Saw Stop Back in the News

[Frank Hagan]

I don't think is it quite that black and white...it isn't for me at least! In general, I'm for small gov't but big gov't has done some good things for society.

I know this is further straying off the course, but let me ask folks this question:

"What is the main function/purpose of your goverment?"

To secure our rights and provide for our common defense.

And then whatever else we decide we want it to do, granting it permission to build roads across state lines, tax our income, etc., all the while knowing that we can remove those permissions when we really want to remove them.

I think product safety first started being the government's business in terms of mass produced food. We established agencies who set food purity guidelines and started grading beef, for instance. I doubt most of us would want the government oversight of food to end. Or drugs, for that matter. There are too many examples where economic expediency by a company overrules individual liberties.

At some point it becomes a nanny state, but its hard for me to see us at that point when talking about safety devices on saws. Lawnmowers are safer than tablesaws today, but it wasn't always so.

[Mike Henderson]

I understand the company has the right to petition the CPSc but it is IMHO for profit not safety and therefore the company is being less than totally honest and I find it insulting.

Ken, what Gass is doing is very common and done every day in standards bodies. Most of my experience is with communications standards, but it was *extremely* common for each company to come in and make a presentation that advocated using their patented technology in the new standard. The person making the presentation was often the person who developed the new technology and I'm very sure that s/he really believed that their solution was the absolute best - after all, they invented it. But there was also a monetary reason for their presentation - if their patented technology was accepted, their company would get licensing fees.

No one on the standards committee thought anything at all about this approach - it's the way the world works.

In developing the standard, the companies challenged each other and argued about whose technology was the best. Test results were demanded and the testing methodology was challenged. Often, the result was a compromise - one side had to agree to include another's technology in order to get their technology included. You could argue that it was messy but that's the way agreement is reached.

What Gass is doing is exactly the same, and what the other saw companies will do, I suspect, is exactly what companies do in the communications standards bodies. But out of it will come a good solution that has been challenged and tested and verified before the group accepts it.

The old saw is "You don't want to see how sausage or laws are made." Well, standards are the same. Gass is just positioning himself like anyone else with patented technology would do. I'm sure he thinks it's the greatest technology that was ever invented, and he also wants to help the world and make some money off it.

Mike

[Cliff Rohrabacher]

non rotating rubber blades.
That is the final solution.

Which wise-crack gives rise to a more serious idea:
a high speed vibratory blade that won't cut soft tissue.
Sort of like a bone saw.

Hmmm.

[Ken Salisbury]

This thread has gotten totally out of hand and turned into a political turmoil. We should get back to what this forum is all about and use our time to create something. This thread is now closed.

"Your Friendly Moderator"