see his family. Now it’s later at night and were on our drive home as I write out this post on my ghetto cellphone. I just couldnt miss a reason to smile.
I dont think I will ever outgrow my love for roadtrips. Even though my boyfriend does not quite share that same enjoyment about them. But I definitely hope to go on many of them with our future family.
So I think you all should go on a roadtrip soon. Grab friends or family, some munchies, tunes, and of course, a camera. Then do not forget to smile. : )
A violation of California Vehicle Code Section 21658 is one of the Vehicle Code Sections that can be cited as being the primary collision factor for an auto accident in California. This is true whether the accident only caused injuries or if the accident was a fatal accident which caused one or more fatalities.
California Vehicle Code Section 21658 provides:
21658. Whenever any roadway has been divided into two or more clearly marked lanes for traffic in one direction, the following rules apply: (a) A vehicle shall be driven as nearly as practical entirely within a single lane and shall not be moved from the lane until such movement can be made with reasonable safety. (b) Official signs may be erected directing slow-moving traffic to use a designated lane or allocating specified lanes to traffic moving in the same direction, and drivers of vehicles shall obey the directions of the traffic device.
When a Police or CHP Officer, or a Sheriff’s Deputy states in his or her report either that the primary collision factor in an auto accident was one party’s violation of a certain vehicle code section such as the one above, and that one of the parties is at fault for violating that code section, the Officer or Deputy is stating what he or she believes to be the underlying cause of the accident.
If you’ve been injured in an auto, truck, motorcycle, bike, pedestrian or car accident, or if you’ve lost a loved one in a wrongful death vehicle accident, call our offices for a free personal injury consultation by phone. You can also e-mail Attorney Sebastian Gibson at SgibsonEsq@aol.com Additionally, we invite you to visit the Sebastian Gibson law firm website for more information at www.SebastianGibsonLaw.com
Sometimes an Officer or Deputy cannot determine with any degree of certainty which party was at fault and will cite two possible Vehicle Code Sections, one for each party in a two-party collision, that may have been violated. In that case, the Police or CHP Officer or Deputy will often state that the primary collision factor is unknown.
Even if there are witnesses to an accident, the Officer of Deputy may discount the statements of some or all of the witnesses if they were friends or relatives of one of the drivers.
Although the conclusion of fault by an officer or deputy does not carry the same weight as a determination of fault by a judge or jury, insurance companies treat the conclusions in these traffic collision reports in a great majority of cases as if the conclusions were written in stone and evaluate a party’s claim based on the findings of fault in these reports.
A traffic collision report may be amended by the police department or the CHP where it contains obvious mistakes, such as when the officer or deputy has mixed up the names of the parties. Supplemental reports are sometimes written when new evidence comes to light, such as when a hit and run party is located. But for the most part, most police departments, Sheriff’s offices and the California Highway Patrol will not amend a report when a party complains and states why he or she doesn’t feel they should have been found at fault for a collision. They will, however, in most cases allow a person to fill out a Counter Report, which, unfortunately simply does not carry much weight with an insurance company.
If the Primary Collision Factor for an accident is unknown, one should look on the traffic collision report to see if the Police or California Highway Patrol Officer or Sheriff’s Deputy cited any “Other Associated Factors” in the traffic collision report as having had a role to play in causing the collision. There may have been faulty equipment, as with some truck accidents, or the roadway itself may have been dangerous.
If you’ve been injured in an auto accident in California that has been determined by the investigating Police or CHP Officer or a Sheriff’s Deputy to be the fault of another driver as a result of his or her violation of Vehicle Code Section 21658, call the Law Offices of Sebastian Gibson today at (800) 589-3202.
At the Law Firm of Sebastian Gibson, we specialize in California auto accidents caused by violations of the California Vehicle Code, such as this section 21658, and will represent you to obtain the compensation you deserve for your injuries.
In over thirty years of practice, Attorney Sebastian Gibson has obtained millions of dollars in settlements and multiple million dollar or larger settlements. We handle auto accident cases on a contingency fee basis so there is no fee payable unless we win your case and obtain either a settlement, an arbitration, mediation, jury, judge or court award.
Due to how insurance companies treat individuals without an attorney, a person injured in an auto accident will almost always receive a greater amount from a settlement, even after attorneys’ fees, if the case is handled from the start by an experienced and reputable personal injury lawyer.
If you’ve been injured in an auto accident, call to speak with a lawyer at our offices for a free personal injury consultation by phone. You can speak to Attorney Sebastian Gibson by calling (800) 589-3202 or you can e-mail the Sebastian Gibson law firm at SgibsonEsq@aol.com
Additionally, we invite you to visit the Sebastian Gibson law firm website at www.SebastianGibsonLaw.com
With heavy rain, closed roads, cancelled trains and homes flooded, Scotland has been inundated with bad weather the past few days and it has played havoc in the north and the east. A man in his 60’s has died after his car was in collision with a lorry in Stonehaven Aberdeenshire; police believe the weather could have been a factor. With 50 people being evacuated from their home and many more forced to move to the upper stories of their properties including dozens of elderly people out of their care home in local town Huntly – its proving a scary time for the Scots of Aberdeenshire. Its one thing driving a big Ford around Scotland, it’s quite another when you’re living in water.
As a college student this time of year is the busiest time of year for me. I have found that do to that my mind wanders around a lot during this time. Therefore…I am now officially on the whirlwind downhill battle of a balancing act…called my life during the Finals.
To start, I did indeed have an amazing thanksgiving and break. I was able to enjoy being away from the constant go-go of school and my job. I loved riding the horses, get some homework done, and even get sleep. I met some of my best friend’s friends. It was not as productive as it could have been but it was a lot less stressful then typical. However, then end was long and kinda stressful: 14 hours in a car, a trip that should have been 7-8 hours even though we stop for lunch at another friend’s house. To illustrate how bad it was…it took us 4 hours to make it a distance that typically takes no more than an hour and a half, granted that is the story of travelling Thanksgiving Sunday. However there were some highlights : Singing “Do I” with all of the appropriate answers; having more than one theme song for that trip : “Gotta felling” and “Fifteen” were two of them; AND seeing a Skittles-mobile, which I took a picture of and will post (rather update this post) as soon as I am less-tired and more computer-savvy.
That was a great start to my “downhill battle”…..it is a battle to balance everything and downhill because it will keep getting shorter and shorter (or closer and closer to break/finals). The nice thing is I can see the light at the end of the tunnel but the sad thing is the is a TON to do before that gets here….so yeah….FUN (plz note the rolling of eyes). SO with that…I sign off to do the good thing a get sleep.
P.S. Coolness on the military stats: I am proud to be the daughter of a member of largest (statistical) branch of the military.
