Re: SawStop files with GPO/CPSC for mandatory use in US

Page 6 of 7  


At least you can have the satisfaction of knowing that it was not you that did the deed.. ;~)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Sounds like you're one of the many who believe they're so careful, so in control of their actions at the table saw that they'll never, ever, ever be injured. You know, if you talk to people who've been injured, you may find that they all thought they had taken the necessary safety precautions and were paying attention to what they were doing.
None - OK, maybe there a few sado-masichistic people out there, so let's call it 0.00000001% - of people injured on table saws intended to injure themselves. A system like this is intended to protect people from involuntary injuries.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Well Leon, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. If you think that free peoples in a free society making their own decisions in a free market is somehow "arrogant" (at least that's what I can gather from the parts of your post that aren't self-contradictory), that's fine. You don't really _have_ to make any decisions, just please don't be so cavalier about giving away other people's ability to do so.
Jim H Pittsburgh PA
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
">

Geees Jim,, I have NOOOOOOO control over any of this...Just my opinion.....I can give away nothing of yours and visa versa.... I really had no idea that I was so threatening
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 20:47:56 GMT, "Leon"

Leon, you don't seem to see a very important distinction between these things and Sawstop. All of these government mandates, along with required auto liability insurance, act to prevent other people from hurting me. Water quality mandates prevent my city from mishandling water and making me sick, electrical codes prevent the electrician from doing substandard work in my home and burning down my house, and liability insurance prevents everybody from legally driving without making sure that they have some way to compensate me if they hurt me while driving improperly. Sawstop is not at all similar...it is a device meant to save me only from me. The best analogies are seat belt, air bag, and helmet laws. Yes, those are imposed on us all of the time. It does not mean that everybody agrees with that imposition. It only means that legislatures did what many people see as wrong. Frankly, I don't much care for those laws; I would use a seat belt whether it was mandated or not, and I don't ride a motorcycle, but I certainly wouldn't want to without a helmet...even though my state does not require it. Similarly, when I can buy a tablesaw, I probably will want Sawstop. But I want it to succeed on its own, I don't want it to be forced on us. This is not an area where the government needs to step in.
But what really

Eric Ryan E-mail me at eryan /at/ qconline /dot/ com
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Leon wrote:

That's fine. He can damned well buy the device if he wants to.
But if he has no choice, then it's the government going Nanny State that's causing that.
I can tell you what sort of governments require people to do certain mandatory things that free people would balk at, and they're socialist governments.
I don't want to see us go there.
As for thinking of ourselves, we all do, all the time. Everybody else is of secondary importance to each of us, with the possible exceptions of our own closest family members.
I won't sacrifice any freedoms for security.
CJ
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Now see there Tim,,,, you and I are trying to think of a solution. That is a great idea. Collectively we can offer alternative solutions that just might please us all. If some of the saws are required the work will get out and further government requirements might not have to come about. Outstanding Idea....
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

God - it sounds like Designing for the Sexes now!
LOL!
Jums (bored shitless today as you might tell . .. !)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
JIM....!!!!!! You really must tune into more MANLY channels..... ;~)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 02:46:30 GMT, "Leon"

Ah...now, here you've got a more interesting and compelling argument, Leon. But...even this argument does not require Sawstop on every saw sold anywhere. Maybe now we can go to a different government agency; OSHA can require Sawstop on table saws in commercial use, just like they require so many other safety devices that are not mandated on the normal consumer. That makes some sense; though there are still issues with too tight government control, there is at least a more compelling reason for the government to intervene on behalf of a class of person who may not have the power to get their employers to voluntarily protect them.
I know this violates my earlier statement that I was going to stop posting on this topic, making me a bit hypocritical, but I couldn't resist commenting on a far more acceptable and reasonable argument. Eric Ryan E-mail me at eryan /at/ qconline /dot/ com
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yes, but...
...the SawStop petition exempts saws 12" and up. Whether this is to avoid antagonizing commercial enterprises (who could/would mount a lobbying campaign against it) or whether it is because stopping a 12" blade is that much harder (the blade has anywhere from 1.5 to 2 times the mass) is not clear, but it is clear that this is not aimed at the commercial woodworker.
-Jack
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 20:47:56 +0000, Leon wrote:

I haven't heard anyone saying you don't have the right to express an opinion. You're confusing that with them expressing their differing opinions, or expressing their opinion that you're misguided.
-Doug
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Yes, Jack, I think that's EXACTLY what comes next, after SawStop becomes mandatory. EverythingStop is on the Long Term To Do list, no doubt.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The government has been slowly taking away our common sense. Gads, you can't even celebrate July 4 without heavy, heavy safety regulations. I guess the government can do a better job thinking for us than we can. My god, how did I live so long?

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
That is the Tooth Fairy School of Regulation, IMHO. These folks will do all they can to make SURE there is no real competition. Though 95% of a captive market would no doubt be enough to make them beat the bushes for a fake competitor to hold up during Congressional hearings.
It's cheaper to buy legislators than to create a saw factory, isn't it?

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I think LEON thinks if he stays REALLY close to the operators of SawStop by carrying their water here, they might give him one for free.
Except his very loudness in here makes it MORE difficult for that to happen - cuz it'd look too much like what it is: a reward for carrying their dirty water.
Leon needs to figure out where he can earn enough money to have his lips surgically removed from SawStop's ASS.

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

Bad examples.
Water quality is clearly a public health issue (e.g. http://www.ncgia.ucsb.edu/pubs/snow/snow.html ). AFAIK, table saw injuries are not contagious, and thus do not pose the sort of threat to public health that justifies government intervention.
The National Electrical Code was developed by the National Fire Protection Association (www.nfpa.org), a nonprofit group founded by insurance industry representatives. It has *no* connection to any governmental agencies except in an advisory capacity.

Obviously the freedom to choose a table saw that is not equipped with $aw$top *will* be lost if the company gets its way. DUH.
And nobody here has said that you don't (or shouldn't) have the freedom to voice your opinion on the matter. We're telling you you're wrong, and we think you should shut up. I would never dream of asking the government to *force* you to.

-- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Save the baby humans - stop partial-birth abortion NOW
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

threat to public safety and what is not... Public high school shop class TS....they dont need it... hell they are just learning and they are our kids that do not provide much income. Small shop employees that buy none of the eauipment but get hurt way too often...

Well I don't know where you live but the city building inspectors do inspect for correct wiring that conforms to code. That does not happen where you live?

With the exception of what saw you buy, I doube you will notice any loss of freedom... Loss of freedom is a broad and sweeping term. You will of course loose the choice to buy a new saw with out this feature if the petition goes through.

Lets see Doug were you the one or the other Doug that likes to use the term Hypocrite. In the same paragraph...aw. just reread the above paragraph.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No, I'll be perfectly content to leave that to the scientists. Go have a look at the URL I provided (cited above). It's been well-known for a couple centuries that contaminated water is a public health hazard; I didn't invent that notion.
Are you contending that table saws are a threat to public safety?

My position is that it should be left to the choice of the purchaser, whether to buy the $aw$top or not. Your position is that the government should require it, regardless of whether the purchaser wants it.

You seem to have forgotten what you posted, so I'll remind you. You wrote:
"If [people] only knew how much of their lives revolves something governmant mandated and are thankful that it was. Take quality of water supplied to you by your city water department or Electrical codes to prevent elecctrical fires for instance."
My point was that government mandates had *nothing* to do with the development of electrical codes.

*Any* loss of my freedom bothers me.

a little too dense to see it.
-- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Save the baby humans - stop partial-birth abortion NOW
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
edfan wrote:

I've been burning their ears off at SawStop. The first email I sent to them attacking their tactics was greeted with their standard form letter, to which I responded:
---------------------------------------------------------------
I"m really not interested in your form letter.
Here are the facts: Your company is attempting to get a private market legislated and rammed down the throats of the consumer whether we want to buy your product or not.
The patents held by your company are comprehensive and leave little room for another company to field a competing product without infringing upon your patent rights. As such, competition is restricted.
For the CPSC to attempt to institute a regulation requiring your product to be installed on saws is to create an illegal monopoly, thereby instantaneously putting your company's operations within the realm covered by federal antitrust laws. If this should happen, I hope that you ARE charged with violating those federal antitrust laws.
I also resist, in the absolute strongest of terms, any attempt to FORCE me to purchase a safety device as part of a product that I might buy. I have no problem with being able to purchase such a device as an option, but to be forced to buy it, especially when there is only ONE supplier of such an item?
No way in hell.
I was much in favor of your devices as a smart option for installation in saws that I might purchase. But this blatant attempt to ram your product up my backside whether I want to buy it or not, and without even a choice of competing products, has caused me to turn completely against your company for its unscrupulous operations.
I'd expect this kind of thinking from politicians. BAD ones.
If I ever end up with a product that has one of your devices in it, I will go to great lengths to remove that device and throw it in the trash where it belongs. It's not because of a problem with the device, it's because of your company's blatant attempt to acquire an exclusive and mandatory market by means of legislative action.
I wouldn't feel this way if the device were an option that was made readily available for purchase, IF DESIRED, by the consumer. But if you try to ram it down my throat, don't be surprised when I gag on it.
Very sincerely,
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Their reply:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Just a couple of points. First, we are offering to license our technology to all manufacturers. Thus, if the CPSC adopts our proposed regulation, there will be competition. Second, it is the patent system that will restrict competition and that may grant us a "monopoly," not a regulation from the CPSC. It sounds like your fundamental disagreement is with the patent system. Third, our proposed regulation would only "force" you to purchase our technology to the extent that similar regulations "force" you to buy a blade guard when you buy a saw, "force" you to buy a car with seat belts, or "force" you to buy a certain kind of bike helmet for your kids. Your statements sound like you disapprove of a government entity like the CPSC, which has the authority to mandate safety standards for consumer products. Finally, ask yourself whether a manufacturer's "freedom" to make and your "freedom" to buy unsafe saws is really worth one high school kid losing a finger.
Sincerely,
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To which I responded,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OK, I'll take apart your arguments one line at a time, if necessary.
> SawStop wrote: > > Just a couple of points. First, we are offering to license our > technology to all manufacturers.
So of course, you get a royalty for each system produced under license. In any event, as your patents are fairly comprehensive, it would be difficult to design a competitive safety system that operates on the same concept of removing and/or stopping the blade on contact with flesh.
You won't hear me argue that it's not a good design. In fact, it's an incredible feat and for that by itself, I have nothing but praise for you.
But if you succeed in ramming a mandatory equipment regulation down our throats, you have removed our freedom of choice as to what we buy and whom we do business with. As there IS no competitive product to SawStop and probably won't be due to your patents, I would be FORCED to hand you some of my money whether I wanted to or not, if I had to buy any new saws. (I will NOT, if the CPSC adopts such a regulation! I will buy USED tools and refurbish them myself rather than be FORCED to give you any of my money!)
> Thus, if the CPSC adopts our proposed regulation, there will be > competition.
NO, there will NOT. Your patents are pretty comprehensive, as mentioned before, and as for licensed products, you still make money on products made under license.
> Second, it is the patent system that will restrict competition and > that may grant us a "monopoly," not a regulation from the CPSC.
Splitting hairs and it makes no difference. A monopoly is a monopoly, period. And I won't voluntarily do business with a monopoly if I don't have to do so for my survival.
> It sounds like your fundamental disagreement is with the patent > system.
No. I never thought that. Still don't. It's all well and good that you MIGHT have a product that would be hard to follow without patent infringement, but my issue is with being FORCED to buy ANYTHING without a choice.
> Third, our proposed regulation would only "force" you to purchase > our technology to the extent that similar regulations "force" you to > buy a blade guard when you buy a saw, "force" you to buy a car with > seat belts, or "force" you to buy a certain kind of bike helmet for > your kids.
This is a VERY poor analogy as there are SEVERAL manufacturers of seatbelts, airbags, blade guards, bike helmets, etc. And though I still don't like having no choice but to buy cars that have airbags and seatbelts, purely on principle, I DO have a choice of manufacturers of cars and if I care to do so, I can select cars that have different brands of equipment in them. No single company is getting ALL the business by a CPSC mandate. To me, that's the important part.
> Your statements sound like you disapprove of a government entity like > the CPSC, which has the authority to mandate safety standards for > consumer products.
1: Yes, I do disapprove of a "nanny state" and the agencies that enact rules that can restrict my freedom of choice.
2: It would be fairly easy to show that once you get past a certain range of price and features in power tools, you're well within the market of PROFESSIONAL woodworkers and not mere CONSUMERS. Just as cars built for professional racing do not have to have certain safety features that a passenger vehicle is required to have, woodworking tools built for professionals are usually being operated by people who know and live by their safety standards, for the most part. They are people who would usually CHOOSE to buy a tool with your safety device installed if it's available that way anyway.
It's completely unnecessary to try to FORCE me to buy your product by mandate.
> Finally, ask yourself whether a manufacturer's "freedom" to make and > your "freedom" to buy unsafe saws is really worth one high school kid > losing a finger.
So you're in favor of a nanny state? Should everything have a safety device on it? Are you your brother's keeper?
Working with any highly energetic machine involves a certain amount of risk. We can't control all risk factors and even your product isn't foolproof. If you think it is, slap a running sawblade as fast as you can and see how tiny the nick is. I'll watch but first let me get a first aid kit ready.
I don't object to your product. I object to your attempt to ram it down my throat without my consent or any choice in the matter.
And I strenuously object to the incredible money-grubbing attitude of you and your company for trying to get rich by a forced monopoly. I won't play.
Good day, and may the CPSC laugh in your face.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
As you can tell, I have decidedly chosen sides on this issue!
CJ
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.