Related Bicycletas De Alava (BH) manufacturer of the Global Concept Aero series of triathlon/time trial bikes has expanded its plant in Vitoria, Spain.The new and enlarged facility, which opened officially on 12 March, includes new offices and a fully robotised warehouse. This new facility shall also act as BH’s main distribution centre, from which more than 1,500 bicycles will be distributed worldwide every day.BH is also making noises about the new BH G4 Ultralight, a road bike that weighs in at only 5.4 kg (medium size) and which, according to the company, has become the lightest manufactured bike on the market.According to BH’s website, the Ultralight bicycle comes equipped with the new 11 speed Campagnolo Super-Record and American LEW wheels (manufactured using the latest aerospace technology). The Global Concept G4 PRO, with nanotechnology and integrated seat post made to measure for each customer, has a FSA plasma monocoque handlebar and a Prologo C-One saddle.www.bhbikes.com
Photo courtesy Rusty Leffel.Mission Hills photographer Rusty Leffel has been documenting life on America’s streets for years, and took his finely honed eye to the Donald Trump rally in downtown Kansas City in mid-March. The Social Documentary network just published a collection of his photos from the event on their website recently“Homemade signs, sincere expressions, children, young people – all cheer for a better America than that being experienced in the election,” Leffel wrote in his abstract for the gallery.You can check out Leffel’s photos from outside the rally here.
Questions from the Other Side: Defensive back Tsali Lough Jack WhiteSeptember 9, 2016Jump to CommentsShare on FacebookShare on TwitterShare via EmailPrintFor this weekly column, Minnesota Daily sports reporter Jack White will interview a player from Minnesota’s next opponent. Indiana State defensive back Tsali Lough was interviewed this week..Redshirt senior Tsali Lough, a veteran in the backfield for the Indiana State Sycamores, is a returning starter. He had an interception and a fumble recovery that he returned for a touchdown in Indiana State’s first game this season — a 41-25 victory over Butler. The Sycamores play the Gophers Saturday at TCF Bank Stadium.What’s it like to be a veteran on this defense now?It’s nice to see how all the new guys [that] have come in have been able to mold with the guys who have been here, and to see everybody really come together and work towards one goal.Jay Johnson, the offensive Coordinator for Minnesota, is in his first season of coaching the Gophers. How do you prepare for an offense that doesn’t necessarily have a ton of film ready for you to look at?We’re going to play our game and make sure our schemes are all sound. We’re going to watch film from last week against Oregon State and get what we can from that and look into coach Johnson’s staff and see anything in his old film that can help us out from his old coaching job. What’s your favorite stadium you ever played in?Purdue’s got a pretty nice field. I like their grass field. It’s really flat.Do any NFL players inspire you?My favorite player of all time is probably Emmitt Smith, and I think now, I’m probably more of a Russell Wilson fan or a Kam Chancellor fan.What are your plans for after this season?Personally, I plan on joining the Marines and going into Officer Training School and hopefully be in special forces one day.
Scientific American: Romantic relationships can begin anywhere. When Cupid’s arrow strikes, you might be at church or at school, playing chess or softball, flirting with a friend of a friend at a party or minding your own business on the train. Sometimes, however, Cupid goes on vacation, or takes a long nap, or kicks back for a marathon of Lifetime original movies. Instead of waiting for the capricious arrow slinger to get back to work, people are increasingly joining online-dating sites to assert some control over their romantic lives.Read the whole story: Scientific American More of our Members in the Media >
Subscribe Get instant access to must-read content today!To access hundreds of features, subscribe today! At a time when the world is forced to go digital more than ever before just to stay connected, discover the in-depth content our subscribers receive every month by subscribing to gasworld.Don’t just stay connected, stay at the forefront – join gasworld and become a subscriber to access all of our must-read content online from just $270.
Oudenbosch, Netherlands-headquartered exceptional transport provider Mammoet Road Cargo has expanded its capabilities with the purchase of nine new Nooteboom trailers. Mammoet Road Cargo developed from the heavy lifting company Mammoet. It used to be a specialised division within that organisation and became an independent company through a management buy-out in 2001.The nine trailers fall into four different types: 2-axle Euro low loader; 3-axle semi lowloader; 4-axle low semi lowloader; and 3-axle megatrailer. According to Nooteboom, this diversity will particularly help it better serve customers in the crane, construction equipment, marine and offshore, project cargo and aerospace sub-markets.#*#*Show Fullscreen*#*# Four different types of trailer will aid Mammoet Road Cargo serve sub-markets including cranes
Delay – Discretion – Limitation periods – Road traffic accidents Frank Burton QC, Paul Russell (instructed by Cogent) for the appellant; Simon Hilton (instructed by Pannone) for the respondents. McDonnell and anor v David Walker (executor of the estate of Richard Walker, deceased): CA (Civ Div) (Lords Justice Waller (vice-president), Rimer, Sir Paul Kennedy): 24 November 2009 The appellant executor (W) appealed against a decision granting the application of the respondents (M) to disapply the provisions, section 11 under section 33, of the Limitation Act 1980. M were the driver and a passenger in a car involved in a road traffic accident. The driver of the other car was killed in the accident. M issued proceedings against his estate, represented by W, claiming damages for personal injury. Liability was not disputed by the deceased’s insurers. M’s proceedings were served one day late. The insurers took the late service point and an application for an extension of time was refused. At that time the law was that the court could not exercise its power under section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980 to disapply the ordinary three-year time limit in a personal injury action where the claimant had brought an action within the time limit and was bringing a second action in which the section 33 application was made. M went to new solicitors who initially pursued a claim against M’s previous solicitors. The law then changed and it became possible for a court to exercise its discretion under section 33, even though an action had previously been brought within the limitation period. Some 22 months later M commenced a second action against the deceased’s estate and successfully applied under section 33 to disapply the limitation period. The claims in the second proceedings were different from and much larger than the claims in the first proceedings, including substantial claims for loss of future earnings and psychological injury. W contended that the judge had misunderstood important aspects of the evidence, misdirected himself in various ways, including in respect of the test to be applied, failed to identify the correct period of delay, and reached a decision in the exercise of his discretion which was not open to him. Held: (1) The judge had failed to identify the correct period of delay. The ‘delay’ in sections 33(3)(a) and 33(3)(b) was the delay since expiry of the limitation period, but the overall delay was also relevant as part of all the circumstances of the case. The judge concentrated on the period after the House of Lords decision in Horton v Sadler  UKHL 27,  1 AC 307 made it possible to exercise the discretion under section 33 in a second action, even though a claimant had brought an abortive action before the expiry of the limitation period, Horton considered. That wrongly suggested that, provided there was no delay post-Horton, a claimant should be able to succeed in a disapplication of the limitation period in any second action. However, Horton was a case where there was no forensic prejudice to the defendant. Cain v Francis  EWCA Civ 1451,  3 WLR 551 similarly supported the disapplication in a second action where there was no forensic prejudice, Cain considered. But if there was forensic prejudice, then where that prejudice was caused by inexcusable delay and where there was little if any prejudice to a claimant with an action against his solicitors, the position would be different. The judge’s approach to forensic prejudice was also flawed. He suggested that there was correspondence during the period of three years from the accident and that it was for W’s insurers to investigate, but until the insurers had details of the claim being made they were in no position to do so. Reports relevant to general damages were only received three years after the accident, no psychological report was received at that time and no claim for loss of earnings, present or future, was received at all. The claim ultimately received some seven years after the accident was of a different magnitude. Clearly, forensic prejudice had been suffered by W’s insurers who had to investigate the second claim from a standing start. Since the judge had misdirected himself in various respects, the court had to consider whether it was appropriate to disapply the limitation period under section 33. (2) If delay had caused forensic prejudice to the defendant, then the court had to consider the cause of the delay: if the delay was excusable and on balance it was still possible to have a fair trial, then it might be just and fair to allow the action to proceed; on the other hand, if the delay had caused unfairness to the defendant in his ability to investigate the claim and there was no excuse for the delay, the action should not be allowed to proceed. In this case the only period of delay for which there was any kind of excuse was that between the failure of the first action and the decision in Horton. Thus, W had been forensically disadvantaged by a substantial period of inexcusable delay. M would suffer only minor prejudice if they had to proceed against the solicitors who made the error over service of the first proceedings and some of that prejudice was their own fault. In all the circumstances it was not right to disapply the limitation period under section 33. Appeal allowed.
To continue enjoying Building.co.uk, sign up for free guest accessExisting subscriber? LOGIN Stay at the forefront of thought leadership with news and analysis from award-winning journalists. Enjoy company features, CEO interviews, architectural reviews, technical project know-how and the latest innovations.Limited access to building.co.ukBreaking industry news as it happensBreaking, daily and weekly e-newsletters Subscribe now for unlimited access Get your free guest access SIGN UP TODAY Subscribe to Building today and you will benefit from:Unlimited access to all stories including expert analysis and comment from industry leadersOur league tables, cost models and economics dataOur online archive of over 10,000 articlesBuilding magazine digital editionsBuilding magazine print editionsPrinted/digital supplementsSubscribe now for unlimited access.View our subscription options and join our community
In November 2017, Universal Forwarder developed a detailed logistics plan that included the acceptance of ships from the UAE and Europe, plus the coordination of all UCLH company activities for the project.In late February 2018, two 240-tonne gas liquefaction units measuring more than 29 m in length, two 90-tonne cooling units measuring more than 24 m in length, plus various other components, were delivered to the Sea Port of Saint-Petersburg.The cargo was unloaded onto the deck of the floating crane Bogatyr-4 before being transferred to a dedicated heavyweight cargo berth, where it was consolidated for Customs clearance.Between March 13 and March 15, 2018, the first batch of cargo was reloaded onto NWSC’s dry cargo vessel, Onyx, using Bogatyr-4 and two gantry cranes. NWSC’s project logistics division, Volgo-Baltic Logistics, supplied a cargo plan for the placement of the equipment in the ship’s hold and on the deck. The Russian Maritime Register of Shipping approved the cargo securing specifications. The cargo was then delivered to the port of Vysotsk.Having delivered the first batch of cargo, Onyx returned to Sea Port of Saint-Petersburg and was loaded with the second batch of equipment, which was delivered to Vysotsk on March 22. www.uclholding.comwww.unfc.ruwww.nwship.comen.vblc.ruwww.seaport.spb.ru
Based in Madrid, SAL Heavy Lift, Spain will be headed up by Carlos Claramunt Lebrón, who brings more than 15 years of commercial and technical experience in the maritime industry to the role. Most recently, he served as commercial manager at Hansa Heavy Lift.Justin Archard, chief operating officer of SAL Heavy Lift, explained: “With Davila Group, we saw the right partner to advance this concept. We have worked with the Davila Group and family for a long time, and the timing and opportunity for this step suited us both.”sal-heavylift.com www.grupodavila.es