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

Finding the keyboard operational Larry Blanchard entered:

Absolutly zero and no one is accusing the SawStop people of doing anything illegal or unethical. Look. Like it or not SawStop exists and is a practical product. It is commercially available. Based upon what I have seen it won't be long before commercial shops will be required by their insurance companies to have them or a similar product. Manufacturers of all powered cutting tools will folllow up by making some kind of safety device that will minimize accidents or be priced out of business. Bob

--

-- Coffee worth staying up for - NY Times

formatting link

Reply to
The Other Funk
Loading thread data ...

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. :-)

Reply to
bremen68

Maybe you haven't been fallowing along. They are actively trying to have legislation passed that would require devices of the type that only they have. Enrichment through legislation. So, if you still don't see a problem with that you are either a lawyer or are suffering from the disability that most of them suffer from, lack of an ethics gene.

Reply to
CW

He tried to get the saw manufacturers to adopt the technology first. It was only when he was rejected that he started selling the saws. Selling saws equipped with it himself and trying to get it, or something equivalent to it, mandated are both logical next steps towards acheiving the goal of getting the technology out there. No doubt the guy sees the opportunity to get rich in the process. If he was a great humanitarian he'd be offering up the license for free to anyone that wants it. But that does not mean that it is somehow unethical to discuss safety with those charged with monitoring safety.

Let's put it this way. Say he came up with the device, and patents it. He goes to the saw manfacturers, they reject him. So he gives up and the technology never sees the light of day. Is that more ethical?

-Leuf

Reply to
Leuf

Yes it would. The wood, if it's dry, has little/no effect on the system because it is a poor conductor. You are a good conductor and you have an effect no matter what.

Think of it more like this, the blade is full of water. The wood is impermeable to water. The skin soaks it up like a dry sponge. When you run the wood through it nothing happens to the water in the blade. As soon as your sponge hits it the water gets soaked up. Even though water is constantly supplied to the blade, the amount of water in it momentarily drops because so much of it moved out suddenly.

-Leuf

Reply to
Leuf

Finding the keyboard operational CW entered:

Go tell it to George Westinghouse and his air brake for railcars. Why do you think that presenting a product to the consumer product safety commission is in any way unethical? Because they have the only working product? That isn't unethical. What? They should wait until someone developes a competing product? I am starting to believe that you don't know what he word ethical means. Oh, one last thing, don't say lawyer like its a bad thing. Remember, lawyers are on both sides of a dispute. Bob

--

-- Coffee worth staying up for - NY Times

formatting link

Reply to
The Other Funk

Great analogy! It's a slick invention, no doubt. But, personally, I can't agree with the course of mandating the technology, unless it was at a price that did not make much difference, i.e.,

Reply to
Joe Bemier

Finding the keyboard operational Joe Bemier entered:

Reply to
The Other Funk

Eton/Cutler Hammer has done a similar thing with AFCIs

Reply to
gfretwell

It's all right as long as someone else has also done it, is that what you're saying?

Reply to
CW

I'd guess that he's saying it's not as big a (distasteful word here) as many are making it out to be. With some of the money fiascos and greed that's gone on the last several years with top CEO's raiding the companies that they're supposed to support (insert Enron here), this ranks in the much lower levels of corporate greed.

Fine, you don't like it and many don't, but let's be honest here. It *is* perfectly legal and anyway you want to slice it, there are obvious benefits to this technology, however it comes to the market.

That's my take on it anyway.

Reply to
Upscale

Actually I do think it is (distasteful word), bordering on illegal. If a manufacturer can sell by legislation where does it stop?

Reply to
gfretwell

Moral relativism to the rescue. Sounds like the politicians we have now. They no longer campaign on their strengths, it's all "sure I'm slime but he's worse".

Reply to
CW

Sure you're right, but in all honesty with *some* of what's been seen and experienced, most can't put the time or energy needed into dealing with this disagreeable trend. There's just too much other bullshit out there that dwarfs this tempest in a teapot. Sad to say, but that's the way it is and likely to remain for some time to come.

I don't know about you, but I'm honest enough with myself to admit that there's some things that I should be forced to do that would benefit me that I just won't do on my own. Is this one of them? Well, it's just not a big enough factor in my life for me to give it the attention it might deserve. And, I'm definitely not a "freedom of choice at all costs" person. I have a distinct problem with people who use that "freedom of choice under any circumstance" to take part in activities that have every chance of hurting them, especially when it's the rest of the system that is going to pick up the cost for that injury. With government cutbacks in all segments of our society, there's too many other areas that go without due to our taking advantage of that "freedom at all costs". MHO

Reply to
Upscale

As much as it bothers me I believe you are right, Bob. Its progress, I guess.

Reply to
Joe Bemier

Specious argument, IMO. When you protect people from themselves you pay an additional cost of increased bureaucracy, plus "the system still pays" (which is in itself a bit of propaganda used to justify/hide increased health care profits); and when people don't suffer from the consequences of their foolish actions, fools become the norm.

... just look around.

Reply to
Swingman

So, does that put in the class of unethical greedy bastard or a god wanabe, since he apparently knows what's best for everyone? You know it's time to run when someone says to you "I'm from the government, I'm here to help you".

Reply to
CW

There it is again the "someone else did it so it must be OK" argument. Still doesn't work.

Trying to push legislation for financial gain is the sign of a lowlife. If the people want it, they will buy it. Let them decide. There is far to much of this "we know what's best for you better than you do" attitude.

Yes, one hires professional scumbag (lawyer) to counter the other guys professional scumbag (lawyer).

Reply to
CW

I think that people are very price conscious and thus if you have cheap saws without the safety feature and more expensive saws with it, people are going to buy the cheaper one. Especially inexperienced people buying their first saw. Aren't those the people you'd most want to have the safety feature? And yet those saws currently have the poorest excuse for guards that most people give up on and take off. You don't want people losing fingers in order to learn the value of the device, and that is where the market fails and the government should step in. I'd rather have mandatory safety features than require a license to buy/operate a saw - though you could make an argument for that too.

It's not like there is going to be a law that says you can only buy saws from Sawstop. The others will get around the patent. If the guy was smart and was really in it just for the money then he'd find a price they couldn't refuse to license from him. Right now he's holding a gun to their heads saying either pay my ridiculous price or figure something out yourself, I don't care, just do it. I can respect that. A guy who is willing to piss people off to make something happen probably just isn't all about money.

And while the guy is a patent lawyer, he's also a woodworker, and came up with a pretty cool invention for his tools. We can all respect that much.

-Leuf

Reply to
Leuf

Very well stated, logical, refreshing.

Reply to
Joe Bemier

Yes, I can - until it is jammed down my throat.

Reply to
Joe Bemier

HomeOwnersHub website 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.