Sawstop, airbags... sawstop... airbags.... hmmm....
Am I the first to suggest that tablesaws be fitted with airbags which go off
whenever a body part touches the blade?
Boom! Your insert sprouts a big puffy bag and pushes your hand out of harms
way in milliseconds.
Don't forget to wear your face shield!
That is what I said later in my same post. Here it is:
"There can be an irony in the law about such things. If the sawstop
technology does work and it catches on, then if a company that does not
sell sawstop is sued for its "plain" TS, the plaintiff can say, "They could
have added this new technology but they refused." OTOH, if the same
company had licensed sawstop and then was sued, the fact that it had added
a sawstop line would not be admissible in court. YMMV, depending on your
state, but that irony exists in many states."
In my experience following such industry developments, in fact suits DO
come from both directions, yet companies generally only predict those
coming from the first direction -- i.e., that a "new safety technology"
will suggest that their existing products are defective. If they can kill
that new tech, then when a lawsuit comes they can say that the technology
was "unproven", "too costly", etc. But if they do not kill it -- i.e., if
their refusal to license it does not prevent it somehow coming to market
eventually -- then they really can end up being hit harder in court.
Please also note my initial caveat: "Assuming the technology works". --
Not unsafe - dangerous. There is a big difference. Table saws have always
been acknowledged as being dangerous. I suspect it's more of a combination
of a few things. 1) Cost - always the big decider. 2) They may like the
idea but are now working on their own version so they are not subject to
redesign just to accommodate a proprietary solution. 3) They may be
resisting yet another government forced solution to a problem that is
sensationalized by an individual who is trumpeting it for his own personal
If there were 300,000 saws that required re-activation and new blades every
year (and you are talking US only) at a cost of several hundred dollars
each, you would see the price of pre-sawstop saws go through the roof.
You would also likely see a class action suit from users of expensive
sawblades for damage due to false positives. I'm not sure how users on a
remote site would take to having their saw shut down because someone screwed
up and used it to cut a ham sandwich. Would you be willing to wait for
either the saw to be shipped to an authorized service center, fixed and
returned (and you still have to buy a new blade) or wait for someone to come
out and fix it (and you still have to buy a new blade)?. Or would you rather
wrap your knuckle in a starbucks napkin and run a few layers of masking tape
over it and get on with your work?
Sure it is an interesting idea, but it doesn't have practicallity on it's
side. Saw manufacturers want to sell saws. They do not want to have to deal
with servicing saws. Saw buyers want to use saws. They do not want to wait
for service which they can not perform themselves.
OK, so if it is self service, customers don't want to have to have a
replacement module and extra saw blade if they don't need to. I'm not saying
sawstop is a bad thing. I'm just trying to give some reasons why
manufacturers might not want to include it.
Do you just like to hear yourself talk? Why don't you do some research
before you perpetuate this crap? It is people like you that hold up the
Maybe manufacturers don't want to include it because they don't give a crap
about whether or not you keep your limbs...ever think of that?
Do you just like to hear yourself talk? It's the bottom line that
drives the feature set of any product, including a tablesaw (and the
bottom line is a calculation consisting of "what a customer will pay
for a given set of features" minus "what it costs to produce
a given set of features").
If Saw-stop can't create a market for their product, then it should
be appropriately relegated to a niche - and if they can't survive
in that niche, c'est la vie. They certainly should _not_ rely on
OSHA or any federal or state regulation to create their market for them.
True. They're not relying on OSHA. That was a misstatement by Scott. They're
actually relying on the CPSC.
SawStop has petitioned the Consumer Product Safety Commission to make their
proprietary technology *mandatory*. How they finance it is irrelevant. The
problem many of us have with their behavior is that having first failed in the
marketplace, they are now attempting to use the government to force the
adoption of a product that the free market decided it didn't want.
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
Not quite true, but even if it was, so what? The "free market" would
allow or reject many things that are not in the common good. If SawStop
can make a buck by using existing government mechanism that are designed
to protect the common good, what is the harm?
A silly question. That is why we elect a government and enact laws. They
are an effort to both define and protect the common good. A perfect
system? Of course not, and we sometimes err in defining it (or we would
not be in Iraq). But in fact we do define the common good in thousands
of ways daily from stop signs to antitrust regulation and from school
crossings to money policy from the Fed.
You may disagree about a particular issue like SawStop and whether
requiring it protects the common good, but it is disingenuous to pretend
that we do not have a need to enact laws and regulation to define and
protect the common good.
Mike Marlow wrote:
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.