On Thu, 25 May 2017 09:47:56 -0500, dpb wrote:

On 05/25/2017 8:01 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 5/25/2017 6:55 AM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Thursday, May 25, 2017 at 5:27:36 AM UTC-4, Leon wrote:
wrote:
...

Here's what I posted:

...[impassioned plea elided solely for brevity]...

In closing, I hope you can see that while some safety devices are good
ideas, the idea of a saw blade brake is not. Not for the hobbyist or the
professional. Although for two very different reasons, neither would
benefit from it. This is an issue that has been around for years now,
and while the saw blade brake technology certainly has its place, most
are overwhelmingly against it, and mandating it would be of little
or no value to table saw users.

Thank you for your time and attention.


...

Replacing the brake takes a couple of minutes. Have you not seen a demo?
As far as not having a spare replacement brake goes, why would you
not have one on hand? Would you drive out of town with out a spare tire? :-)

I'll take a shot at that:

...

In the case of a construction site, it's easy to imagine that the
replacment parts and/or qualified personnel may not always be readily available.

...

You all make good points. I've seen many safety devices disconnected and
procedures ignored. You may open a safety gate to slick out a piced of
crap in a mold, but I've never seen anyone lock out and tag out to do
that, as required. There will be a lot of problems in independent shops,
but you will get good compliance in utilities and places that are hard
ass on safety and compliance.

The independent shops will comply after the first saw accident,
especially if OSHA is notified.

My take is while such arguments may fill volumes of comments, CPSC has
already pretty-much dismissed them if one reads the comments addressed
in the submittal; they've come up with the regulator's view that the
only thing that has value is additional regulation and whether the
regulated are happy about or not isn't of particular concern.

Typical bureaucrat's attitude - my mind is made up, facts? What are
those?

The one of potential cost/downtime has at least some negative impact on
the cost:benefit ratio and I'm not sure I saw that particular cost
addressed altho as noted I've not gotten all the way thru the details as
of yet. What would be important would be some way to have estimates on
what those numbers really would turn out to be and if one could
rationally make them significant-enough to help turn what they currently
have as quite large positives owing, of course, to the fact that a
single emergency-room visit is quite a high number and their statistics
on incident numbers are quite large. (Whether those are at all
realistic is another issue but I don't know there's a way to dispute
them but somehow I suspect reporting isn't the best as far as relating
the actual injury to the root cause).

Regulators don't care about (and likely don't understand) cost/benefit
analysis. OTOH, insurance companies are pretty good at giving the
customer the cost numbers.

I wonder what two regulations the CSPC is going to give up for this
one?