| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
 |
|
Menu
| Woodworking (rec.woodworking) Discussion forum covering all aspects of working with wood. All levels of expertise are encouraged to particiapte. |
| Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
| Woodworking (rec.woodworking) Discussion forum covering all aspects of working with wood. All levels of expertise are encouraged to particiapte. |
| Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
SawStop files with GPO/CPSC for mandatory use in US
Leon writes:
A similar senerio and one I hate with a passion is forced auto liability insurance in Texas. The insurance companies made this happen. But, I want to drive a car so I buy this insurance for the other guy, along with uninsured motorists insurance for me, along with PIP or personal injury protection in the event I do it to myself. Now that surely does become expensve... Insuring the other guy, youself, and yourself from the other guy. Do I see over lap coverage here? Would I be caught with out it... Probably not. Would you? When I was a kid, New York instituted forced auto liability insurance. We won't talk about the cost rise from maybe 50 bucks to whatever it is in Westchester County today--I can't afford the houses there, either. But that was in 1957. Today, you have to be exceptionally poor or crazy to go without auto insurance. Even a small accident involving other people can not only bankrupt you, but can keep you bankrupt for a lifetime. This is not totally the fault of insurance companies getting what they want, but is the combined problem created by overly powerful insurance companies (sit back and think about how much of your life is run by insurnace company demands--they even tell churches how many dusk-to-down lights they've got to have to keep their policies), but also by lawyers who inflate judgments in order to make sure their half the result is worth keeping. Charlie Self If you want to know what God thinks of money, just look at the people he gave it to. Dorothy Parker |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
SawStop files with GPO/CPSC for mandatory use in US
In article ,
Sam Chambers wrote: I hear what you're saying, but that's not really what the petition says. True, they've modeled the petition based on what their system can do (makes sense, since there's is the only such product), but it doesn't mandate use of the SawStop system. *EXCEPT* that anything that meets the 'petition' specifications is covered by _their_ PATENT. Thus, _effectively_, giving them a *monopoly* of the market. |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
SawStop files with GPO/CPSC for mandatory use in US
"todd" wrote in message ... "Leon" wrote in message news:3L3Pa.881$h I have a 3 year old Jet Cabinet saw now.... While I would love to have one with the Saw Stop now... the first saw needs to make more profit first. It will be replaced with the safer version if it is still around later on. If you really put your stated beliefs into practice, you'd buy the SawStop as soon as it is available and sell your Jet. I'm sure that whatever dollar figure you'll lose in the transaction would more than be made up for in the cost in dollars and in pain and suffering for the next accident that could have been avoided. Frankly, until you do so, you're a hypocrite. Not a hypocrite.... If I knowingly chose to buy the next TS with out the Saw Stop or similar device, then I would be a hypocrite. But I just may speed up that process anyway and get one sooner than later. |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
SawStop files with GPO/CPSC for mandatory use in US
Good for you Mike... you showed em. ;~)
AND maintained your integrity. |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
SawStop files with GPO/CPSC for mandatory use in US
Mike in Mystic wrote: Here is a copy of an email I sent to SawStop and their response FYI: MY LETTER Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 11:09 AM To: Subject: Petition Requesting Performance Standards to reduce table saw injury Petition Requesting Performance Standards for a System To Reduce or Prevent Injuries From Contact With the Blade of a Table Saw (Petition No. CP 03-2) Dear Sir or Madame: This letter is in reference to the above Consumer Product Safety Commission petiton. I am a hobbyist woodworker and currently own a Delta Unisaw 3HP 10" table saw. I was considering purchasing your invention. I am no longer considering this purchase. The reason for this is that I judge the companies that I do business with in a number of ways. One of these is the value of their product. Another is integrity. Your invention certainly has value. Your company, however, has absolutely no integrity. The United States is a nation based on freedom and your efforts to increase your personal and corporate profits via reduction in all American's personal rights are deplorable. I was shocked and sickened to see your blatant use of the regulary system to force consumers into a situation where you and only you would profit. I also intend to take every opportunity and to encourage the numerous fellow woodworkers I know to contact the Safety Commission and any other pertinent parties and express our opposition to this change in table saw safety regulation. A free market is a wonderful thing. If you would have used this market as intended and let your product stand on its own merits then I could respect you. By choosing the route of forcing consumers to use your product you have clearly shown your true colors. You have chosen your own fate and the inevitable failure of your endeavor. Sincerely, Michael Logman A damned fine letter. Good job. THEIR REPLY: Thanks for the email and comments. We understand your position concerning government intervention. In many cases we would agree with you. However, in this case, where there are over 30,000 serious injuries each year, where information concerning the number and severity of injuries is not readily available to the public, and where manufacturers do not seem to care about the injuries, we think filing a petition for rulemaking is appropriate. In short, it makes more sense to petition for new safety rules than it does to live with the tremendous number of serious injuries. At least we think so. Additionally, we hope that the petition will motivate other companies to adopt the technology so that it becomes available faster than it otherwise would. The petition also will allow the government to gather information concerning the economic cost to society of table saw injuries, which will be available to the public and will be helpful in deciding whether to create new safety regulations. Finally, as a point of clarification, our proposed standard requires manufacturers to make saws safer, just as car manufacturers are required to put seat belts and airbags in cars. Our proposed standard does not require consumers to use a particular type of saw. Anyway, thanks for your comments. David Fanning SawStop, LLC 22409 SW Newland Road 503-638-6201 Wilsonville, OR 97070 503-638-8601 fax www.sawstop.com __________________________________________________ _________ Nothing too surprising in their reply, and it probably is a form letter that they send to anyone complaining about their business tactics. Leon, you really should ask them if you can be a spokesman for their company, you and this Fanning guy are definitely on the same wavelength. Mike Their reply is a nice bit of semantic gamesmanship with a great deal of intentional misdirection. Let me count the flaws... They are attempting to compel us to to use saws equipped with a safety device. But only THEIR safety device. Their analogy to car seat belts and airbags is flawed, because there are several competing manufacturers making seat belts and airbags. They're trying to assist the government in assuming the role of Nanny State in yet another field of regulation. As things stand now, I'd remove and throw away a SawStop product if I found one hidden in my saw. I'm that furious at the company for trying to shove this right up our asses "for our own good". I look forward to when they send a reply to me in response to MY little shot across the bow I sent them. The response they get back from me will be so hot it'll set the paper on fire if they print it. CJ |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
SawStop files with GPO/CPSC for mandatory use in US
|
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
SawStop files with GPO/CPSC for mandatory use in US
"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message ... In article , says... Nothing too surprising in their reply, and it probably is a form letter that they send to anyone complaining about their business tactics. Leon, you really should ask them if you can be a spokesman for their company, you and this Fanning guy are definitely on the same wavelength. So you think I make a convincing case do you? LOL May be I should...I wonder what the pay is? ;~) |
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
SawStop files with GPO/CPSC for mandatory use in US
"Robert Bonomi" bonomi@c-ns. wrote in message
... *EXCEPT* that anything that meets the 'petition' specifications is covered by _their_ PATENT. Thus, _effectively_, giving them a *monopoly* of the market. No, it doesn't. The proposed regulation would dictate what a saw safety device would hve to do. It does not say HOW it must be done. If someone else can come up with a different product that achieves the same performance goals in a different way, they would meet the definitions in the regulation and would not violate SawStop's patent. Again, a monopoly is not created just because someone is first to the market with a new product. If that were the case, there would never be another new innovation! -- ===================== Sam Chambers Please reply to the group. The e-mail address is just a SPAM trap, and I don't check it very often. |
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
SawStop files with GPO/CPSC for mandatory use in US
: No, it doesn't. The proposed regulation would dictate what a saw safety
: device would hve to do. It does not say HOW it must be done. If someone : else can come up with a different product that achieves the same performance : goals in a different way, they would meet the definitions in the regulation : and would not violate SawStop's patent. : : Again, a monopoly is not created just because someone is first to the market : with a new product. If that were the case, there would never be another new : innovation! : : : -- :The product is on the market. Apparently very few people are buying it. Saw Stop appears to want to get their development cost back by having the Govt. legislate it. |
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
SawStop files with GPO/CPSC for mandatory use in US
|
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
|
SawStop files with GPO/CPSC for mandatory use in US
"Bob Gramza" wrote in message
.com... :The product is on the market. Apparently very few people are buying it. Saw Stop appears to want to get their development cost back by having the Govt. legislate it. Yes, and no. The product has been developed, and the company has been taking reservations for their own brand of saws for some time. But I'm not aware that they're actually shipping anything. Now, if they could come up with a way to retrofit the darned thing, they'd obviously have a much broader market. SawStop sees a market for their product, but the manufacturers aren't willing to adopt it on their own. As I stated in another post, there may be reluctance on the manufacturers' parts to voluntarily add better safety equipment, due to increased lawsuits filed by people who were injured using (or not using) the old safety equipment. -- ===================== Sam Chambers Please reply to the group. The e-mail address is just a SPAM trap, and I don't check it very often. |
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
|
SawStop files with GPO/CPSC for mandatory use in US
"Sam Chambers" wrote in message ... "Robert Bonomi" bonomi@c-ns. wrote in message ... *EXCEPT* that anything that meets the 'petition' specifications is covered by _their_ PATENT. Thus, _effectively_, giving them a *monopoly* of the market. No, it doesn't. The proposed regulation would dictate what a saw safety device would hve to do. It does not say HOW it must be done. If someone else can come up with a different product that achieves the same performance goals in a different way, they would meet the definitions in the regulation and would not violate SawStop's patent. Again, a monopoly is not created just because someone is first to the market with a new product. If that were the case, there would never be another new innovation! Sam, Did you read the "performance specification" that was submitted? It states a number of requirements which are clearly tailored to a specific implementation - the very same implementation that is patented by those submitting the petition. If the petition were more broadly worded, then I'd agree with you. But it isn't and therefore people are crying foul. -Jack |
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
SawStop files with GPO/CPSC for mandatory use in US
"JackD" wrote in message ...
Did you read the "performance specification" that was submitted? It states a number of requirements which are clearly tailored to a specific implementation - the very same implementation that is patented by those submitting the petition. Well of course it is, since their product is the only one on the market that detects human flesh and stops a spinning blade. I did read the petition, and in my opinion, it stops whort of mandating use of one system. For example, it states that the system must be, "capable of detecting contact or dangerous proximity between a person and the saw blade..." It doesn't state how such detection must be accomplished. In theory, someone could come up with an infrared ro laser based system that detects close proximity to the blade, and meet this requirement. The petition also states that the system must have, "a reaction system to perform some action upon detection of such contact or dangerous proximity, such as stopping or retracting the blade..." Again, the petition does not state exactly how this requirement is to be met. Perhaps a system could be developed that uses a brake system similar to the disc brakes in your car, rather than one that works directly on the teeth of the saw blade. If so, this requirement would be met, and not infringe upon SawStop's patents in any way. If the petition were more broadly worded, then I'd agree with you. But it isn't and therefore people are crying foul. I think it's worded broadly enough to allow for competition to crop up. Don't you think that, since SawStop approached them a few years ago, Delta, Jet/Powermatic, Dewalt and others have been exploring ways of accomplishing the same thing? |
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
|
SawStop files with GPO/CPSC for mandatory use in US
"Sam Chambers" wrote in message ... "JackD" wrote in message news I think it's worded broadly enough to allow for competition to crop up. Don't you think that, since SawStop approached them a few years ago, Delta, Jet/Powermatic, Dewalt and others have been exploring ways of accomplishing the same thing? I think that the problem with the petition is that it was not worded in a way that everyone understands with out perhaps an attorney to help out. I believe a lot may be being read into the petition. I agree that if the performance modification is mandated, which will guarantee a market also, other people much smarter than me will jump at the opportunity to offer a better mouse trap. I have thought of the laser detection and that seems pretty reasonable as laser are pretty inexpensive now days, or a device similar to what garage door openers use to reverse the door if you break the beam. The trick here would be to determine if a hand or wood was in the path of the blade. As for brakes, a disk and caliper on the opposite side of the arbor sounds like a great idea or a simple pin to engage into a blade hole or arbor hole. |
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
|
SawStop files with GPO/CPSC for mandatory use in US
In article ,
Sam Chambers wrote: "JackD" wrote in message ... Did you read the "performance specification" that was submitted? It states a number of requirements which are clearly tailored to a specific implementation - the very same implementation that is patented by those submitting the petition. Well of course it is, since their product is the only one on the market that detects human flesh and stops a spinning blade. I did read the petition, But did you also read the PATENT CLAIMS ? |
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
|
SawStop files with GPO/CPSC for mandatory use in US
|
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
|
SawStop files with GPO/CPSC for mandatory use in US
Robert Bonomi bonomi@c-ns. wrote:
: In article , : Sam Chambers wrote: :I hear what you're saying, but that's not really what the petition says. :True, they've modeled the petition based on what their system can do (makes :sense, since there's is the only such product), but it doesn't mandate use :of the SawStop system. : *EXCEPT* that anything that meets the 'petition' specifications is covered by : _their_ PATENT. : Thus, _effectively_, giving them a *monopoly* of the market. Do you have any understanding of the intent of patent law? -- Andy Barss |
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
|
SawStop files with GPO/CPSC for mandatory use in US
Agreed.
|
|
#20
|
|||
|
|||
|
SawStop files with GPO/CPSC for mandatory use in US
"Bay Area Dave" wrote in message ... I say if you are afraid of ever been cut then you should stay away from power tools. I'm very cautious around blades, but I CHOOSE to do woodworking. I don't have to woodwork. I drew blood today while routing. I touched the bit, which was not moving at the time. Had it been running, there is a piece of wood AND a push block between my pinkies and the bit. I also wear goggles, ear protection, and a mask. I try to minimize the risk, while still engaging in the activity that is inherently dangerous. I don't want the goverment requiring me to purchase safety equipment. They didn't make me put on goggles or a mask; why should I shell out for a device I don't want. I'm all for free enterprise; let those who want the added expense to knock themselves out and purchase the Sawstop. I might even be convinced after a period of time of anecdotal evidence that is so wonderful that I must rush out a purchase one too. In the meantime, the feds should keep their ideas about what I buy out of my business. Well Dave it sounds like you have all your bases covered and should not think about safety any farther than you have at this point. I know that this all sorta new to you and that with your precision and forethought that nothing will ever happen to you in the shop requiring a trip to the ER. So for you and all the ones that think like this, I say good luck and be careful but don't be shocked when some thind does happen. Me, I am a realist. I know I am capable of getting hurt in the shop, and did after 10 years of experience. I know that accidents happen and no amount of preparation can prevent all of them them. I have meen reeeeal lucky in the last 14 years as my track record has been clean. Now you and I know that 14 years of no accidents and 8 of the profesionally is not pure luck. I do exercise caution with all my power tools and that really is why nothing has happened again, but I am not so silly or ignorant to believe that it could not happen again. So, I would just as soon have the Saw Stop or Similar device, government or no government involved. Nothing complicated about that decision. Pretty simple really. The lessor of two evils. |
|
#21
|
|||
|
|||
|
SawStop files with GPO/CPSC for mandatory use in US
"Bay Area Dave" wrote in message ... Yes, I HAVE seen the video demonstration with the hotdog. But I still don't want it to be REQUIRED on a table saw, even if it will save some fingers, some of the time. It would be my luck I'd get one, rely on it, and then lose a finger because I got careless and the unit failed to work as advertised. I sure don't place blind faith in my airbags. Maybe in a collision they will detonate, and maybe they won't. I've spent a large portion of my life fixing stuff. If man makes it, it ain't perfect. I still feel let the buyer decide if he/she wants to shell out the bucks for sawstop. Well Dave I don't want for it to required either. I would love for it to be an option in later years, but when the time comes, I'll take it any way I can get it, required by the government or not. |
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
|
SawStop files with GPO/CPSC for mandatory use in US
"Doug Winterburn" wrote in message Was I ever ****ed when I found out I had to have the real thing and there was only one other kid in the normal alphabetical order behind me - his last name was Zuanich. No kidding... But still, tablesaws aren't contagious ( but then again, maybe they are :-) You still won't convince me that government mandate is the best way for this situation. The air bag thing doesn't work as I don't drive my TS on the freeways. Freedom allows people to make their own decisions, especially when not infringing on others. -Doug Well again Doug, I am not trying to convence you that governmant mandate is tha best way. I am only indicating that I am not going to let the fact of government intervention sway my decision as to whether I get one or not. I'm looking out for me. |
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
|
SawStop files with GPO/CPSC for mandatory use in US
Its really a catch 22 situation. Your are dammed if you let the government
protect you and you are dammed if you refuse to let the government protect you. In this case, I'll go with the government. "Larry Blanchard" wrote in message ... In article , says... Doug, this is simply my opinion... I simply would put my safety before balking at the method of delivery. I try not to cut my nose off to spite my face. If you accept the principle that government is entitled to protect us from ourselves, then you are doing exactly that. There is no limit to the number of actions people can do to injure themselves. You're endorsing the principle of "Anything not required is forbidden". -- Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs? |
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
|
SawStop files with GPO/CPSC for mandatory use in US
In article , "Leon" wrote:
[snip] Well again Doug, I am not trying to convence you that governmant mandate is tha best way. I am only indicating that I am not going to let the fact of government intervention sway my decision as to whether I get one or not. Yet you're quite content to allow government intervention to make that decision for the rest of us. Hypocrite. I'm looking out for me. Bull****. If you were truly looking out for yourself, you'd have a $aw$top tablesaw already. You just want to force your opinions on everyone else. -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com) Save the baby humans - stop partial-birth abortion NOW |
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
|
SawStop files with GPO/CPSC for mandatory use in US
"Leon" wrote in message .com... "Bay Area Dave" wrote in message ... Yes, I HAVE seen the video demonstration with the hotdog. But I still don't want it to be REQUIRED on a table saw, even if it will save some fingers, some of the time. It would be my luck I'd get one, rely on it, and then lose a finger because I got careless and the unit failed to work as advertised. I sure don't place blind faith in my airbags. Maybe in a collision they will detonate, and maybe they won't. I've spent a large portion of my life fixing stuff. If man makes it, it ain't perfect. I still feel let the buyer decide if he/she wants to shell out the bucks for sawstop. Well Dave I don't want for it to required either. I would love for it to be an option in later years, but when the time comes, I'll take it any way I can get it, required by the government or not. it's already available. do you have one already? if not, then you're a hypocrite. you're waiting for it to become mandatory first? then your argument doesn't make sense. |
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
|
SawStop files with GPO/CPSC for mandatory use in US
it's already available. do you have one already? if not, then you're a hypocrite. you're waiting for it to become mandatory first? then your argument doesn't make sense. My point is, I want one on my next saw, right now I am not in the market for a saw. My next saw will have it if they are still available. If the government mandates a safety device of this kind, I will not have to worry about IF the product will be available when and if I do purchase another saw. If the government does not mandate this then I very well may miss out on the opportunity along with most every one else. |
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
|
SawStop files with GPO/CPSC for mandatory use in US
Leon wrote: The lessor of two evils. When you settle for the lesser of two evils, you are settling for evil. Do you really want that? I have no objections to purchasing a safety device for my saw of my own accord. But I'll be damned if some money-grubbing company tries to FORCE that purchase down my throat without even a choice as to the manufacturer! If it were an open market with several competing companies making similarly effective saw safety devices, it'd be one thing, but the only people who benefit financially from SawStop's petition is THEM. It's greed taken to an extreme form. **** them. CJ |
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
|
SawStop files with GPO/CPSC for mandatory use in US
On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 01:58:23 GMT, "Leon"
wrote: "JackD" wrote in message ... snip If this feature was valued by people, then there would be a market for it. I think there will be once the manufacturers start putting it on all the saws. No kidding... You think? You know, if the gov required toilet seats to be mounted on the hood of all new cars - the, yes there would suddenly be a market for that "feature". -zach |
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
|
SawStop files with GPO/CPSC for mandatory use in US
snip
But... I think the Saw Stop is a great idea and would like to see it mandated on all saws. I have found the CON comments quite amusing, they mostly amount to "I have the right to use dangerous equiptment and cut off my fingers if I want to." snip Then you missed the entire point. Try "I have the right to use dangerous equipment safely and not be fined because some fools are to careless to use the same equipment safely". |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
