On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 15:55:19 -0500, Paul Kierstead
vaguely proposed a theory
.......and in reply I say!:

remove ns from my header address to reply via email

You are not, indeed; you seem pretty reasonable to me. I am entirely
baffled how people can get their panties in such a knot over the
invention of a tablesaw safety device or -- for that matter -- the fact
the company has been slow getting it to market.

If it were that simple, I agree. But before they had it to market,
they were trying to get it in by law. They also seem to have had it on
the _market_ (asking for forward payment), but not "on the shelves".
That is not the same as being slow to market it.

You would think it was a
massive insult to them or something. What is the deal here? Sheesh, they
must be homicidal about seatbelts. I can't imagine how much they froth
at the mouth about anti-lock brakes, hearing protection or -- god help
us -- eye protection.

Many people _did_ froth about all of those things. 40% or some such
figure of people in the rural areas of Oz who die in accidents are not
wearing seatbelts. Whether this indicates the true power of seatbelts,
or the fact that the the people who do not wear seatbelts are also far
more likely to speed/drink/be silly is in question, of course.

I think the problem is that the seatbelts, and now even ABS do not
significantly (+5%) add to the cost of the vehicle. I do not believe
that a Sawstop can be _fitted_ to a TS for the $50-100 dollars
claimed. I could be wrong. Also, the vehicle makers put them in very
expensive cars, for many years, before they attempted to foist them on
the public by law. I see Sawstop have done just that.