On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 23:40:15 GMT, "Leon"
wrote:


"George Max" wrote in message
.. .


Snip of views that you and I totally agree with.


This was going to be a good old fashioned success story. Until now.
Now Mr. Gass feels it's necessary to get the government to force
everyone to use his device. I know, I know, they won't couch it in
words exactly like that, they'll use words that say something like "a
device to eliminate or reduce injury from contacting a rotating saw
blade" or somesuch. And all the while essentialy mean to use Saw
Stop.

Well, Mr. Gass did not just now decide to try and make this manditory on
every saw. This was going on 3 or 4 years ago.

Yeah, I know. I read the story in Design News today. Probably read
some of the same stuff I'd read before but forgot. He definitely has
an adversarial relationship with the tool makers.

BTW, aside from the tool industry being in opposition to this,
Underwriters Laboratory (UL) is also in opposition to the CPSC filing.
I'm taking that to mean that there's likely more to this than money or
legal issues.

I'm thinking reliability and the possible issue of false triggering.
Personally, I'd really hate to wreck a Forrest WW2 that way.



That's where I draw the line. In my opinion he wants to use
government intervention has a short cut to riches. And that's just
wrong.

Well we partially agree here. I too do not want government to get involved
in every thing, however you have to admit that in the real world this is not
possible. The government is going to get involved, Period,
I hate the thought of affirmative action, I hate that I have to buy
insurance for me and the other guy to be able to drive and yet the guy that
runs in to you has no insurance.


My point of view is simple, of all the things that people have convinced the
government to require and cram down my throat the SawStop is more palitable.
I am not going to change my openion because of the way it is being or not
being brought to market. Basically I am not going to cut my nose off to
spite my face. I still make my judgement in the value of the product for
what it is and not how it was brought to be.


And now the matter of government regulation.

I don't know that we're going to completely agree on this. Here's
where I am: Consider airbags in cars: I don't see the Saw Stop as a
device of similar importance. There are far more cars than saws and
the cost of injurys due to automobiles is surely far greater.

Where would you draw the line? Do you not already know that *all* the
tools in your shop that have an edge can cut and injure? Are you
careless with their use? I'll bet you and I already know the answers
to those.

We're not talking cars, or building codes for bridges or space
shuttles. We're talking table saws. Something that everyone knows
can cut and maim if not outright kill. The rules of operation are
clear. This is a cold piece of metal that has no feeling and simply
cuts (or tries to) whatever contacts the blade.

So yes, this is where I draw the line. Enough is enough. The TS is
NOT unreasonably dangerous. It does exactly what is required. It has
sharp teeth, it cuts wood. It would cut my hand off too if I let it.
You know that, I know that.

If it's o.k. to regulate a TS, then what? Your jointer? Planer?
Bandsaw? What about the lathe? I've had chunks come flying off the
chuck. Should there be a government rule for that?

I'm serious - where does it end?