вторник, 27 октября 2015 г.

uSystem For Recalling Defective Tires Is “Broken,” Says Federal Safety Agencyr


4 4 4 9
  • (meabbott)

    When a manufacturer recalls a vehicle for a safety defect, they’re required to contact owners of the affected models and provide a remedy for the issue free of charge. But federal investigators say this sort of smooth recall just isn’t possible for tires because the current tire recall system is “completely broken.”

    A new report [PDF] from the National Transportation Safety Board details how the national system for recalling defective and potentially dangerous tires isn’t working, leaving consumers on the road at risk.

    “Today’s report…uncovered several issues, some of which are systemic, that consumers cannot address on their own,” National Transportation Safety Board Chairman Christopher Hart said. “The current system for tire registration and recalls has proven ineffective.”

    According to the report, only 1-in-5 defective tires are removed from the road through the safety recall process.

    Another 24% of recalled tires are actually taken off the road for other reasons – normal wear and tear or damage, the Associated Press reports. That leaves nearly 56% of defective, recalled tires on the roadways.

    “Based on the work we did, that system is not working,” Rob Molloy, head of the NTSB investigations, said. “It is completely broken.”

    In all, investigators say about 539 people were killed and 19,000 injured in tire-related accidents last year, although it’s unclear how many of those were a result of recalled tires, the AP reports.

    At the core of the system’s failing is the inability of manufacturers to contact tire owners about recalls.

    Currently, there is no requirement for tire dealers to register the products they sell with the manufacturer.

    And because most dealers don’t take the time to do so, it is difficult for manufacturers to determine who owns the tires and to contact them.

    While consumers can take it upon themselves to register their tires with the manufacturers, NTSB’s investigation found that often doesn’t happen.

    “Few people are aware that tires must be registered so that they can be recalled if they are defective,” Chris Hart, the safety board’s chairman, said.

    NTSB expressed concern with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s tire recall website, noting that it can be confusing for consumers searching for information about their tires.

    As a result of the year-long study, NTBS passed on 11 safety recommendations to NHTSA and Congress, including one that would require the registration of new tires. Registration would consist of a consumer’s name, phone number, address, email address and the identification number of the car.

    The board also suggested that manufacturers create a Tire Identification Number lookup system on their websites or include scannable chips inside tires so that issues can be easily identified.

    [via The Associated Press]



ribbi
  • by Ashlee Kieler
  • via Consumerist


uUPS Predicts 630 Million Packages Between Thanksgiving And December 31r


4 4 4 9
  • (So Cal Metro)
    FedEx predicted that they’ll process 317 million packages this holiday season between Thanksgiving and Christmas Day, and now UPS has made their own prediction public: they anticipate processing at least 630 million packages this year, an increase of 10% over last year. There are two problems with that figure: UPS has been really bad at predicting package volume the last two years, and more of those items are being shipped to residential addresses.

    What’s wrong with delivering to residential addresses? A lot, if you’re a delivery company: businesses tend to receive multiple packages at the same time, and multiple tenants in an office park, building, or shopping center means one stop for multiple packages. It’s hard for residential addresses to match that level of efficiency, even for apartment buildings in the most dense urban areas.

    To help with that problem, they’ll be encouraging customers to sign up for the UPS My Choice program, which lets them pay to choose a delivery window, redirect a shipment to where they’ll actually be, or have a critical package sent to a nearby UPS Store or other retailer. As frustrating as “Sorry we missed you!” notices are for customers, they’re even more frustrating for UPS drivers, who have to make multiple trips to the same house. It doesn’t hurt that they collect money on the more advanced MyChoice features and for redirecting packages.

    The change to shipping by dimensional weight, which charges shippers for the space that a package takes up in a plane or truck in addition to its weight, should also help UPS with their whole money-making endeavor.

    Online shopping to drive record holiday shipments for UPS [Atlanta Journal-Constitution]



ribbi
  • by Laura Northrup
  • via Consumerist


uReminder: Shattering A Glass Door Will Not Lead To Cheaper Sausage Biscuits At Waffle Houser


4 4 4 9
  • (lungstruck)
    Getting upset when you find out a beloved menu item costs more today than yesterday is completely understandable, but damaging a restaurant’s property will not do anything to mitigate that problem. To that end, police in Georgia say a man who was enraged over the increase price of Waffle House’s sausage biscuits shattered a glass door on his way out of the restaurant.

    According to law enforcement on the scene early Sunday morning, a 39-year-old man became irate upon receiving his check when he saw that the price of biscuits had gone from $1 to $1.50, reports The Smoking Gun.

    First he threw his bill to the floor, and then stormed out — allegedly punching the door as he went, breaking the glass. Police officers tackled him outside the Waffle House and arrested him for felony damage to business property, as well as criminal trespass and disorderly conduct, both misdemeanors.

    He claimed he “barely kicked the door” as he was leaving, because “he not want to open the greasy door with his hand,” according to a police report.

    Local police offered some advice to fellow biscuit lovers on their Facebook page: “When the Waffle House employee tells you the sausage biscuit is no longer $1 and the new price is $1.50 please refrain from punching the glass door open while storming out. Glass tends to shatter when met with such force and you will be swiftly taken into custody.”

    Meanwhile, we’re pretty sure biscuit prices remain at $1.50 at that Waffle House.

    Georgia Man, 39, Arrested Following Sausage Biscuit Rage Incident At Waffle House [The Smoking Gun]



ribbi
  • by Mary Beth Quirk
  • via Consumerist


uNew Campus Banking Rules Hope To Protect Students From High Prepaid Card Feesr


4 4 4 9
  • (Listener42)

    Back in May, the Department of Education proposed rules to govern college prepaid credit and debit cards in order to afford students proper protections from excess fees and other harmful practices. Fast forward five months, and those rules have are now finalized. 

    The Dept. of Education announced Tuesday that it had finalized regulations to protect students and the nearly $25 billion in federal student aid issued on debit and prepaid cards through college’s lucrative partnerships with credit card issuers.

    With about 40% of all postsecondary students enrolled in institutions that have debit or prepaid card agreements, the Dept. aims to protect students from aggressive marketing, restricted choices and high fees.

    “The final rules published today represent a continuation of our efforts,” Arne Duncan, Secretary of Education, said in a statement. “These regulations will… bring overdue reforms to campus cards, a sector that too often puts taxpayer dollars and student consumers at risk.”

    Under the Department’s final campus banking rule, students will be able to freely choose how to receive their Federal student aid refunds, will no longer be forced to pay excessive fees to access their funds and will be given objective and neutral information about their financial aid disbursement options.

    PROTECTION FROM FEES
    While much of the Department’s final rule deals with disclosures and ensuring that students’ funds are easily accessible, it also affords protections from costly fees that can dwindle funds quickly.

    Under the rule, institutions must ensure that students are not charged overdraft fees if students select an account offered directly or indirectly by contractors that assist institutions in making direct payments of federal student aid.

    Over the years, advocates and legislators have taken issue with the unreasonably high fees associated with actually using campus cards.

    While many agreements have cut back on the high fees associated with ATM and transaction usage, a Center For Responsible Lending report issued earlier this year found the cards are more advantageous to the banks than students.

    The report – which focuses on overdraft policies for ATM withdrawals and transactions present in many student banking accounts – determined that many of the accounts offered through exclusive deals between colleges and financial institutions include abusive practices that can quickly drain student aid funds.

    CRL examined eight debit card agreements identified by a Government Accountability Office report to determine what the annual cost of the products would be for students who incur two, seven and 19 overdrafts per year.

    While many of the cards examined by CRL touted low upfront costs, such as free monthly maintenance and free out-of-network ATM use, all but one included high-cost overdraft fees similar to those on more generally available bank accounts.

    Bank overdraft policies varied significantly between the seven institutions that charged the fees. The cheapest overdraft was reported to be $23 while the most expensive was $37. Additionally, the banks charged an array of extended fees if the account was negative for a certain number of days after the initial overdraft.

    CLEAR OBJECTIVE INFORMATION
    Currently, many schools provide students with campus IDs that double as credit and debt cards. At times, without being given a choice, these pieces of plastic are loaded with hundreds – sometimes thousands – of dollars in student federal aid refunds.

    Consumer advocates and legislators have long debated whether or not this action provides an actual benefit to students or if it’s just a way for schools and banks to rake in the big bucks.

    According to a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau report from Dec. 2014, colleges that provided such cards received nearly $43 million in royalties and bonuses through marketing partnerships with credit card issuers.

    Advocates have raised concerns about the ability of colleges and universities to provide students with clear, objective options when it comes to federal loan disbursements if they have such marketing agreements.

    While these institutions are required under the CARD Act to make card issuer agreements available to the public online or upon request, an informal investigation by our colleagues at Consumers Union found it challenging, if not impossible, for a member of the public to obtain the information.

    Although the Department’s rule doesn’t ensure this data will be more easily obtainable, it does require an institution to provide students with a list of account options that they may choose from to receive their student aid refunds – including those other than the partnership issuer.

    Each option must be presented in a neutral manner. It must also be made clear that the student can have their student aid deposited to their preexisting bank account. If a student opts to have their funds added to a preexisting account, the school must ensure the deposit is made as timely as payments make to accounts marketed through the institution.

     

    A WELCOME CHANGE 
    The Department’s final rules quickly drew commendations from consumer advocates and regulators with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which has extensively investigated college credit and debit cards.

    Maura Dundon, senior policy counsel at CRL, said in the statement that the rules will go a long way to protect students from the often deceptive and unfair nature of college-bank marketing partnerships.

    “It is simply unconscionable for colleges to join forces with banks and their affiliates to push students into high-fee bank accounts that siphon away their financial aid money through overdraft fees,” she said. “The rule will prevent the student loan system from turning into a marketing platform for banks and their affiliates to gouge students.”

    Likewise, Suzanne Martindale, staff attorney for Consumers Union, commended the Dept. for its long-awaited action.

    “Students deserve safe and convenient access to their financial aid funds without incurring costly charges,” she said in a statement. “We applaud the Department of Education for taking action to protect students using campus banking products from aggressive marketing, restricted choices, and high fees.”

    CFPB director Richard Cordray was also quick to argue the importance of the Department’s rule, noting that it stands to protect millions of college students around the country.

    “Students deserve access to safe and affordable financial products,” Cordray said in a statement. “We applaud the Department of Education on these important steps to increase protections for our nation’s students. I look forward to continuing to work with them to help ensure all students are protected from harmful practices.”



ribbi
  • by Ashlee Kieler
  • via Consumerist


uIKEA Creates Stuffed Animals Based On Kids’ Drawings Because What Do Adults Know About Toys, Anyway?r


4 4 4 9
  • multibestWhile we’re sure there are a lot of very experienced, bright and imaginative adults out there designing toys, who knows what a kid wants better than a kid (see: Big)? That’s why IKEA is straying from the traditional, realistic stuffed animal and instead, offering plush toys straight out of the imaginations of a few lucky children.

    IKEA’s fundraising efforts this year through its Soft Toys for Education line led it to tap directly into the minds of kids, taking 10 winning entries and turning them into real stuffed animals.

    Each toy purchase will donate €1 toward children’s education projects via Unicef and Save the Children.

    As one might expect, the winners are pretty much the best thing ever, and will likely make you wish you were six years old again, with a huge, new box of crayons at your disposal. Here are a few more (full list of winners here and their real-life counterparts here), try to contain your squeals of delight:

    unicorn

    tigercomp

    blueguy

    greenguy

    batboth

    (h/t AdWeek)



ribbi
  • by Mary Beth Quirk
  • via Consumerist


u“1984” T-Shirt Designs Taken Down After Demand From George Orwell Estater


4 4 4 9
  • These are the apparently offending images singled out by the estate of George Orwell for allegedly violating the "1984" copyright.
    George Orwell’s 1984 imagined a bleak bureaucratic future where free speech was easily inhibited. Perhaps the people who run his estate (and certainly the people at Cafe Press) should read the book; or at least brush up on copyright basics.

    [NOTE: This story has been updated from its original version to reflect claims made by a rep for the Orwell estate.]

    TorrentFreak reports that the Orwell estate successfully petitioned CafePress to remove a handful of T-shirt designs that used a photo of the numbers “1984.”

    But exactly what was demanded by the estate is in question, as the literary rep who filed the claims with Cafe Press tells Consumerist that he was not targeting the design shown in the above screengrab, which features only the number “1984” and some scribbling that declares “is already here” in addition to the numbers.

    On thing that is certain is that the mere number “1984” is not eligible for copyright protection.

    U.S. Copyright Office regulations declare [PDF] that “words and short phrases” are not copyrightable.

    “Similarly, individual numbers, letters, sounds, and short phrases consisting of such elements are not copyrightable, because they do not contain sufficient creative authorship,” according to the Copyright folks.

    The copyright notice sent to Cafe Press referred to “George Orwell quotes” as being the offending content, but even if the phrase “is already here” is somewhere in the book 1984 (Disclosure: we haven’t had the time to re-read the book this afternoon), it’s such a generic phrase and so short in length that it most certainly does not merit copyright protection.

    In his statement to TorrentFreak, the estate rep seemed to defend the takedown demand.

    “The estate has never licensed merchandising, nor have the licensees of the relevant film rights, under which merchandising usually comes. Some of the merchandising I asked to be taken down was in clear breach of copyright,” he told TF.

    After we reached out to him, he first responded curtly that “This is completely misreported,” but answered subsequent questions claiming that he was targeting Cafe Press designs that used photos of George Orwell and quotes from the author. The rep says he does not believe that the estate holds a copyright on the number “1984.”

    All of which raises the question of why these “1984” shirt designs were removed if, as the rep claims, he did not demand their takedown.

    We’ve e-mailed and called the intellectual property agent at Cafe Press but have not yet received a reply.



ribbi
  • by Chris Morran
  • via Consumerist


uReport: Walgreens Boots Alliance Discussing Deal To Buy Rite Aidr


4 4 4 9
  • (oracorac)
    Walgreens Boots Alliance — the holding company that owns Walgreen Co. and Boots pharmacies in Europe — is reportedly looking to expand its portfolio of drug stores by adding Rite Aid into the mix.

    The Wall Street Journal cites insider sources who say the deal is expected to be announced Wednesday. There’s no price tag on it, but with Rite Aid currently valued at more than $6 billion, a typical premium takeover deal could see the company going for close to $10 billion.

    If the takeover is successful, it would combine the country’s second- and third-largest drugstore chains, the WSJ notes.

    The merger would be the latest in a recent spate of new combinations in the healthcare industry as companies try to lower costs and get more leverage with suppliers: health insurer Anthem is buying Cigna, and Aetna offered $37 billion for Humana.

    News of the possible merger seemed to please the stock market, as Rite Aid shares went up more than 40% Tuesday afternoon, while Walgreens shares rose about 4% after the report, CNBC notes.

    Walgreens Boots Alliance Nears Deal to Buy Rite Aid [Wall Street Journal]



ribbi
  • by Mary Beth Quirk
  • via Consumerist