By Tue, 31 Aug 2004 22:50:22 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski"
decided to post " Delta Drill Press Safety Switch" to
rec.woodworking:


"Dave" wrote in message
news:ku3Zc.285028$J06.227965@pd7tw2no...
If it is a consistent problem, I am a little surprised that Delta
hasn't
had some kind of safety recall. The way you report it failing sounds a
little dangerous.

Dave


You're right they should. We know of two instances out of 20,000,000 tools.
That justifies replacing them all. Shame you are in Canada, Ralph Nader is
running for president and you can't vote for him.


Current thinking in the current party is that, more and more, manufacturers
shouldn't have to announce safety related issues to consumers. In fact,
legislation to this effect is being debated or has recently passed. What I
don't understand is why this can be thought to ultimately benefit
consumers? Certainly it reduces costs for manufacturers which then _could_
reduce retail prices. But should this be at the cost of fostering unsafe
products -- such as tires, motors, drugs, foods, machinery and equipment?
Fostering unsafe services such as medical care?

Reducing product safety reporting requirements and liability for dangerous
products really seems like an attempt at shifting social policy rather than
purely economic policy. The effect is to reduce people's health and
longevity. Perhaps the thinking is that there are too many plates on the
table, in general?

So: reduce requirements that products are safe. Reduce requirements that
manufacturers of unsafe products report such issues, and fix or recall
unsafe products and otherwise bear responsibility for their mistakes.

Sounds stupid.

Sounds antisocial.

BTW, why would Delta use an unsafe switch? (Cheaper? Bad planning? Poor
engineering? Cost-benefit? -- fingers vs. profit?)

In a "market economy", market forces alone _can_ be responsible for
perfecting the market _only_ with perfect communication and universal
knowledge. (But that doesn't happen in the real world.) You should know
_all_ benefits and hazards and other factors of competitive offerings;
otherwise, unlike in a theoretically "pure market", you're generally
screwed with most decisions. WAIT, that seems like reality as I know it.
Few, if any, players in any market use any form of altruism, or benefit
provided beyond that required, as a competitive tool unless a force outside
the market (regulation, public policy) shapes that market. So, best
practices will include 2 in 1,000 unsafe parts if there is no external
pressure to prevent this.

Really, you should read "Unsafe at Any Speed", then "Wheels" by Alex Haley,
and follow up with "The Jungle" by Upton Sinclair. Maybe "Lord of the
Flies" might shed a little light too!

HTH,

/ts