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

When I was a kid, New York instituted forced auto liability insurance. We won't talk about the cost rise from maybe 50 bucks to whatever it is in Westchester County today--I can't afford the houses there, either. But that was in 1957. Today, you have to be exceptionally poor or crazy to go without auto insurance. Even a small accident involving other people can not only bankrupt you, but can keep you bankrupt for a lifetime. This is not totally the fault of insurance companies getting what they want, but is the combined problem created by overly powerful insurance companies (sit back and think about how much of your life is run by insurnace company demands--they even tell churches how many dusk-to-down lights they've got to have to keep their policies), but also by lawyers who inflate judgments in order to make sure their half the result is worth keeping.

Charlie Self

If you want to know what God thinks of money, just look at the people he gave it to. Dorothy Parker

Reply to
Charlie Self
Loading thread data ...

*EXCEPT* that anything that meets the 'petition' specifications is covered by _their_ PATENT.

Thus, _effectively_, giving them a *monopoly* of the market.

Reply to
Robert Bonomi

Here is a copy of an email I sent to SawStop and their response FYI:

MY LETTER

Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 11:09 AM To: snipped-for-privacy@sawstop.com Subject: Petition Requesting Performance Standards to reduce table saw injury

Petition Requesting Performance Standards for a System To Reduce or Prevent Injuries From Contact With the Blade of a Table Saw (Petition No. CP 03-2)

Dear Sir or Madame:

This letter is in reference to the above Consumer Product Safety Commission petiton.

I am a hobbyist woodworker and currently own a Delta Unisaw 3HP 10" table saw. I was considering purchasing your invention. I am no longer considering this purchase. The reason for this is that I judge the companies that I do business with in a number of ways. One of these is the value of their product. Another is integrity. Your invention certainly has value. Your company, however, has absolutely no integrity.

The United States is a nation based on freedom and your efforts to increase your personal and corporate profits via reduction in all American's personal rights are deplorable. I was shocked and sickened to see your blatant use of the regulary system to force consumers into a situation where you and only you would profit.

I also intend to take every opportunity and to encourage the numerous fellow woodworkers I know to contact the Safety Commission and any other pertinent parties and express our opposition to this change in table saw safety regulation.

A free market is a wonderful thing. If you would have used this market as intended and let your product stand on its own merits then I could respect you. By choosing the route of forcing consumers to use your product you have clearly shown your true colors. You have chosen your own fate and the inevitable failure of your endeavor.

Sincerely,

Michael Logman

THEIR REPLY:

Thanks for the email and comments. We understand your position concerning government intervention. In many cases we would agree with you. However, in this case, where there are over 30,000 serious injuries each year, where information concerning the number and severity of injuries is not readily available to the public, and where manufacturers do not seem to care about the injuries, we think filing a petition for rulemaking is appropriate. In short, it makes more sense to petition for new safety rules than it does to live with the tremendous number of serious injuries. At least we think so.

Additionally, we hope that the petition will motivate other companies to adopt the technology so that it becomes available faster than it otherwise would. The petition also will allow the government to gather information concerning the economic cost to society of table saw injuries, which will be available to the public and will be helpful in deciding whether to create new safety regulations.

Finally, as a point of clarification, our proposed standard requires manufacturers to make saws safer, just as car manufacturers are required to put seat belts and airbags in cars. Our proposed standard does not require consumers to use a particular type of saw.

Anyway, thanks for your comments.

David Fanning

SawStop, LLC

22409 SW Newland Road 503-638-6201 Wilsonville, OR 97070 503-638-8601 fax snipped-for-privacy@sawstop.com
formatting link

___________________________________________________________

Nothing too surprising in their reply, and it probably is a form letter that they send to anyone complaining about their business tactics. Leon, you really should ask them if you can be a spokesman for their company, you and this Fanning guy are definitely on the same wavelength.

Mike

Reply to
Mike in Mystic

Not a hypocrite.... If I knowingly chose to buy the next TS with out the Saw Stop or similar device, then I would be a hypocrite.

But I just may speed up that process anyway and get one sooner than later.

Reply to
Leon

Well Dave it sounds like you have all your bases covered and should not think about safety any farther than you have at this point. I know that this all sorta new to you and that with your precision and forethought that nothing will ever happen to you in the shop requiring a trip to the ER. So for you and all the ones that think like this, I say good luck and be careful but don't be shocked when some thind does happen.

Me, I am a realist. I know I am capable of getting hurt in the shop, and did after 10 years of experience. I know that accidents happen and no amount of preparation can prevent all of them them. I have meen reeeeal lucky in the last 14 years as my track record has been clean. Now you and I know that 14 years of no accidents and 8 of the profesionally is not pure luck. I do exercise caution with all my power tools and that really is why nothing has happened again, but I am not so silly or ignorant to believe that it could not happen again. So, I would just as soon have the Saw Stop or Similar device, government or no government involved. Nothing complicated about that decision. Pretty simple really. The lessor of two evils.

Reply to
Leon

Well Dave I don't want for it to required either. I would love for it to be an option in later years, but when the time comes, I'll take it any way I can get it, required by the government or not.

Reply to
Leon

No kidding...

Well again Doug, I am not trying to convence you that governmant mandate is tha best way. I am only indicating that I am not going to let the fact of government intervention sway my decision as to whether I get one or not. I'm looking out for me.

Reply to
Leon

Its really a catch 22 situation. Your are dammed if you let the government protect you and you are dammed if you refuse to let the government protect you. In this case, I'll go with the government.

Reply to
Leon

Umm.. the module has already been in use for many years now... Probably not as you think of it but it is in deed in use. The perimeters are set higher than most speed limits but that could be easily changed by different programming. GM started using an ECM in the Early 80's... 1980 IIRC. ECM was short for Electronic Control Module. Among all the sensors it monitored, it monitored engine RPM and vehicle speed. There was and still is an RPM limiter to prevent owners from going past redline and the speed monitors helped to determine when the transmissions would shift depending on engine RPM.

Reply to
Leon

Yeah, if that is what it takes for "me" to be able to buy one in the future. Although, no one would be forced to buy a TS. While this may sound self centered, no more so than those that oppose the idea of government intervention in this particular case to simply prove a point. The point is taken and accepted into consideration... I'll go with the government in this case because I still want to do wood working and have the added safety.

You personally sound like.....

Reply to
Leon

or shill.

-zach

Reply to
Zach Tomas

Good for you Mike... you showed em. ;~)

AND maintained your integrity.

Reply to
Leon

When you settle for the lesser of two evils, you are settling for evil. Do you really want that?

I have no objections to purchasing a safety device for my saw of my own accord. But I'll be damned if some money-grubbing company tries to FORCE that purchase down my throat without even a choice as to the manufacturer!

If it were an open market with several competing companies making similarly effective saw safety devices, it'd be one thing, but the only people who benefit financially from SawStop's petition is THEM.

It's greed taken to an extreme form.

Fuck them.

CJ

Reply to
Chris Johnson

A damned fine letter. Good job.

Their reply is a nice bit of semantic gamesmanship with a great deal of intentional misdirection.

Let me count the flaws...

They are attempting to compel us to to use saws equipped with a safety device.

But only THEIR safety device.

Their analogy to car seat belts and airbags is flawed, because there are several competing manufacturers making seat belts and airbags.

They're trying to assist the government in assuming the role of Nanny State in yet another field of regulation.

As things stand now, I'd remove and throw away a SawStop product if I found one hidden in my saw. I'm that furious at the company for trying to shove this right up our asses "for our own good".

I look forward to when they send a reply to me in response to MY little shot across the bow I sent them. The response they get back from me will be so hot it'll set the paper on fire if they print it.

CJ

Reply to
Chris Johnson

No kidding... You think? You know, if the gov required toilet seats to be mounted on the hood of all new cars - the, yes there would suddenly be a market for that "feature".

-zach

Reply to
Zach Tomas

Then you missed the entire point. Try "I have the right to use dangerous equipment safely and not be fined because some fools are to careless to use the same equipment safely".

Reply to
Steve

I've got a better idea: Every saw manufacturer should offer this and other safety products as reasonably priced options for each model of saw. You get to choose what safety options you want installed on it, or choose none if that's what you want.

But wait, there's a problem with that. The problem is that there IS no product that competes with the SawStop device and probably won't be until the patent runs out as the patent is pretty comprehensive and it's not easy to make an end run around one that covers the whole concept so thoroughly.

It's freedom of choice, Leon. I won't be denied mine. If you want to lose that freedom to choose, that's your business.

CJ

Reply to
Chris Johnson

No, it doesn't. The proposed regulation would dictate what a saw safety device would hve to do. It does not say HOW it must be done. If someone else can come up with a different product that achieves the same performance goals in a different way, they would meet the definitions in the regulation and would not violate SawStop's patent.

Again, a monopoly is not created just because someone is first to the market with a new product. If that were the case, there would never be another new innovation!

Reply to
Sam Chambers

: No, it doesn't. The proposed regulation would dictate what a saw safety : device would hve to do. It does not say HOW it must be done. If someone : else can come up with a different product that achieves the same performance : goals in a different way, they would meet the definitions in the regulation : and would not violate SawStop's patent. : : Again, a monopoly is not created just because someone is first to the market : with a new product. If that were the case, there would never be another new : innovation! : : : -- :The product is on the market. Apparently very few people are buying it. Saw Stop appears to want to get their development cost back by having the Govt. legislate it.

Reply to
Bob Gramza

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.