Official Luthiers Forum!

Do careless, stupid, tired, hurried, etc. people deserve to lose appendages as part of the idea of being "responsible?"

Sooner or later, we will all do something stupid. It doesn't make us stupid people -- even highly intelligent, careful people sometimes make stupid mistakes.

I don't think it is unreasonable to ask tool makers to take that into account as they make tools. There is no reason they should not ask themselves whether reasonably economical safety features can be integrated into the system to increase the odds that our inevitable mistakes will not result in loss of life or limb. I'm not saying that it's the toolmaker's fault if things go wrong -- I am saying that mistakes happen, and as much as it is our responsibility to be as careful as we can, it is also the toolmaker's responsibility, within reason, to make the tool as safe as economically feasible.

The wholesale refusal of the tablesaw industry to provide customers with the OPTION of SawStop technology (or some other equivalent) was, in my book, inexcusable. Particularly when you delve into the reasons why they refused.

Absolutely.

I also don't have to much faith in electronic components when my life is at stake. What happens when a 5 cent capacitor starts leaking and the safety system fails without you evening knowing it?...Mike

With all due respect. That's a terribly foolish comment Glen.

I have to ask...whey did the tablesaw industry wholly reject it?

Until there is a failure of the system, and there will be!

OK, I can no longer resist, but I'll keep it short.

Being "responsible" for yourself: great concept. I guess what some people mean by this is paying the cost for your own mistakes. All well and good, but the primary point isn't who pays the medical bills. It's the finger. Humans tend to systematically underestimate risk. Do careless, stupid, tired, hurried, etc. people deserve to lose appendages as part of the idea of being "responsible?" Part of the point of lawsuits is financial compensation for injured people. But another part is keeping those fingers attached by providing an incentive to manufacturers for making things more safe. Pretty roundabout, inefficient way of doing that, no? But the alternative is more government regulation. More efficient, keeps the playing field level, distributes the cost of accidental events more evenly. So if you don't like the use of lawsuits as a way of policing unsafe products, why aren't you cheering for more regulation? or do you really think those stupid, tired, etc. people (you would never be one of them, of course) deserve what they get?

Back to who pays the medical bills. If you don't like people suing when they are injured and can't pay the medical bills, why aren't you cheering for a good single payer system? Our medical payment system and out tort system go hand in hand. It's no coincidence that the rest of the industrialized world doesn't have the same litigiousness over personal injuries.

OK, one more thing. There has been a relentless propaganda campaign over the past 40 years or so by the insurance companies to promote the idea that juries get afflicted with group insanity while under the influence of evil Svengali-like lawyers. The real numbers and real outcomes (even of some popularly well-known lawsuits) don't support this. But repeat anything long enough, especially when you have a good villain, and a simplistic explanation for a complex problem, and people will jump on board. The insurance companies and their whores in the political system are in this for the long haul.

Rant over.

Oh, one more thing. I do agree that the SawStop folks appear to be engaged in economic rent-seeking.

It becomes simple economics when the cost of the litigation become more costly than the negotiations and purchase of license.

It becomes simple economics when the cost of the litigation become more costly than the negotiations and purchase of license.

To respond to Andy and others wondering. Am I a sociopath. I don't think so, never diagnosed as one. .

I believe you guys will find that SawStop petitioned the Consumer Products Safety Commission to have all saws without the technology or similar capability banned from sale or use. Sorta makes me think this was a lot more about money than anything else.

I believe you guys will find that SawStop petitioned the Consumer Products Safety Commission to have all saws without the technology or similar capability banned from sale or use. Sorta makes me think this was a lot more about money than anything else.

I believe you guys will find that SawStop petitioned the Consumer Products Safety Commission to have all saws without the technology or similar capability banned from sale or use. Sorta makes me think this was a lot more about money than anything else.