Consumer Product Safety Comm. to discuss proposed SawStop technology safety rule

Page 6 of 14  


Very well stated, logical, refreshing.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Well, there's always going to be fools around no matter whether actions are taken or not. And as far as suffering the consequences goes, it's the system that ultimately pays for someone chopping a finger off. If those statistics can be lowered compared to what they are now, then I'm all for it, even to the point of some added bureaucracy.
From laws enacted to enforce seat belts up to driving and drinking prevention, they're all laws that have benefited society no matter how they came into being. Of course one might argue that it's that individual only that suffers from chopping something off on a tablesaw, but I see it as everybody else paying by the system having to deal with the repercussions of it. And again, anyway I look at it, the effect it might have on my life is inconsequential so I just can't apply much concern for whether government gets involved or not. Maybe that's a selfish outlook, but I'd consider it the norm for our North American society. Call me a sheep, or conditioned or brainwashed or whatever you want, but there it is.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
OK, you're a brainwashed, conditioned, sheep.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

And, the fact that you're saying it tells me that you've never had an invention that you've tried to bring to market.
If you ever do have such an invention, you'll realize then what you need to put into it. You live that invention, you promote it at every opportunity. Your friends although they support you also think you're a fanatic and overzealous. Every time you look at your invention, you wonder how it can be improved, what can you do to it that will make people want it. It consumes you to the point that it's all you think about. In short, it's your life, your baby that you want to bring to fruition. Sure, you'd like to get rich from your invention, but that's not your only motivation. You want people to enjoy your invention, benefit from it.
*THAT'S* what your invention represents. If you've gone through all that then you might understand. Just having an idea for an invention doesn't qualify. You have to actually make a prototype and then start going to see person after person to try to get them to see it's value just as you do.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
BTDT. So, this supposedly justifies using the government to force it on people? YOU WILL BUY THIS AND LIKE IT, DAMN IT

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I didn't say that, don't put words in my mouth. And, if what I read about Sawstop's inventor, those were not his first actions. I'm much more inclined to believe the talk that the manufacturer's attempted to freeze him out because it would eat into their profits. After that, anything goes in my books.
You're so down on what you perceive as Mr. Gass as attempting to legislate this device and forcing you to use this product. Exactly how much vitriol have you put into the manufacturers attempting to prevent the use of this type of device at the cost of your safety? In a word NONE. Pretty one sided in your attack don't you think? You're so big on personal choice and not being forced to do anything that you've blindsided yourself to the manufacturers maximizing profits without due concern to your health. You need to examine what's really important here.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Upscale wrote:

Where is it written that any manufacturer is obligated to incorporate any specific technology into their product? Saw manufacturers are certainly entitled to take a pass on Sawstop, regardless of reason. Wow, big conspiracy.

Prevent the use? WTH are you talking about? Can't Sawstop be purchased by an individual customer?

Oh, peeshaw. Defending a rhetorical position doesn't require one to provide equal time to the position that is opposed.

Your statement makes no sense whatsoever. If the whirlysharp industry should be forced to adopt Sawstop, it wouldn't affect the manufacturer's profit line one smegging iota; the entire cost is passed onto the consumer. Actually it is YOU who are so unconcerned about individual consumer choice, that YOU want to force us to pay for a product whether we want it or not. Powermatic, Delta, Jet, General, et al won't lose a bit of sleep over being forced to incorporate Sawstop.
--
Dave
www.davebbq.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

In the beginning, Gass presented this product to a large number of manufactures at the same time. All of them at the time with a their lawyers involved, panned his invention. You've obviously done precious little reading on this subject. I suggest you do so and then come back with your observations.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Upscale wrote:

Ohhhh, the patronizing brush off. Right... it's my lack of knowledge, not your faulty logic, that's the problem.
Again, when a manufacturer, whether individually or by the bushel barrel, decides to pass on a product, that does not constitute a conspiracy to eliminate a product from the marketplace. The proof is in its availability to the individual consumer.
--
Dave
www.davebbq.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

So what? He presented his device to potential customers and they didn't buy it. Do you buy everything someone tries to sell you? If you do, let's talk. Have I got a deal for you.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Finding the keyboard operational Dave Bugg entered:

Seat belts, air bags and catalytic converters on cars. Burst disks on pressurized gas tanks. GFIs on portable air conditioners. Deadman devices on lawnmowers. Childproof caps on medicines. That's all I could come up with in 5 minutes. Bob
--
--
Coffee worth staying up for - NY Times
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The Other Funk wrote:

Bob, the argument was centered around the obligation of a manufacturer to purchase a non-mandated technology from a developer. I wasn't arguing that the government had never required the implementation of a technology by an industry. I'm afraid that you misread the context of my post :-)
--
Dave
www.davebbq.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Finding the keyboard operational Dave Bugg entered:

Missed that Dave. My apologies. And I don't have an example. Bob
--
--
Coffee worth staying up for - NY Times
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 20:45:50 GMT, "The Other Funk"

Which of these items doubled or tripled the cost of a lower end version of the equipment they were put onto? Which of these mandates effectively eliminated the lower end of the product catagory to which they were mandated? I see no way to continue to sell $100 tablesaws if a Sawstop device had to be incorporated. His patents on similar technology for bandsaws, CMS, and other whirling woodworking equipment would similarly eliminate the low end of those markets as well (in my opinion of course). When you add up the costs of airbags, seatbelts, cat converters, crumple zones, padded dashes, etc., etc., etc. you do in fact add substantially to the cost of a car, but I doubt that 1/2 or so of the cost of the lowest end vehicle out there is made up of all of these mandated items combined, let alone any one of them - and I believe that the automobile is one of the more regulated and safety mandated consumer products around. BTW I can buy medicine in bottles without childproof caps but few if any manufacturers will use them for over the counter medications.
Dave Hall
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

One of those thing we'll never know for sure. I also read that he wanted a huge royalty. I was not at the meetings so I surely don't know for sure. If his motivation was purely to save accidents, he'd have given he technology for free.
I have to admire him for starting his own saw business. The marketplace will determine the value of his idea.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I can't argue with that Ed, but, answer me one question. If you'd invented this product and knowing how many injuries it could prevent, would you have given it away completely for free? I don't call it greed for someone to invent something that will benefit people, but also want to profit from it at the same time. I call that just a natural human instinct to want to benefit from what we create.
And I doubt I'm wrong in thinking that it would be tantamount to impossible to give such a device away for free. Corporate business would find a way to take it over or profit from it one way or another. Along the same lines, how many similar inventions can you say were given away for free? From Drug companies with their life saving concoctions to almost any industry you want to mention in North America, it's all founded on a business model.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Upscale wrote:

Well, let's see, the pharmeceutical companies gave away about $2.5 billion in free medications to about 8 million folks last year.
--
Dave
www.davebbq.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You're suggesting that the drug companies are a philanthropic business? 8 million folks. Wow, that adds up to how much, less than 0.03 of the US population? Har, don't make me laugh. Suggest you look into how many billions those same drug companies take in. The few billion dollars of product they might freely distribute are given solely for appearance purposes.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Upscale wrote:

Nope.
It adds up to 8 million folks who couldn't afford their medications..

You find the plight of those in poverty funny? Or the manufacturers that provide the assistance?

When you are fully read up on the subject, get back to me...... gee, that patronization technique works well.
--
Dave
www.davebbq.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Profit yes, but how much is too much. That is one of the unknowns here. If you go back in history, you can find examples of all sorts of situations from the scientist that labored out of the desire to help humanity to the ones purely profit motivated.

About a year ago, one of the auto manufacturers (maybe Mercedes?) was getting advertising mileage by stating they gave away the technology for safety devices. Details don't seem to be stored in the brain cells right now.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.