In article ,
Dave Hinz wrote:

I'm not in favor of requiring safety equipment that hasn't been proven.

You're not? You seemed to be before.

I'm sorry that I gave that impression. My point was supposed to be that
mandatory safety equipment is not inherently bad. I also assumed that it
was a given that it should be proven to work before being required.

Then how do you reconcile this with supporting the Sawstop non-product
folks?

Because I don't think they are evil just because the tried for the
government regulation. I don't know their true motivation. While I'm
sure that they would have been happy to get the regulation enacted, that
may not have been their primary motive. They may have been looking for
the publicity to get their product noticed. In that, they seemed to have
had some success.

My assumption was also that the government would not be so stupid as to
make a requirement for something unless it had been proven to be
available and reliable, and that the regulation would not be written in
such a way that would preclude the use of an alternate product should
one be developed.

As for their 'non-product' status, they are trying to get a complete
quality machine made, starting from scratch. If some of the existing
manufacturers had decided to license the product, it probably would have
been available much sooner.

--
Hank Gillette