|
Consumer Product Safety Comm. to discuss proposed SawStop technology safety rule
"Upscale" wrote in message ... I can't argue with that Ed, but, answer me one question. If you'd invented this product and knowing how many injuries it could prevent, would you have given it away completely for free? I don't call it greed for someone to invent something that will benefit people, but also want to profit from it at the same time. I call that just a natural human instinct to want to benefit from what we create. He is and has been completely free to sell it. If that's what the public wants, all they have to do is call his company and order one. I'm beginning to think that you believe that the general public is just to stupid to know what is good for them. You and Mr. Gass, of course, are the enlightened ones. |
Consumer Product Safety Comm. to discuss proposed SawStop technology safety rule
Upscale wrote:
You're suggesting that the drug companies are a philanthropic business? Nope. 8 million folks. Wow, that adds up to how much, less than 0.03 of the US population? It adds up to 8 million folks who couldn't afford their medications.. Har, don't make me laugh. You find the plight of those in poverty funny? Or the manufacturers that provide the assistance? Suggest you look into how many billions those same drug companies take in. The few billion dollars of product they might freely distribute are given solely for appearance purposes. When you are fully read up on the subject, get back to me...... gee, that patronization technique works well. -- Dave www.davebbq.com |
Consumer Product Safety Comm. to discuss proposed SawStop technology safety rule
"CW" wrote in message
wants, all they have to do is call his company and order one. I'm beginning to think that you believe that the general public is just to stupid to know what is good for them. You and Mr. Gass, of course, are the enlightened ones. You're too stupid obviously. Let's keep everything free choice. To hell with seat belts. Forget laws against driving under the influence. Everybody should own an UZI. Even better, let's arm everybody with their own personal armoury of surface to air missiles. Freedom for all I say. CW says it should be that way so let's do it. Absolutely everybody with the choice to do what they want. Wouldn't it be glorious? Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Guess that's one that got by you. Maybe in your next fantasy. |
Consumer Product Safety Comm. to discuss proposed SawStop technology safety rule
Upscale wrote:
You're too stupid obviously. shaking head sigh Let's keep everything free choice. To hell with seat belts. Forget laws against driving under the influence. Everybody should own an UZI. Even better, let's arm everybody with their own personal armoury of surface to air missiles. Freedom for all I say. Yep, that's right; giving the consumer the choice of whether or not to purchase a Sawstop is tantamount to allowing folks to be armed with surface to air missles, or the freedom to drive drunk. CW says it should be that way so let's do it. Absolutely everybody with the choice to do what they want. Wouldn't it be glorious? The choice to do whatever one wants is NOT the issue. The issue is consumer choice. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Guess that's one that got by you. Wow, you just throw out these pearls regardless of their relevance. Straw men just blow away. -- Dave www.davebbq.com |
Consumer Product Safety Comm. to discuss proposed SawStop technology safety rule
On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 00:03:41 -0400, "Upscale"
wrote: "Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in message Profit yes, but how much is too much. That is one of the unknowns here. If you go back in history, you can find examples of all sorts of situations from the scientist that labored out of the desire to help humanity to the ones purely profit motivated. I guess it will all come out eventually. We'll just have to wait and see. About a year ago, one of the auto manufacturers (maybe Mercedes?) was getting advertising mileage by stating they gave away the technology for safety devices. Details don't seem to be stored in the brain cells right now. I'll grant you it might have happened, but there's one important difference. They were/are already in business in a big way. What's the likelihood of it happening if they were a fledgling organization trying to survive? Yeah, but they were *in the business* because they di the hard work the old fashion way. And, we would have to ask *why* is SS a fledgling operation....because the product is not needed or wanted by the masses. A niche market, yes. Gass cannot accept that, cannot go out and make the world understand that his product is superior, to compete in the marketplace. |
Consumer Product Safety Comm. to discuss proposed SawStop technology safety rule
On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 01:05:55 -0400, "Upscale"
wrote: "CW" wrote in message wants, all they have to do is call his company and order one. I'm beginning to think that you believe that the general public is just to stupid to know what is good for them. You and Mr. Gass, of course, are the enlightened ones. You're too stupid obviously. Let's keep everything free choice. To hell with seat belts. Forget laws against driving under the influence. Everybody should own an UZI. Even better, let's arm everybody with their own personal armoury of surface to air missiles. Freedom for all I say. CW says it should be that way so let's do it. Absolutely everybody with the choice to do what they want. Wouldn't it be glorious? Those same flimsy comparisons. Regulations for seat belts and DUI laws, and UZI's for that matter protect us against third party injury. The operation of power equip is soley in the hands of the operator. Follow procedure and you won't be injured...period. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Guess that's one that got by you. Maybe in your next fantasy. |
Consumer Product Safety Comm. to discuss proposed SawStop technologysafety rule
Larry Blanchard wrote:
The Other Funk wrote: Actually the SawStop folks have a legal responsibility to maximize profits for thier investors. And that justifies how many unethical and/or illegal practices? It justifies none, of course. It's difficult to see how Sawstop's efforts are _illegal_, unles you regard lobbying the government as illegal. As for unethical, that's sort of a judgement call: there may be very good reasons to mandate an important safety feature on tablesaws. |
Consumer Product Safety Comm. to discuss proposed SawStop technology safety rule
David wrote: I've lurked long enough. . . . I agree with almost everyone above - that this is a great safety feature, yet that it shouldn't be forced on individuals. I agree that the company's goal is to line their pockets, but I can't begrudge someone a few bucks for what can save a lot of grief. I am a hand surgeon in a suburb west of Cleveland, and have seen a minimum 2-3 woodworking injuries a week over the last 15 years, many of which end up in the OR. They range from close calls and nicked nails, to devastating life changing and career ending injuries. Almost everyone one of them is a table saw related injury (with a smattering of chop saws, circular saws, drills, and the occasional router or jointer), and every injury of significance involves contact with a moving (under power or coasting) blade. While most admittedly represent some error in judgment (poor outfeed support, small workpiece, blocking kickback, fatigue, lapse of concentration, etc.), they happen to the experienced woodworkers probably more often than to the inexperienced. The best safety remains the guard and splitter (I'm ready for the assault! - but I've still NEVER seen a table saw injury that needed to see me when the guard was in place), but for people who feel better without it, this could be a great thing. (Although even SawStop recommends the guard and riving knife.) Twenty (maybe 10?) years from now, some variation of this technology will be as standard as the on-off switch, at least in the industrial environment, and yes, it will likely be legislated. As individual woodworkers today, our best bet is to learn the technologies and encourage them, in the hope that, as Upscale said, the negative impressions will fade away when the cost decreases. David S. sweetsawdust wrote: I would think that the 55,000 TS injuries a year might be a little low. This week I have had 3 injuries from my table saw, bumped into it once and hurt my leg, laid down a stack of boards and mashed my finger, had a piece of wood (large) fall from the table and hit my foot. None of these injuries occurred when the saw was running, Total loss of time 5 min at most while I was cussing my own stupidity, cost to business $0. Will the saw stop help with any of those? they seem to be the most common type around my shop. "George Max" wrote in message ... Reposting a message I found in ABPW: (FWIW) On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 18:47:54 -0500, 25th Century Quaker wrote: Safety Innovator and SawStop Founder Stephen Gass to Meet With CPSC Head; Open Meeting Held to Discuss Proposed New Safety Rule 9/5/2006 10:23:00 AM http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=71705 To: National Desk Contact: Joe Householder, 713-301-0733, or , for SawStop WASHINGTON, Sept. 5 /U.S. Newswire/ -- On Wednesday, Sept. 6, Acting Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) Chair Nancy Nord will hold an open meeting with SawStop founder Stephen Gass to discuss a proposed new safety rule that could save the American economy billions of dollars each year and prevent thousands of workplace and home injuries. Gass is the inventor of the SawStop technology, which drastically reduces the risk of injury in the use of table saws. According to the CPSC, there are 55,000 table saw injuries each year with an estimated cost to society of $2 billion. Many of those injuries occur when an operator's fingers or hand comes into contact with the rapidly spinning table saw blade. These injuries are often devastating, ruining careers, putting families into emotional and financial turmoil and disrupting businesses. "So many of those injuries can be prevented," said Gass. The proven SawStop technology stops a table saw blade within milliseconds after it comes into contact with human skin, in most cases resulting in a small nick, rather than an amputation. Presently, CPSC staff is developing an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking which, if it ultimately becomes an official rule, will require all table saw manufacturers to ensure that blade contact injuries result in a minor injury. "The proposed rule under consideration by the CPSC would prevent thousands of life-altering table saw injuries each year," said Gass. "It would preserve jobs, reduce costs to employers, cut worker compensation claims and ensure that families don't suffer the emotional and financial devastation that these injuries cause." The meeting, which is open to the public and the news media, will be at 11 a.m. on Wednesday, Sept. 6. It will be held in the hearing room at CPSC Headquarters, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, Md., 20814 For more information about SawStop and this innovative technology, visit its Web page at http://www.sawstop.com. David, I used to feel the way you do about mandated safety, seat belts in particular. But I have swung the other way due to the outrageous cost to all of us in terms of health care. I lost the dip joint in the ring finger of my left hand to a TS, but thanks to the amazing skill of somebody like you, it isn't too bad. I count myself lucky for having learned a valuable lesson at a relatively small cost. -Jim |
Consumer Product Safety Comm. to discuss proposed SawStop technology safety rule
|
Consumer Product Safety Comm. to discuss proposed SawStop technology safety rule
On 11 Sep 2006 09:00:22 -0700, "jtpr" wrote:
David wrote: I've lurked long enough. . . . I agree with almost everyone above - that this is a great safety feature, yet that it shouldn't be forced on individuals. I agree that the company's goal is to line their pockets, but I can't begrudge someone a few bucks for what can save a lot of grief. I am a hand surgeon in a suburb west of Cleveland, and have seen a minimum 2-3 woodworking injuries a week over the last 15 years, many of which end up in the OR. They range from close calls and nicked nails, to devastating life changing and career ending injuries. Almost everyone one of them is a table saw related injury (with a smattering of chop saws, circular saws, drills, and the occasional router or jointer), and every injury of significance involves contact with a moving (under power or coasting) blade. While most admittedly represent some error in judgment (poor outfeed support, small workpiece, blocking kickback, fatigue, lapse of concentration, etc.), they happen to the experienced woodworkers probably more often than to the inexperienced. The best safety remains the guard and splitter (I'm ready for the assault! - but I've still NEVER seen a table saw injury that needed to see me when the guard was in place), but for people who feel better without it, this could be a great thing. (Although even SawStop recommends the guard and riving knife.) Thanks for the valued insight Dr. David. You may have read my responses above where I try to explain that accidents do not happen when the operator follows proper procedure. If one is so inclined there are many documented cases of injuries related to TS operation to review. I cannot find a single case where the operator was anywhere near proper procedure. It defies logic to suggest that such an accident could take place. I would not want to go as far as to say it would be physically impossible, but rather, extremely unlikely. Thanks for posting! Twenty (maybe 10?) years from now, some variation of this technology will be as standard as the on-off switch, at least in the industrial environment, and yes, it will likely be legislated. As individual woodworkers today, our best bet is to learn the technologies and encourage them, in the hope that, as Upscale said, the negative impressions will fade away when the cost decreases. David S. sweetsawdust wrote: I would think that the 55,000 TS injuries a year might be a little low. This week I have had 3 injuries from my table saw, bumped into it once and hurt my leg, laid down a stack of boards and mashed my finger, had a piece of wood (large) fall from the table and hit my foot. None of these injuries occurred when the saw was running, Total loss of time 5 min at most while I was cussing my own stupidity, cost to business $0. Will the saw stop help with any of those? they seem to be the most common type around my shop. "George Max" wrote in message ... Reposting a message I found in ABPW: (FWIW) On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 18:47:54 -0500, 25th Century Quaker wrote: Safety Innovator and SawStop Founder Stephen Gass to Meet With CPSC Head; Open Meeting Held to Discuss Proposed New Safety Rule 9/5/2006 10:23:00 AM http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=71705 To: National Desk Contact: Joe Householder, 713-301-0733, or , for SawStop WASHINGTON, Sept. 5 /U.S. Newswire/ -- On Wednesday, Sept. 6, Acting Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) Chair Nancy Nord will hold an open meeting with SawStop founder Stephen Gass to discuss a proposed new safety rule that could save the American economy billions of dollars each year and prevent thousands of workplace and home injuries. Gass is the inventor of the SawStop technology, which drastically reduces the risk of injury in the use of table saws. According to the CPSC, there are 55,000 table saw injuries each year with an estimated cost to society of $2 billion. Many of those injuries occur when an operator's fingers or hand comes into contact with the rapidly spinning table saw blade. These injuries are often devastating, ruining careers, putting families into emotional and financial turmoil and disrupting businesses. "So many of those injuries can be prevented," said Gass. The proven SawStop technology stops a table saw blade within milliseconds after it comes into contact with human skin, in most cases resulting in a small nick, rather than an amputation. Presently, CPSC staff is developing an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking which, if it ultimately becomes an official rule, will require all table saw manufacturers to ensure that blade contact injuries result in a minor injury. "The proposed rule under consideration by the CPSC would prevent thousands of life-altering table saw injuries each year," said Gass. "It would preserve jobs, reduce costs to employers, cut worker compensation claims and ensure that families don't suffer the emotional and financial devastation that these injuries cause." The meeting, which is open to the public and the news media, will be at 11 a.m. on Wednesday, Sept. 6. It will be held in the hearing room at CPSC Headquarters, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, Md., 20814 For more information about SawStop and this innovative technology, visit its Web page at http://www.sawstop.com. David, I used to feel the way you do about mandated safety, seat belts in particular. But I have swung the other way due to the outrageous cost to all of us in terms of health care. I lost the dip joint in the ring finger of my left hand to a TS, but thanks to the amazing skill of somebody like you, it isn't too bad. I count myself lucky for having learned a valuable lesson at a relatively small cost. -Jim |
Consumer Product Safety Comm. to discuss proposed SawStop technology safety rule
"Joe Bemier" wrote in message
The operation of power equip is solely in the hands of the operator. Follow procedure and you won't be injured...period. Same stupid impossible statement. NOBODY follows procedure perfectly EVERY time. It's not humanely possible. Are you going to deny that some of the safest people have never been injured? Accidents happen. That's why they're called accidents. I find it hard to understand how you're so down on Gass who might be attempting to mandate his product which will save people from injury, while at the same time, you're supporting the collection of manufacturers who initially refused to endorse his product because it would cost them profits even though injuries will continue. What you're saying is that it's ok for manufacturer's to make profit even though more injuries are being caused, but not ok for Gass to make a profit while preventing injuries. Is that it? You're supporting injuries to continue because you don't like how someone goes about making a profit? |
Consumer Product Safety Comm. to discuss proposed SawStop technology safety rule
jtpr wrote:
I used to feel the way you do about mandated safety, seat belts in particular. But I have swung the other way due to the outrageous cost to all of us in terms of health care.... Although that may be a significant argument in your mind, it is not persuasive to me. Life *itself* causes outrageous health care costs. Seatbelts -- by themselves -- are *most* effective at speeds below 40 mph (we're talkin' current seatbelts, not racing harnesses). It has been demonstrated that, even with airbags, requiring helmets in a car can further increase the survivability of crashes above 40 mph, while decreasing brain injury. So, perhaps we need to mandate that cars be equipped with speed regulators, and that passengers and drivers be required to wear helmets. Let's also eliminate bicycles and motorbikes, backpacking and climbing, boating, swimming, monkeybars, etc, because these, and numerous other activities also add to the outrageous costs to all of us. And by all means, lets eliminate new medical technologies and pharmaceutical R&D and the adversarial legal system, 'cause they definitely add to the outrageous costs to all of us in terms of health care. Or maybe we could require everyone who purchases a WhirlySharp tool to show proof of health and disability insurance. That way, if there is an injury or disability, it is covered. We can also require registration of the tool with the Dept. of WhirlySharp Tools prior to the purchase, so that continuous monitoring of the insurance requirements are in place. Or instead of the above, just keep encouraging people to read the manual, to fully understand and *use* the safety precautions for the WhirlySharp tool in question, and not to work in a manner that puts human flesh at risk of disassembly. -- Dave www.davebbq.com |
Consumer Product Safety Comm. to discuss proposed SawStop technology safety rule
"Dave Bugg" wrote in message Seatbelts -- by themselves -- are *most* effective at speeds below 40 mph (we're talkin' current seatbelts, not racing harnesses). It has been demonstrated that, even with airbags, requiring helmets in a car can further increase the survivability of crashes above 40 mph, while decreasing brain injury. rest snipped And how do you respond to those times where serious accidents have occurred at much greater speeds and coming out of it almost completely unscathed? If you want me to, I can post a picture of an accident I was in at 60 MPH ramming into a concrete telephone pole that fell on the car and crushed it, but where I came out of it with a cut on my hand and virtually no other injury. Was I lucky? Damned right I was. But, I attribute 99% of that luck to the fact that I was wearing a standard seat belt ~ a seat belt that I wouldn't have been wearing without laws to mandate it. |
Consumer Product Safety Comm. to discuss proposed SawStop technology safety rule
wrote in message
I used to feel the way you do about mandated safety, seat belts in particular. But I have swung the other way due to the outrageous cost to all of us in terms of health care. That is a red herrring unless you want to go protest the KFC, Baskin Robbins and McDonalds. Big difference don't you think with things that can cause definite instant injury and other things that may cause health difficulties over a long period? If you want to really get down to it, your statement is much more of a red herring than the one you commented on. |
Consumer Product Safety Comm. to discuss proposed SawStop technology safety rule
Upscale wrote:
Same stupid impossible statement. Pot-kettle-black. NOBODY follows procedure perfectly EVERY time. It's not humanely possible.... Right, uh-huh. I find it hard to understand how you're so down on Gass who might be attempting to mandate his product which will save people from injury, Your comprehension is YOUR problem, not ours. To most of us, it is perfectly clear that an individual trying to use the force of the government to coerce individual consumers to purchase his specific product under the guise of safety, is a weasle trying to make a fast buck. In other words, he can't convince me, through the open market, that I need his product. He then attempts to engage the government into *forcing* me to make the purchase via a codified mandate on the manufacturer. while at the same time, you're supporting the collection of manufacturers who initially refused to endorse his product because it would cost them profits even though injuries will continue. What you're saying is that it's ok for manufacturer's to make profit even though more injuries are being caused, but not ok for Gass to make a profit while preventing injuries. Is that it? You're supporting injuries to continue because you don't like how someone goes about making a profit? How is this even REMOTELY equivalent? Opposing forced government profit-making at the consumer level does NOT equate to supporting a manufacturer. You seem to ignore the fact that the government does not require that an individual purchase a WhirlySharp; that is entirely the choice of the consumer. It is ALSO the choice of the consumer to purchase the Sawstop if s/he chooses to do so. But wait, says Gass, let's ignore the middleman -- the marketplace -- altogether and go straight to the government. That is bogus horsepuckey. It is the same devious mindset that would cause McDonalds to go to congress and argue that "since a lot of workers go to McDs at lunch, and as a result are at risk for severe injuries or death on the road as motorists or pedestrians, the government needs to require a McDonald in every workplace building". And as for your wrongly held notion that the manufacturers are worried about PROFIT as a motive, let me remind you of how profit is derived. All cost of goods are added up, and the product is then priced. IF Sawstop is incorporated into ALL WhirlySharps by government fiat, that cost will be passed onto the consumer, it won't be absorbed by the manufacturer. Thus, your argument that this is a PROFIT issue on the part of the manufacturers is flaccid. -- Dave www.davebbq.com |
Consumer Product Safety Comm. to discuss proposed SawStop technology safety rule
wrote in message
It sounds like YOU really do need a nanny government. Some of us don't. My Jeep rollover was harmless too but I had my seatbelt fastened and it wasn't a law then. Some of us can be safe without a government mandate. Well, I guess that says it all. The GREAT INVULNERABLE human. Obviously, you've never had to go to a hospital for an injury, you've never visited a doctor because you've never been sick and you've never needed any type of assistance whatsoever even once in your life. All of these things mandated and maintained by government and the bureaucracy that you hate so much has been completely useless to you. My hat is off to you and your uniqueness. I'm truly envious of your exempt status in this universe. Too bad we're not all so lucky. (You're so full of crap it's putrefying) |
Consumer Product Safety Comm. to discuss proposed SawStop technology safety rule
On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 14:40:17 -0400, "Upscale"
wrote: "Joe Bemier" wrote in message The operation of power equip is solely in the hands of the operator. Follow procedure and you won't be injured...period. Same stupid impossible statement. NOBODY follows procedure perfectly EVERY time. It's not humanely possible. Are you going to deny that some of the safest people have never been injured? Accidents happen. That's why they're called accidents. I find it hard to understand how you're so down on Gass who might be attempting to mandate his product which will save people from injury, while at the same time, you're supporting the collection of manufacturers who initially refused to endorse his product because it would cost them profits even though injuries will continue. What you're saying is that it's ok for manufacturer's to make profit even though more injuries are being caused, but not ok for Gass to make a profit while preventing injuries. Is that it? You're supporting injuries to continue because you don't like how someone goes about making a profit? I have heard several times in these debates that manufacturers don't want this technology because it will hurt their profits. I don't understand. If everyone had to redesign their equipment, eliminate their low end saws and install sawstops on the rest, why would profits drop. They would simply ALL raise their prices sifficient to ensure the same proofits continue on lower volume/higher priced sales. There would clearly be a lot fewer saws sold, those only producing low-end saws would, by definition, go out of business, but the big boys would still sell saws just at higher prices with higher individual gross profit margins and market equalibreum would be reached at the price point where everyone is satisfied with the level of profits - just like it is now (you know the law of supply and demand - they will produce enough saws to meet demand, but demand is based on price and price must include adequate profit). A lot of people in this group (like me) who use benchtop saws or BT3000s or Shopsmiths would, once those wore out, simply quit doing woodworking and take up golf because we didn't have $1,000 laying around for a low end "safe" saw. Dave Hall |
Consumer Product Safety Comm. to discuss proposed SawStop technology safety rule
"Dave Bugg" wrote in message passed onto the consumer, it won't be absorbed by the manufacturer. Thus, your argument that this is a PROFIT issue on the part of the manufacturers is flaccid. Bull****! The cost of the product passed onto the consumer has a direct effect on how many consumers decide to actually buy that product. That effects their bottom line, AKA PROFITS. Are you really that stupid to think otherwise? God, what type of moron are you? |
Consumer Product Safety Comm. to discuss proposed SawStop technology safety rule
Upscale wrote:
"Dave Bugg" wrote in message Seatbelts -- by themselves -- are *most* effective at speeds below 40 mph (we're talkin' current seatbelts, not racing harnesses). It has been demonstrated that, even with airbags, requiring helmets in a car can further increase the survivability of crashes above 40 mph, while decreasing brain injury. And how do you respond to those times where serious accidents have occurred at much greater speeds and coming out of it almost completely unscathed? Ah, selective snipping. Even so, you must go back and read the my post for comprehension. I did not say that there are never good outcomes ABOVE 40 mph. If you want me to, I can post a picture of an accident I was in at 60 MPH ramming into a concrete telephone pole that fell on the car and crushed it, but where I came out of it with a cut on my hand and virtually no other injury. Excellent. Yes I would love to see that picture, please post it. I serve on the Governor's Injury Prevention Task-Force, and it may be worth sharing. Was I lucky? Damned right I was. But, I attribute 99% of that luck to the fact that I was wearing a standard seat belt ~ a seat belt that I wouldn't have been wearing without laws to mandate it. Well, thanks for making several folk's point. That users have the ability to virtually eliminate severe injury when using WhirlySharps, but they choose to ignore the safety gear and techniques available to them. -- Dave www.davebbq.com |
Consumer Product Safety Comm. to discuss proposed SawStop technology safety rule
Upscale wrote:
wrote in message That is a red herrring unless you want to go protest the KFC, Baskin Robbins and McDonalds. Big difference don't you think with things that can cause definite instant injury and other things that may cause health difficulties over a long period? ....snip. How so? If anything, the costs and disabilities and death due to longterm degenerative disease is FAR more onerous than WhirlySharp injuries. -- Dave www.davebbq.com |
Consumer Product Safety Comm. to discuss proposed SawStop technology safety rule
"Dave Hall" wrote in message those wore out, simply quit doing woodworking and take up golf because we didn't have $1,000 laying around for a low end "safe" saw. And you doubt that would effect profits? If they're not selling saws, they're not making, maintaining a certain profit level. In fact, a business needs to grow to survive. That means it needs to increase profit as time goes on or it will eventually die. Just maintaining the status quo is not enough for investors anymore. That's my take on it anyway. |
Consumer Product Safety Comm. to discuss proposed SawStop technology safety rule
Upscale wrote:
Well, I guess that says it all. The GREAT INVULNERABLE human. Obviously, you've never had to go to a hospital for an injury, you've never visited a doctor because you've never been sick and you've never needed any type of assistance whatsoever even once in your life. Taking the long road to the horizon, ain't ya, Butch. You were the one that stated you wouldn't wear a seatbelt unless it was mandated. gfretwell stated that he wore his because he knew it was good for him. It seems to me that the Gman was the one that KNEW he was vulnerable. It was YOU, because you lacked the commonsense to wear one without the government saying so, felt that you were INVULNERABLE. All of these things mandated and maintained by government and the bureaucracy that you hate so much has been completely useless to you. Again, a great, giant leap off of nowhere. To oppose any government mandate does NOT equate to opposing ALL government mandates. My hat is off to you and your uniqueness. I'm truly envious of your exempt status in this universe. Too bad we're not all so lucky. (You're so full of crap it's putrefying) I left that in so that we could all enjoy your wit. -- Dave www.davebbq.com |
Consumer Product Safety Comm. to discuss proposed SawStop technology safety rule
Upscale wrote:
"Dave Bugg" wrote in message passed onto the consumer, it won't be absorbed by the manufacturer. Thus, your argument that this is a PROFIT issue on the part of the manufacturers is flaccid. Bull****! The cost of the product passed onto the consumer has a direct effect on how many consumers decide to actually buy that product. That effects their bottom line, AKA PROFITS. Are you really that stupid to think otherwise? God, what type of moron are you? If every manufacturer is mandated to have the Sawstop, then the consumer is faced with ALL products have the same percentage rise in costs. If a consumer wants to buy a tablesaw, he'll have to pay the price increase regardless. Do ya get it now? -- Dave www.davebbq.com |
Consumer Product Safety Comm. to discuss proposed SawStop technology safety rule
"Dave Bugg" wrote in message
Excellent. Yes I would love to see that picture, please post it. I serve on the Governor's Injury Prevention Task-Force, and it may be worth sharing. I'll scan it and post it in ABPW. Hope it's useful to you. Well, thanks for making several folk's point. That users have the ability to virtually eliminate severe injury when using WhirlySharps, but they choose to ignore the safety gear and techniques available to them. Ok, you've completely lost me with that statement. |
Consumer Product Safety Comm. to discuss proposed SawStop technology safety rule
On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 14:40:17 -0400, "Upscale"
wrote: "Joe Bemier" wrote in message The operation of power equip is solely in the hands of the operator. Follow procedure and you won't be injured...period. Same stupid impossible statement. NOBODY follows procedure perfectly EVERY time. It's not humanely possible. Are you going to deny that some of the safest people have never been injured? Accidents happen. That's why they're called accidents. OK, fine, but you're splitting hairs. I think you understand the point I'm making. But, in the fairness of the debate I'll agree that nobody follows exact procedure 100% of the time. But obviously that just goes to show that one can even be a bit sloppy and still not have problems. Think about Ed's point way up there at the top - -just around his neighborhood there are a half dozen saws. So, while 55,000 injuries sounds like a big number we have to consider that there are millions of T/S out there. It just goes to demonstrate that injuries happen to the arrogant - those that either don't understand procedure or those who don't care to follow such.. I find it hard to understand how you're so down on Gass who might be attempting to mandate his product which will save people from injury, while at the same time, you're supporting the collection of manufacturers who initially refused to endorse his product because it would cost them profits even though injuries will continue. What you're saying is that it's ok for manufacturer's to make profit even though more injuries are being caused, but not ok for Gass to make a profit while preventing injuries. Is that it? You're supporting injuries to continue because you don't like how someone goes about making a profit? You're looking at it in reverse. As the good doc pointed out, the injuries are resultant of careless operation, not due to the lack of a device. I'm not that down on him, just his methods. Obviously, the company is doing poorly. Be honest, if the SS item was flying of the shelf he would be content. I would guess that his business plan is in serious peril and thus the last ditch effort to save the company by using the back door. You can imagine the costs involved in tooling up for Mfg - huge! My guess is that his efforts will result in higher standards of safety on these and other machines. However, I believe that will happen w/o his technology at the forefront. So, if you are correct, he will be happy if the standards get raised even if nobody else needs his technology. Frankly, I think you are being a bit naive on this point about his true intentions. Not that I blame him, but lets call a spade a spade. |
Consumer Product Safety Comm. to discuss proposed SawStop technology safety rule
"Dave Bugg" wrote in message
How so? If anything, the costs and disabilities and death due to longterm degenerative disease is FAR more onerous than WhirlySharp injuries. Very likely true, but not as immediately costing and the expense of sudden catastrophic injuries can't be planned for over the long term nearly as well as for those degenerative diseases. And yes, I fully realize that eventually, the point might be reached where even long term planning will not be sufficient to pay for what's needed. |
Consumer Product Safety Comm. to discuss proposed SawStop technology safety rule
"Dave Bugg" wrote in message
If every manufacturer is mandated to have the Sawstop, then the consumer is faced with ALL products have the same percentage rise in costs. If a consumer wants to buy a tablesaw, he'll have to pay the price increase regardless. Do ya get it now? And fewer consumers will buy. So, profits will go down. Does that make any sense to you at all? |
Consumer Product Safety Comm. to discuss proposed SawStop technology safety rule
Upscale wrote:
Very likely true, but not as immediately costing and the expense of sudden catastrophic injuries can't be planned for over the long term nearly as well as for those degenerative diseases. And yes, I fully realize that eventually, the point might be reached where even long term planning will not be sufficient to pay for what's needed. But, these degenerative disease costs are hitting us now from what was generated in the past 10 years and before. And the expense, to both dollars and productivity, keep ocurring now and into the future. Are you saying that the cost of say, cardiovascular disease or diabetes, is less today than the cost of whirlysharp injuries? -- Dave www.davebbq.com |
Consumer Product Safety Comm. to discuss proposed SawStop technology safety rule
Finding the keyboard operational
Dave Bugg entered: Upscale wrote: I didn't say that, don't put words in my mouth. And, if what I read about Sawstop's inventor, those were not his first actions. I'm much more inclined to believe the talk that the manufacturer's attempted to freeze him out because it would eat into their profits. After that, anything goes in my books. Where is it written that any manufacturer is obligated to incorporate any specific technology into their product? Saw manufacturers are certainly entitled to take a pass on Sawstop, regardless of reason. Wow, big conspiracy. Seat belts, air bags and catalytic converters on cars. Burst disks on pressurized gas tanks. GFIs on portable air conditioners. Deadman devices on lawnmowers. Childproof caps on medicines. That's all I could come up with in 5 minutes. Bob --? --? Coffee worth staying up for - NY Times www.moondoggiecoffee.com |
Consumer Product Safety Comm. to discuss proposed SawStop technology safety rule
On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 15:48:47 -0400, "Upscale"
wrote: "Dave Bugg" wrote in message Seatbelts -- by themselves -- are *most* effective at speeds below 40 mph (we're talkin' current seatbelts, not racing harnesses). It has been demonstrated that, even with airbags, requiring helmets in a car can further increase the survivability of crashes above 40 mph, while decreasing brain injury. rest snipped And how do you respond to those times where serious accidents have occurred at much greater speeds and coming out of it almost completely unscathed? If you want me to, I can post a picture of an accident I was in at 60 MPH ramming into a concrete telephone pole that fell on the car and crushed it, but where I came out of it with a cut on my hand and virtually no other injury. Was I lucky? Damned right I was. But, I attribute 99% of that luck to the fact that I was wearing a standard seat belt ~ a seat belt that I wouldn't have been wearing without laws to mandate it. Can we crush this silly, unparallel comparison to seat belt in an auto. For the 3rd or 4th time. When I drive out on the streets, I wear a SB *only* due to the risk posed by other drivers. Safe operation of a TS is wholly in the hands of the operator. Find another comparison as that one does not work. |
Consumer Product Safety Comm. to discuss proposed SawStop technology safety rule
Upscale wrote:
And fewer consumers will buy. So, profits will go down. Does that make any sense to you at all? And yet cost increases are a common occurence in virtually all segments of manufacturing, but growth in sales still continue. There is no reason to believe, nor have you supplied direct evidence to support your supposition, that tablesaw sales would go down. So no, your thoughts on the matter make no sense. -- Dave www.davebbq.com |
Consumer Product Safety Comm. to discuss proposed SawStop technology safety rule
"Joe Bemier" wrote in message
huge! My guess is that his efforts will result in higher standards of safety on these and other machines. However, I believe that will happen w/o his technology at the forefront. So, if you are correct, he will be happy if the standards get raised even if nobody else needs his technology. Frankly, I think you are being a bit naive on this point about his true intentions. Not that I blame him, but lets call a spade a spade. In all honesty, I think it's reached the point where it will not be mandated, because it won't be necessary. Robin at Lee Valley has admitted that they're replacing all their table saws with Sawstops. I believe he explained it as being a necessary business decision based on cost to not do otherwise - re. possible insurance repercussions. Please correct me if I'm wrong there Robin. So, I have to assume it's going to become a major part of the industry anyway, probably sooner than later. Right, now this is Canadian I'm talking about, but I don't think there's so much difference between Canada and the USA as far as insurance goes. |
Consumer Product Safety Comm. to discuss proposed SawStop technology safety rule
|
Consumer Product Safety Comm. to discuss proposed SawStop technology safety rule
The Other Funk wrote:
Dave Bugg entered: Where is it written that any manufacturer is obligated to incorporate any specific technology into their product? Saw manufacturers are certainly entitled to take a pass on Sawstop, regardless of reason. Wow, big conspiracy. Seat belts, air bags and catalytic converters on cars. Burst disks on pressurized gas tanks. GFIs on portable air conditioners. Deadman devices on lawnmowers. Childproof caps on medicines. That's all I could come up with in 5 minutes. Bob, the argument was centered around the obligation of a manufacturer to purchase a non-mandated technology from a developer. I wasn't arguing that the government had never required the implementation of a technology by an industry. I'm afraid that you misread the context of my post :-) -- Dave www.davebbq.com |
Consumer Product Safety Comm. to discuss proposed SawStop technology safety rule
Finding the keyboard operational
Edwin Pawlowski entered: About a year ago, one of the auto manufacturers (maybe Mercedes?) was getting advertising mileage by stating they gave away the technology for safety devices. Details don't seem to be stored in the brain cells right now. Several years ago, Volvo had a commercial about all the safety features they developed and patented but they never enforced the patents. In other words they gave the technology away for free. Noble, right? How many cars do you think they sold based on that commercial? More then enough to pay for the commercial? Bob --? --? Coffee worth staying up for - NY Times www.moondoggiecoffee.com |
Consumer Product Safety Comm. to discuss proposed SawStop technology safety rule
"Dave Bugg" wrote in message
But, these degenerative disease costs are hitting us now from what was generated in the past 10 years and before. And the expense, to both dollars and productivity, keep occurring now and into the future. Are you saying that the cost of say, cardiovascular disease or diabetes, is less today than the cost of whirlysharp injuries? So you're fine to accuse me of ridiculous comparisons, but you feel free to use them yourself? Grow up, you know damned well I suggested no such comparison. Let me ask you. Knowing what you know now about increasing diabetes and cardiovascular disease, if one single mandate could have been enacted 30 years ago that would effectively and selectively eliminated the bulk of these conditions, would you still say it was undesirable? Knowing all the misery and strife that these two conditions have caused to our society, would you still be sticking to your "no government involvement"? |
Consumer Product Safety Comm. to discuss proposed SawStop technology safety rule
On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 16:14:53 -0400, "Upscale"
wrote: "Dave Bugg" wrote in message passed onto the consumer, it won't be absorbed by the manufacturer. Thus, your argument that this is a PROFIT issue on the part of the manufacturers is flaccid. Bull****! The cost of the product passed onto the consumer has a direct effect on how many consumers decide to actually buy that product. That effects their bottom line, AKA PROFITS. Are you really that stupid to think otherwise? God, what type of moron are you? Same kind as me...:) |
Consumer Product Safety Comm. to discuss proposed SawStop technology safety rule
"Joe Bemier" wrote in message
Can we crush this silly, unparallel comparison to seat belt in an auto. For the 3rd or 4th time. When I drive out on the streets, I wear a SB *only* due to the risk posed by other drivers. Safe operation of a TS is wholly in the hands of the operator. Find another comparison as that one does not work. So, my running my car at 60 MPH into a concrete light post with no other drivers involved fails to qualify? And you consider your driving to be so perfect that it's impossible for you to make a mistake, any accident is *always* going to be caused by someone else? Again, I'm jealous of your place in the world. I'm sure if you really thought about it, you'd realize that whatever reasons you've chosen to use a seat belt, this government mandated piece of equipment benefits you. While some may argue against how something came to be utilized in our society, you can't argue against the fact that in cases like we're discussing, it was done to increase our safety. Isn't that what's most important here, to prevent injury? |
Consumer Product Safety Comm. to discuss proposed SawStop technology safety rule
On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 16:47:35 -0400, "Upscale"
wrote: "Joe Bemier" wrote in message huge! My guess is that his efforts will result in higher standards of safety on these and other machines. However, I believe that will happen w/o his technology at the forefront. So, if you are correct, he will be happy if the standards get raised even if nobody else needs his technology. Frankly, I think you are being a bit naive on this point about his true intentions. Not that I blame him, but lets call a spade a spade. In all honesty, I think it's reached the point where it will not be mandated, because it won't be necessary. Robin at Lee Valley has admitted that they're replacing all their table saws with Sawstops. I believe he explained it as being a necessary business decision based on cost to not do otherwise - re. possible insurance repercussions. Please correct me if I'm wrong there Robin. So, I have to assume it's going to become a major part of the industry anyway, probably sooner than later. Right, now this is Canadian I'm talking about, but I don't think there's so much difference between Canada and the USA as far as insurance goes. Well, I don't know Robin and based on the business he has built he's surely made some sound business decisions, but I feel he is wrong here. A few quarters will tell...year on year sell through. And, while I am not a lawyer, I don't think retailers are culpable in liability cases....(?) |
Consumer Product Safety Comm. to discuss proposed SawStop technology safety rule
On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 17:07:30 -0400, "Upscale"
wrote: "Joe Bemier" wrote in message Can we crush this silly, unparallel comparison to seat belt in an auto. For the 3rd or 4th time. When I drive out on the streets, I wear a SB *only* due to the risk posed by other drivers. Safe operation of a TS is wholly in the hands of the operator. Find another comparison as that one does not work. So, my running my car at 60 MPH into a concrete light post with no other drivers involved fails to qualify? And you consider your driving to be so perfect that it's impossible for you to make a mistake, any accident is *always* going to be caused by someone else? My point above is illustrative. I always wear a SB and always will whether I have to or not. Your accident (sorry to hear about that) is a rare event based on the circumstances you detail. there must have been some mitigating factor(s)....? Again, I'm jealous of your place in the world. I'm sure if you really thought about it, you'd realize that whatever reasons you've chosen to use a seat belt, this government mandated piece of equipment benefits you. While some may argue against how something came to be utilized in our society, you can't argue against the fact that in cases like we're discussing, it was done to increase our safety. Isn't that what's most important here, to prevent injury? |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:03 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter