Printable View
The blade guard discussion is a non-starter. Look at how many operations can't use one: tenoning jig, box joint jig, panel beveling jig, and most cross-cutting operations when a miter gauge extension is used . . . . and the list goes on. To be truly effective, the saw needs to sense at the blade and stop and/or react quickly. I'm not a Sawstop owner, and I'm not planning to buy one, but if someone gives me one, I'll take it and sell my Unisaw.
Well, there are approximately 750k table saws sold per year in the US (according to the CPSC). If you added $1k to the cost of each one, you've charged consumers an additional 750 million per year. That sounds like a lot, but again, the CPSC states that the annual cost of table saw injuries is in the "billions". So, by adding this very expensive technology, you've collectively saved us a big chunk of money. How is that a bad thing?Quote:
Originally Posted by fRED mCnEILL
Ultimately, the economies-of-scale will push the price well below $1k/unit. Sure, the $99 bench top saw may now become the $119 bench top saw, but your health insurance/worker's comp/etc premiums will go down because of the billions of dollars we save in health care and lost productivity.
From a purely economic perspective, even at the current price, this technology will save you money.
The problem in this reasoning is that money is not owned collectively.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Friedrichs
Remember when we were free?
Since when have insurance companies been inclined to lower premiums?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Friedrichs
True, but why should I pay higher health insurance premiums because you insist on using dangerous equipment? Essentially, integrating any flesh-sensing technology into the saw takes a large expense (health care - previously paid for by everyone) and integrates it into the purchase of the tool, as a much smaller expense, which is now borne only by the person using the tool. Plus, no one loses any fingers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Cherry
Alan - true. Maybe I should have said "will go up less" :)
Actually, I have a Felder K975 saw, which is much much safer than any cabinet saw. That's my personal choice of what to do with my money, and how to reduce risk. But I would hope that I would never assume the role of dictating how someone else lives their life, and what sort of risk they take. We all take risks, and we all have our reasons. The problem arises when things go wrong and instead of sucking it up, we start crying like a babies. (none of this directed at you personally Dan)Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Friedrichs
If we keep up this line of reasoning we also have to give up bacon and sex- and I like my bacon. Dave
You dont actually believe this will happen do you??Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Friedrichs
There's a lot of old table saws in use today so the accident rate will not decline very quickly. But lots of table saws are sold in the US each year and those will gradually replace the installed base. If those new saws contain effective safety devices, the overall accident rate will decline, and this decline will mean less total cost of treating injuries due to table saw accidents.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Adkins
The cost of medical insurance is increasing each year. If insurance companies pay less because of less accidents, this should be reflected in the medical insurance rates, perhaps not in a decline but in a slower rise.
Mike
[I'll ask my question again - The CPSC is asking for comments. Anyone know how to submit comments on this matter?]
But cigarettes are still legal. If the purpose of regulation is to reduce health care costs we need to be fair and regulate all kinds of things that society tolerates and even encourages. While the purpose of reducing injury is tough to criticize it is pretty subjective compared to the choices we are allowed to make regarding our health.
I am sure there will be comments submitted far more coherent than mine. I hope their minds aren't made up one way or the other. Dave
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
4330 East West Highway
Bethesda, MD 20814
Wow is this ever one tough question. It is so easy to make a mistake and hurt oneself on a table saw, that is for sure. However, trying to protect myself through government legislation violates the basic freedom of the individual that so many before us have sacrificed and died to give us. I'm not too fond of centralized legislation to regulate automotive manufacturers but I can understand it to some degree because driving on the road is a cooperative effort to stay safe. But this kind of regulation is reaching straight into my garage, and limiting the choices that I have for my own personal use. It's true, the saw stop appears to be a fine saw, but WAY beyond my ability to afford. Plus I'm sure it is not a perfect saw for every application. It just gets scary when the social engineers assume the responsibility for our personal safety.
I'm not trying to be prideful here, like an accident can't happen to me, I know it can, however, what kind of price can you put on our freedom? Isn't our freedom more valuable than our personal safety?
Sorry for rambling but this stuff scares me to death for our country.
It isn't necessary to solve all of society's ills in order to address one. That same logic used to be used earlier about smoking - "Alcohol causes lots of problems - go fix alcohol before you put regulations on my ability to smoke". Of course there are lots of regulations, restrictions and costs on smoking. You can't smoke in most public places, there's a BIG tax on cigarettes, and smokers pay more for health insurance to name a few.Quote:
Originally Posted by David Kumm
But the issue here is not smoking, it's table saw safety. Attempting to bring cigarettes into the mix is just an attempt to deflect discussion of the issue at hand.
Mike
Thanks, but I was hoping for an electronic method of submitting comments. You're suppose to be able to do it through www.regulations.gov. The docket number is CPSC-2011-0074 but it doesn't seem to have been posted yet on www.regulations.gov yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Kent
Mike
Mike, I wasn't attempting to deflect the discussion to cigarettes. I was addressing the statement that the benefit of the regulation would be to reduce health care costs. If that argument is used there should be an explanation as to what health risks we as individuals should be allowed to take and which are decided by someone else. If flesh sensing technology is mandatory for tablesaws- and I'm not taking a position here- it should also be required on bandsaws, drill presses, shapers, routers, and lawnmowers. I'm not totally serious here but a certain amount of that logic does apply. We all draw the lines in different in different places.