Menu
What's new

What is going on here?? Unbelieveable!!

Dan Gonzales said:
Mike - Where did you find the other background info about this case? I am curious.
Click to expand...
It was discussed on SawMill Creek and someone posted a link to the actual court complaint. Unfortunately, the thread has been yanked and I didn't download the doc and don't know the source. The court documents are public if you know where to find them. I don't.

There was also a lot of good discussion and points brought out in that thread but it got too wild with the two opposing camps.

Mike
 
Last edited:
Frank....I like the word "ABSURD".


Even in documentation to the CPSC...the lawyers for SS indicated they recongized it might make it impossible for some people to afford tablesaws.

I find their SS's attitude arrogant and elitist at best.
 
Ken Fitzgerald said:
Frank....I like the word "ABSURD".


Even in documentation to the CPSC...the lawyers for SS indicated they recongized it might make it impossible for some people to afford tablesaws.

I find their SS's attitude arrogant and elitist at best.
Click to expand...
Ken's attitude seems to be shared by a number of people. However, let me offer a different analysis.

In our economic system, a company's obligation is to do whatever is legal to maximize their profit. It is from many companies contending the marketplace that we see innovation and lower costs.

SawStop's petition to the CPSC makes a lot of sense from the company's point of view. If they could get the CPSC to require some form of blade brake protection, it would be a boon for SawStop and would greatly contribute to their success. I do not see anything wrong with their petition. If I was working for the company, I would have done exactly the same thing.

But in any CPSC action, other people get a chance to make comments and enough comments were made that the CPSC did not take any action. That's democracy in action. Each company did exactly what they were suppose to do.

While some people may think that companies should take a "socialist" view of the market (what's good for everyone instead of what's good for the company) it just isn't going to happen. Same thing with individuals. People do what's good for them, not what's good for society (example: the tragedy of the commons).

So I say to those who have unreasonable expectations of SawStop: Don't blame SawStop for doing what our economic system encourages them to do. Our economic system brings all of us great value.

Mike
 
Last edited:
Oh boy i can never get my mind around these cases. So i will stay out of the fray here. I have been taught to accept responsibility for my own mistakes and not to look to pin it on someone or something else. But i wish others would learn the same.:)
 
Ken I saw that RV believe me if i wont the lotto you would be laughing at the performance that would go on here. That RV is tame by comparison to what i would have in mind.:D
 
Mike Henderson said:
So I say to those who have unreasonable expectations of SawStop: Don't blame SawStop for doing what our economic system encourages them to do. Our economic system brings all of us great value.
Mike
Click to expand...

Mike,

Exactly. To which I'd add "Our economic and legal system..."

The reference to 1984 is particularly apt, since that's the year the same kinds of action induced the white house to issue the first passive restraint (air bag) regulations for cars. I'm sure people said the same kinds of things back then "I'm a careful driver, there should be no mandated safety features, if I run into a power pole it's my own fault." The name and affiliation of the white house's occupant at that time makes the label of socialism particularly ironic... ;)

As does the name and affiliation of the occupant when the first seat belt law was passed: 1959. Same thing there: damage, harm, losses, lawsuits, regulation. Oddly, it was the same thing in 1906, with the meat packing industry: same string of events, same affiliation, same result. Same with the clean water act (1972).

I realize we all tend to forget how things work. But I still think they do work out eventually, even if we have our fun railing about the insanity of it all along the way! ;)

Thanks,

Bill
 
Bill Lantry said:
Mike,

Exactly. To which I'd add "Our economic and legal system..."

The reference to 1984 is particularly apt, since that's the year the same kinds of action induced the white house to issue the first passive restraint (air bag) regulations for cars. I'm sure people said the same kinds of things back then "I'm a careful driver, there should be no mandated safety features, if I run into a power pole it's my own fault." The name and affiliation of the white house's occupant at that time makes the label of socialism particularly ironic... ;)

As does the name and affiliation of the occupant when the first seat belt law was passed: 1959. Same thing there: damage, harm, losses, lawsuits, regulation. Oddly, it was the same thing in 1906, with the meat packing industry: same string of events, same affiliation, same result. Same with the clean water act (1972).

I realize we all tend to forget how things work. But I still think they do work out eventually, even if we have our fun railing about the insanity of it all along the way! ;)

Thanks,

Bill
Click to expand...

How do I say this and stay in the C of C..

What a reach.....Bill
Garry
 
Garry Foster said:
How do I say this and stay in the C of C..

What a reach.....Bill
Garry
Click to expand...
I tend to agree with gary, If that line of thinking were to be followed we'd have blade brakes mandated on our SCMS, bandsaws, chainsaws etc. maybe parachute jumpers would be required to attach bungey cord to the airplane in case the chute doesn't open. Seat belts and airbags not only protect the operator of the car but also the passengers, It's your choice to buckle up or not. Woodworking has some inherint danger and the best way to avoid injury is common sense and prper training. No matter how hard you try you can't legislate common sense. Most states have helmet laws for riding a motor cycle. Arizona does not, it's my choice if I want to wear one or not.

OK I'll get off of my soap box now.
 
Last edited:
I think some of you are misunderstanding my comments and position. I'm not advocating that all saws have blade brakes.

What I am saying is that SS is not at all unethical, immoral or anything else bad because they submitted that petition to the CPSC. They were looking out for their interest, which is what they are supposed to do.

Let's say you live in a subdivision where most of the homes are similar. When you go to sell your house, you don't worry that if you get a high price it will cause the prices of all houses in the subdivision to go up, which may price some people out. You try to get the best price, which is exactly what you should do.

Likewise, when SS submitted that petition to the CPSC, they should not worry that the price of saws will go up and some people will be priced out of the market. The only thing they should be concerned about is whether such a ruling will help them, as a company, and whether enough people can afford to buy their saws.

SS has no moral or legal obligation to give one hoot about whether table saws would get more expensive and some people will be priced out of the market. And I object to comments that imply they are bad people for taking that position. They are doing exactly what our economic system encourages them to to.

Mike
 
Last edited:
Mike I agree with your stance and I am just glad that in this case the right ruling was made in that they left it up to consumer to choose weather to spend the money. I just get irked that an individuals right to choice should be taken away when they are are not harming anyone but themself. I would buy a sawstop in a hilbilley heart beat if I had the dinero but I don't. I just try to practice safe woodworking. When someone gets hurt doin something that common sense tells you not to why should the masses have to pay the price. The comidian Ron White said it best "you can't fix stupid"
 
Last edited:
Don Baer said:
Mike I agree with your stance and I am just glad that in this case the right ruling was made in that they left it up to consumer to choose weather to spend the money. I just get irked that an individuals right to choice should be taken away when they are are not harmiong anyone but themself. I would buy a sawstop in a hilbilley heart beat if I had the dinero but I don't. I just try to practice safe woodworking. When someone get hurt doint something that common sense tells you not to why should the masses have to pay the price. The comidian Ron White said it best "you can't fix stupid"
Click to expand...
Yeah, if you want to get upset at someone, get upset at the CPSC (if they had issued such an order).

Mike
 
Jonathan Shively said:
Mike, if you looked at those documents today, could you go back on your history and find the address for us??
Click to expand...
I assume you mean the complaint for the case referenced at the beginning of this thread. I don't know where that document is. Someone posted a link to it in the SawMill Creek thread but the thread was yanked (at least that's my memory).

Mike

[See below a couple of posts.]
 
Last edited:
Random thoughts.
Most entry level saws are bought by the least experienced with there safe use.
Most entry level saw have built in safety hazards. Like fences that don't run true to the blade. Entry level users have no clue what is going to happen when a board binds on a misaligned fence. Or using the fence with the miter gauge on the other side of the blade.
Most people do not read the owners manual until there is a problem.
Not saying that it's just entry level I have watched some guys that have used table saws for years that still have no clue.
Maybe Ryobi could have gotten out of it with a no hands here sticker. Like the one showing up on chop saws.
Tell people they can't get there hand within X of the blade and it forces them to use a push stick. If they cut them self than they must not have headed the warning. But they where warned.
:dunno::dunno::dunno::dunno:
As for winning the case :doh: 12 jurors will always find for the little guy over the big corporate. There rich they can afford to give this guy the money.:doh:
Big corporate will continue to settle frivolous law suits for less than it will cost to take them to trail.
Every one of these law suits has a detrimental affect on the cost of goods and services for the rest of the country.
 
I agree with Mike.

If I had invented a braking system for tablesaws, you're darned tootin' I'd be trying to sell it to saw manufacturers, and if they weren't interested, I'd see about making it a requirement on new saws via government channels. SawStop tried both, and when both failed, they did an end run and started manufacturing their own saws. (Which are now one of the best-selling tablesaws in the country.) They're not trying to save the planet, they're trying to make money, just like any other company must do to survive. Of course their marketing plays up the safety aspect, so it might SEEM like they're trying to save the planet, but that's just the Marketing Department doing what they're paid to do. I find no fault in that. When I sell a bowl, I tell people it was made from salvaged wood that was otherwise going to the dump. They like to hear that, and it helps sells bowls. Why should I tell them the main reason I use salvaged wood is because it's free?

And I believe Chuck is right about entry-level saws being an accident waiting to happen. Seeing this demonstrated vividly myself with a $100 Delta benchtop saw was my main motivation to purchase a better saw. I already had tablesaw experience, so I knew the $100 saw was unsafe. Many newbies would not. I also believe (or at least would hope) that something like a "No Fingers Here" sticker could help cover their assets ;) in a lawsuit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top