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
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.
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
E-mail me at eryan /at/ qconline /dot/ com
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
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.
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.
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
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.
E-mail me at eryan /at/ qconline /dot/ com
...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.
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.
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?
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
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
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.
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*
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Save the baby humans - stop partial-birth abortion NOW
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
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.
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
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
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.
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Save the baby humans - stop partial-birth abortion NOW
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
> 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
> 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
Good day, and may the CPSC laugh in your face.
As you can tell, I have decidedly chosen sides on this issue!
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.