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

[Upscale]

Same stupid impossible statement. NOBODY follows procedure perfectly EVERY time. It's not humanely possible. Are you going to deny that some of the safest people have never been injured? Accidents happen. That's why they're called accidents.

I find it hard to understand how you're so down on Gass who might be attempting to mandate his product which will save people from injury, while at the same time, you're supporting the collection of manufacturers who initially refused to endorse his product because it would cost them profits even though injuries will continue. What you're saying is that it's ok for manufacturer's to make profit even though more injuries are being caused, but not ok for Gass to make a profit while preventing injuries. Is that it? You're supporting injuries to continue because you don't like how someone goes about making a profit?

[bremen68]

I stopped over at the saw stop site and took a look at their products. Interesting little gizmo, expensive, but very interesting.

I think if you're looking for an absolutely safe saw (from the blade anyway) this puppy just might be the ticket... Though I didn't see saftey bumpers on the corners, soft side cushions on the case, or an airbag type appliance incase of kick backs. And WHAT ABOUT THOSE BLASTED SPINTERS??

Ok I'll be serious for a moment, well as serious as I can be anyway... It looks like somebody put a lot of thought into this and if it works as claimed will save many a person from having to answer questions from their grandkids about why they have to take their shoes off to count to ten. However, with all new technology it's expensive. And anytime you ask a typical woodworker to lay out more cash...Well, let's just say it's not a good thing and leave it at that.

As for mandating that it be installed on all saws. That's an entirely different thing. Now you're encroaching on our rights to injure and maim ourselves in creative and painful ways as we see fit. I agree with everybody above who says "if it's that good a system, it will sell it's self and everybody will install it" The price will come down and like also stated above it will be just like any other feature "standard" on the saws.

Trying to mandate something in the US does tend to raise most folks hackles, we're a bit stiff necked about things when somebody comes up and says "This is how you're gonna do this, by the way you don't have a choice". Even if it's for our own good, we tend to be stuborn types.

I am kinda curious about a few technical aspects of the system. Not everybody keeps their shop in absolute perfect condition, some aren't weather tight, some are damp basements... How does this system handle adverse conditions. If it's relying on monitoring an electrical current through the blade will rust effect it?

What about nails? (I realize we should inspect our wood etc, but it does happen) Will hitting a nail in a piece of wood cause the safety to trip? I'm thinking hitting metal will cause a rather abrupt spike in conductivity and there by blow the stop. A block of aluminum hitting a spinning blade means that blade is toast, at $70 a reload plus $50 (or more) for a new blade, that's an expensive mistake. Does the saw function if you don't reload the cartridge?

For industry I'm thinking they're doomed to have to incorporate it. Insurance companies will make it happen if nobody else does. As with all things it will eventually trickle down to consumer level products. But just like the gaurds that are supposed to be on our saws now, how many are actually in place? I think that that will be the fate of this device as well for most of them.

My humbe two pennies worth of rambling... Take it as you will. :-)

[Dave Bugg]

Although that may be a significant argument in your mind, it is not persuasive to me. Life *itself* causes outrageous health care costs. Seatbelts -- by themselves -- are *most* effective at speeds below 40 mph (we're talkin' current seatbelts, not racing harnesses). It has been demonstrated that, even with airbags, requiring helmets in a car can further increase the survivability of crashes above 40 mph, while decreasing brain injury. So, perhaps we need to mandate that cars be equipped with speed regulators, and that passengers and drivers be required to wear helmets. Let's also eliminate bicycles and motorbikes, backpacking and climbing, boating, swimming, monkeybars, etc, because these, and numerous other activities also add to the outrageous costs to all of us.

And by all means, lets eliminate new medical technologies and pharmaceutical R&D and the adversarial legal system, 'cause they definitely add to the outrageous costs to all of us in terms of health care.

Or maybe we could require everyone who purchases a WhirlySharp tool to show proof of health and disability insurance. That way, if there is an injury or disability, it is covered. We can also require registration of the tool with the Dept. of WhirlySharp Tools prior to the purchase, so that continuous monitoring of the insurance requirements are in place.

Or instead of the above, just keep encouraging people to read the manual, to fully understand and *use* the safety precautions for the WhirlySharp tool in question, and not to work in a manner that puts human flesh at risk of disassembly.

[Upscale]

And how do you respond to those times where serious accidents have occurred at much greater speeds and coming out of it almost completely unscathed? If you want me to, I can post a picture of an accident I was in at 60 MPH ramming into a concrete telephone pole that fell on the car and crushed it, but where I came out of it with a cut on my hand and virtually no other injury. Was I lucky? Damned right I was. But, I attribute 99% of that luck to the fact that I was wearing a standard seat belt ~ a seat belt that I wouldn't have been wearing without laws to mandate it.

[gfretwell]

That is a red herrring unless you want to go protest the KFC, Baskin Robbins and McDonalds.

[gfretwell]

It sounds like YOU really do need a nanny government. Some of us don't. My Jeep rollover was harmless too but I had my seatbelt fastened and it wasn't a law then. Some of us can be safe without a government mandate.

[Upscale]

Big difference don't you think with things that can cause definite instant injury and other things that may cause health difficulties over a long period? If you want to really get down to it, your statement is much more of a red herring than the one you commented on.

[Dave Bugg]

Pot-kettle-black.

Right, uh-huh.

Your comprehension is YOUR problem, not ours. To most of us, it is perfectly clear that an individual trying to use the force of the government to coerce individual consumers to purchase his specific product under the guise of safety, is a weasle trying to make a fast buck. In other words, he can't convince me, through the open market, that I need his product. He then attempts to engage the government into *forcing* me to make the purchase via a codified mandate on the manufacturer.

How is this even REMOTELY equivalent? Opposing forced government profit-making at the consumer level does NOT equate to supporting a manufacturer. You seem to ignore the fact that the government does not require that an individual purchase a WhirlySharp; that is entirely the choice of the consumer. It is ALSO the choice of the consumer to purchase the Sawstop if s/he chooses to do so.

But wait, says Gass, let's ignore the middleman -- the marketplace -- altogether and go straight to the government. That is bogus horsepuckey. It is the same devious mindset that would cause McDonalds to go to congress and argue that "since a lot of workers go to McDs at lunch, and as a result are at risk for severe injuries or death on the road as motorists or pedestrians, the government needs to require a McDonald in every workplace building".

And as for your wrongly held notion that the manufacturers are worried about PROFIT as a motive, let me remind you of how profit is derived. All cost of goods are added up, and the product is then priced. IF Sawstop is incorporated into ALL WhirlySharps by government fiat, that cost will be passed onto the consumer, it won't be absorbed by the manufacturer. Thus, your argument that this is a PROFIT issue on the part of the manufacturers is flaccid.

[Upscale]

Well, I guess that says it all. The GREAT INVULNERABLE human. Obviously, you've never had to go to a hospital for an injury, you've never visited a doctor because you've never been sick and you've never needed any type of assistance whatsoever even once in your life.

All of these things mandated and maintained by government and the bureaucracy that you hate so much has been completely useless to you.

My hat is off to you and your uniqueness. I'm truly envious of your exempt status in this universe. Too bad we're not all so lucky.

(You're so full of crap it's putrefying)

[Dave Hall]

I have heard several times in these debates that manufacturers don't want this technology because it will hurt their profits. I don't understand. If everyone had to redesign their equipment, eliminate their low end saws and install sawstops on the rest, why would profits drop. They would simply ALL raise their prices sifficient to ensure the same proofits continue on lower volume/higher priced sales. There would clearly be a lot fewer saws sold, those only producing low-end saws would, by definition, go out of business, but the big boys would still sell saws just at higher prices with higher individual gross profit margins and market equalibreum would be reached at the price point where everyone is satisfied with the level of profits - just like it is now (you know the law of supply and demand - they will produce enough saws to meet demand, but demand is based on price and price must include adequate profit). A lot of people in this group (like me) who use benchtop saws or BT3000s or Shopsmiths would, once those wore out, simply quit doing woodworking and take up golf because we didn't have $1,000 laying around for a low end "safe" saw.

Dave Hall

[Upscale]

Bullshit! The cost of the product passed onto the consumer has a direct effect on how many consumers decide to actually buy that product. That effects their bottom line, AKA PROFITS. Are you really that stupid to think otherwise? God, what type of moron are you?

[Dave Bugg]

Ah, selective snipping. Even so, you must go back and read the my post for comprehension. I did not say that there are never good outcomes ABOVE 40 mph.

Excellent. Yes I would love to see that picture, please post it. I serve on the Governor's Injury Prevention Task-Force, and it may be worth sharing.

Well, thanks for making several folk's point. That users have the ability to virtually eliminate severe injury when using WhirlySharps, but they choose to ignore the safety gear and techniques available to them.

[Dave Bugg]

How so? If anything, the costs and disabilities and death due to longterm degenerative disease is FAR more onerous than WhirlySharp injuries.

[Upscale]

And you doubt that would effect profits? If they're not selling saws, they're not making, maintaining a certain profit level. In fact, a business needs to grow to survive. That means it needs to increase profit as time goes on or it will eventually die. Just maintaining the status quo is not enough for investors anymore. That's my take on it anyway.

[Dave Bugg]

Taking the long road to the horizon, ain't ya, Butch. You were the one that stated you wouldn't wear a seatbelt unless it was mandated. gfretwell stated that he wore his because he knew it was good for him. It seems to me that the Gman was the one that KNEW he was vulnerable. It was YOU, because you lacked the commonsense to wear one without the government saying so, felt that you were INVULNERABLE.

Again, a great, giant leap off of nowhere. To oppose any government mandate does NOT equate to opposing ALL government mandates.

I left that in so that we could all enjoy your wit.

[Dave Bugg]

If every manufacturer is mandated to have the Sawstop, then the consumer is faced with ALL products have the same percentage rise in costs. If a consumer wants to buy a tablesaw, he'll have to pay the price increase regardless. Do ya get it now?

[Upscale]

I'll scan it and post it in ABPW. Hope it's useful to you.

Ok, you've completely lost me with that statement.

[Joe Bemier]

OK, fine, but you're splitting hairs. I think you understand the point I'm making. But, in the fairness of the debate I'll agree that nobody follows exact procedure 100% of the time. But obviously that just goes to show that one can even be a bit sloppy and still not have problems. Think about Ed's point way up there at the top - -just around his neighborhood there are a half dozen saws. So, while 55,000 injuries sounds like a big number we have to consider that there are millions of T/S out there. It just goes to demonstrate that injuries happen to the arrogant - those that either don't understand procedure or those who don't care to follow such..

You're looking at it in reverse. As the good doc pointed out, the injuries are resultant of careless operation, not due to the lack of a device.

I'm not that down on him, just his methods. Obviously, the company is doing poorly. Be honest, if the SS item was flying of the shelf he would be content. I would guess that his business plan is in serious peril and thus the last ditch effort to save the company by using the back door. You can imagine the costs involved in tooling up for Mfg - huge! My guess is that his efforts will result in higher standards of safety on these and other machines. However, I believe that will happen w/o his technology at the forefront. So, if you are correct, he will be happy if the standards get raised even if nobody else needs his technology. Frankly, I think you are being a bit naive on this point about his true intentions. Not that I blame him, but lets call a spade a spade.

[Upscale]

Very likely true, but not as immediately costing and the expense of sudden catastrophic injuries can't be planned for over the long term nearly as well as for those degenerative diseases.

And yes, I fully realize that eventually, the point might be reached where even long term planning will not be sufficient to pay for what's needed.

[Upscale]

And fewer consumers will buy. So, profits will go down. Does that make any sense to you at all?

[Dave Bugg]

But, these degenerative disease costs are hitting us now from what was generated in the past 10 years and before. And the expense, to both dollars and productivity, keep ocurring now and into the future. Are you saying that the cost of say, cardiovascular disease or diabetes, is less today than the cost of whirlysharp injuries?