Saw Stop makes local paper

[dusty]

One can debate the pros and cons of having this technology mandated. I can see both sides of that issue and both sides have some compelling arguments. But I wouldn't classify either side as idiots. Also please explain how any of the primary purposes of a table saw is impeded by the SawStop technology? Even conductive or wet materials can be cut using the safety bypass on the SawStop. As for the gun lock analogy, I don't see it. Gun locks do tend to defeat one of the primary purposes of having a weapon, i.e. immediate access to self-defense.

Yes, my gun locks would slow me down if I needed a weapon for self defense except that the goto weapon for self defense has no gun locks. The rest do.

As for debating the pros and cons of SawStop technologies, I see very little to debate. The technology is great and should exploited "in the open market place".

My only argument (emotional as it is) is that it should not be mandated by the Government that if I want a table saw it must be equipped with a device sold only by Mister Gass.

[JPG]

One can debate the pros and cons of having this technology mandated. I can see both sides of that issue and both sides have some compelling arguments. But I wouldn't classify either side as idiots. Also please explain how any of the primary purposes of a table saw is impeded by the SawStop technology? Even conductive or wet materials can be cut using the safety bypass on the SawStop. As for the gun lock analogy, I don't see it. Gun locks do tend to defeat one of the primary purposes of having a weapon, i.e. immediate access to self-defense.

My reference to 'idiots' was those who think gun locks and saw stop type things will eliminate 'accidents'. Only the folks involved in the 'accidents' can prevent them. Accidents IMHO are always caused by someone or something. Accidental to me means 'I did not mean to'.

I agree with Dusty re non-self defense weapons, but they should not be loaded anyway. Most 'accidents' with firearms are caused by either ignorance or carelessness. The gun locks may protect the ignorant. The careless will not be helped by gun locks.

Being able to disable the safety feature for those operations not compatible with the 'technology' is an unfortunate necessity. Kinda defeats the entire purpose albeit 'temporarily'.

I would be curious how quickly the DVR motor can be electronicaly locked up(stopped) and what effect that would have on the power train(belts,shaft, quill splines...).

Just for the record, I am in favor of safer devices. Just do not cause the primary purpose of those devices to be compromised and do not depend upon safety thingies to blindly protect you.. Like Smokey Says, Only you...

[algale]

My reference to 'idiots' was those who think gun locks and saw stop type things will eliminate 'accidents'. Only the folks involved in the 'accidents' can prevent them. Accidents IMHO are always caused by someone or something. Accidental to me means 'I did not mean to'.

Well, if that's what you meant to write in your original post, then I'd say your original post meets your own definition of an "accident" because that isn't what you originally wrote by any stretch of the imagination.

Regardless, I don't think CPSC (or SawStop) is claiming that the performance standard/technology they are thinking of mandating will "eliminate" accidents on the table saw. They are claiming that the standard/technology will reduce the severity of the injuries that will result from one specific type of table saw accident, i.e. blade-to-skin contact. And there's little doubt that the standard/technology can reduce the severity of blade-to-skin contact injuries without reducing the functionality of a table saw one bit -- unless the sole or primary purpose for which you use a table saw is cutting conductive or severely wet wood; in that case the technology must be switched off prior to each cut, which would be both a PITA and self-defeating.

I'm in favor of adults taking personal responsibility for their own safety, but as you point out, people make mistakes. Most people who aren't in the insurance business and who haven't been trained as actuaries are generally terrible at predicting their own probability of being involved in an accident or its resultant costs to themselves or society. I think that's one reason why, despite the fact that statistics have been gathered for years at hospitals on table saw and other injuries, people can't or won't believe those statistics when they are cited by CPSC.

In my opinion, there is a legitimate place for government safety regulation in those situations where the costs to society from accidents are very high relative to the costs of implementing a safety technology that will not significantly impair the functionality of the item being regulated. Where that line should be drawn is a subject that should be debated.

[JPG]

Well, if that's what you meant to write in your original post, then I'd say your original post meets your own definition of an "accident" because that isn't what you originally wrote by any stretch of the imagination. ] Yes I tend to skip 'details' at first speak! Implication often does not connect!
[/B]
. . .

In my opinion, there is a legitimate place for government safety regulation in those situations where the costs to society from accidents are very high relative to the costs of implementing a safety technology that will not significantly impair the functionality of the item being regulated. Where that line should be drawn is a subject that should be debated.

Ahhh! There is a lot of rubber in that first sentence and indeed the lines defined by relative stretching do indeed determine my degree of agreement. You left out 'and does not materially create advantage to any individual or group of commercial enterprises'.

[algale]

You left out 'and does not materially create advantage to any individual or group of commercial enterprises'.

I didn't leave it out. That issue plays no roll in my analysis whatsoever.

[smredleg]

Sorry to confuse this important safety issue, but, to me isn't this the same as the "Health Care Mandate," now before our Supreme Court? Our Uncle Suger knows what the best for us? I don't think so....

[charlese]

Sorry to confuse this important safety issue, but, to me isn't this the same as the "Health Care Mandate," now before our Supreme Court? Our Uncle Suger knows what the best for us? I don't think so....

I been thinking the same thing for a while. Individual mandates are the question/

[dusty]

I been thinking the same thing for a while. Individual mandates are the question/

I live in an area where I believe there is a disproportionate number of people who do not have healthcare provisions provided by an employer. These people place an extreme burden on the system and something needs to be done to resolve that but I don't believe the Affordable Healthcare Act is going to do that. Extreme low income people are not going to pay for medical coverage no matter what the Government mandates. To do so, they would have to chose to not provide their own primary needs (food and shelter).

Also, just think about those who subsist solely on their social security check - many of our elderly folks. To see for yourself, just visit a community senior center or shelter.

[JPG]

I didn't leave it out. That issue plays no roll in my analysis whatsoever.

And that is one point where we diverge. It cannot be summarily disregarded unless future regulations will absolutely prohibit it!

If altruism is his goal, let him assign all rights to the CPSC and let them license for free! That way there is no profiteering by design.(pun intended)

[algale]

And that is one point where we diverge. It cannot be summarily disregarded unless future regulations will absolutely prohibit it!

If altruism is his goal, let him assign all rights to the CPSC and let them license for free! That way there is no profiteering by design.(pun intended)

He never for a second has said that altruism is his goal. He admits he hopes to make a lot of money off his invention while also doing something good.

Incidentally, there are examples of the Government putting regulations in place that financially benefit a patent owner to the exclusion of all others. Mandatory vaccine programs involving patented vaccines are one example.