Official Luthiers Forum!

The government did not force Ryobi to reject the SawStop. They gambled and lost.

o.k., Let me try and explain this one more time.

You are free to remove all of the safety gear from your car.

You are not free to add safety technology that has been stifled by the auto industry to avoid liability because it's not available.

The Saw industry tried to kill sawstop thereby eliminating a choice. The government didn't get involved until someone took it to court

Get it?

p.s. I'm not trying to point 100% of the blame on the saw industry, it sounds like Gass is an A-hole about the thing too.

p.p.s. Why is everyone so happy to pile on the idiot who cuts of his digit but no one piles on the industry that rejected an idea that could save peoples digits? Other than a few key areas, corporations are treated like "people" in the eyes of the law. If an individual displays sociopathic behavior he's labeled a sociopath and is treated as such. When a business does the same, their stock goes up and they're applauded for keeping their shareholder's interest at heart. News flash: it really isn't all about money. Everyone on this list knows that, that's why we do what we do. Hows about we start holding corporations to the same level of social responsibility we hold one another. If the saw industry would have voluntarily added sawstop as an option, we wouldn't have any of these threads. As it is, they rejected it for who knows what reasons and you know what, I'm glad they're paying now. Perhaps next time a safety innovation comes around they'll implement it instead of trying to stay in the stone ages like they did with saw stop: free market at work right?

_________________
http://www.birkonium.com CNC Products for Luthiers
http://banduramaker.blogspot.com

Another source for the truth about Stella Liebeck vs. MacDonalds (there are less objective accounts available that make MacDonalds appear even more outrageous): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v. ... estaurants

The "Stella Awards" BTW are fictitious incidents and no legal record of these supposed actual cases can be found. They are made up, perhaps by someone who stands to gain by perpetuating the myth of greedy plaintiffs and juries that go insane en masse. See Snopes.

Waddy, you should be ashamed of yourself. You just said that people who are stupid or careless deserve to lose fingers or lives. The kindest thing I can say to you is that you may be the innocent dupe of a decades-long campaign by the insurance industry and their shills in media and government to increase their profits by spreading misinformation about how the tort system functions.

_________________
Howard Klepper
http://www.klepperguitars.com

When all else fails, clean the shop.

the whole system is screwed up. what will happen is someone with enough funds to lobby for the installation of this device on all new saws , will buy the patent, lobby for this law to be bundled in with several ( or hundreds of )other laws . and it will be passed , the inventor will retire happily ever after at our expense. Jody

Umm, Bob, I think the idea of voting in an election is not quite the same as picking a winner in a horse race. Do you vote for the person you think is most likely to win, so you can afterwards claim to have been "right?"



Since I can't believe that you think one unusual case can prove anything about about a system that generates 100's of 1000's of verdicts each year, I'll instead assume that this is a mere rhetorical device. Here's another: if you were charged with a crime, who would you rather have decide on your guilt or innocence?

_________________
Howard Klepper
http://www.klepperguitars.com

When all else fails, clean the shop.

So in your first sentence you state that they didn't suppress it then in your next paragraph you explain why the industry suppressed it?

If you look up the definition of "suppress", you'll see that by passing on the technology for whatever reasons, the industry did indeed suppress SawStop.

_________________
http://www.birkonium.com CNC Products for Luthiers
http://banduramaker.blogspot.com

I don't need to defend Todd, as he can well do that himself, but you are putting words in his mouth that he didn't say. His second paragraph, was, "After the majors took a pass..." My understanding was that it was shopped to them separately, not as a group. No collusion there.

_________________
Waddy

Photobucket Build Album Library

Sound Clips of most of my guitars

The fourth post (by Tony Karol) mentions the Chisel-stop. The band-aid on my thumb reminds me that this is something I am clearly in need of. Judging from the number of chisel-induced injuries I have sustained over the years, they are clearly one of the most dangerious tools in my shop.

Should I sue Two Cherries for making some of my favorite tools ?

-jd

I should add that on a more serious note: While expensive, the Saw Stop does look like a very nice saw. Very solid, smooth, and precise. Also good dust collection and a nice solid fence.

For luthiery, you will need to run in bypass mode for several operations (such as using a fret-slot blade)

-jd

Are you attempting to imply evil intent to an entire "industry" by insisting that they have conspired to "suppress" this technology? We both know that the word "suppress" carries negative connotations so when you argue semantically like this it appears to belie an agenda. Please clarify this point.

I intend to be free. To be free and profitable, a business needs to be able to make decisions based on a set of facts salient to their business. The "industry" took a close look at SawStop and could not incorporate it into their products profitably. That should have been the end of it but SawStop initially chose to operate outside of the free market and instead, rely upon the ruling establishment to create a market for their product. That rubs me the wrong way.

Eventually Sawstop arrived in the right position - in my opinion. they gave up trying to control the market and instead entered into it. Now, if the technology is 100% effective, and some people are willing to pay big bucks to have a machine watch over certain aspects of safety, then SawStop will have snagged a piece of the market and find themselves profiting on an idea of merit.

Todd said, "The consensus within that company was that the technology was expensive, limited in its effectiveness and application.." Hehe…..so is government when it attempts to create responsible human beings. If SawStop technology is consistently effective the world will beat a path to their door. No one can honestly sell a product if they don't make something that people actually want so there are no shortcuts to sales unless you are willing to forego ethics. I perceive the initial efforts of SawStop as a ploy to create legislation that forced a legal monopoly. That is a major compromise of ethics in my book.

Also, underlying all of this is an attitude that says no expense should be spared on measures that could produce a risk free world. That attitude will kill us all faster than any table saw.

_________________
I read Emerson on the can. A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds...true...but a consistent reading of Emerson has its uses nevertheless.

StuMusic

[/quote]rely upon the ruling establishment to create a market for their product. That rubs me the wrong way.[/quote]

It rubs me the wrong way also. I think the saw stop is a great idea, but the way he is going about trying to drum up business is wrong. To say that a saw without the Saw Stop installed is defective, that would mean that everyone of us who owns a table saw, owns a defective saw and we would have the right to sue. The guy has a personal vendetta with Ryobi because they didn't follow through with the contract, well he should have taken Ryobi to court for breach of contract, not become an ambulance chaser. I have the technology you have to put this on every table saw, blah, blah, blah, complete crap. Pardon my french.

Kind of like BP did? Or Massey or Goldman-Sachs or Merck or Enron or Exxon or .......

I don't have a strong opinion about the Sawstop case but as for regulation, I have to wonder; if private enterprise can be so cavalier in this supposedly over-regulated nanny state, what would things would look like with less government and court involvement?

_________________
http://www.chassonguitars.com

That would be the part that results in huge punitive damages when a company weighs if it's cheaper just to let the fingers and limbs get detached (injuries which are well-documented and expected) than to build a safer but more expensive device.

_________________
______________________________
Jonathan Kendall, Siloam Springs AR

We are to be a free country and that means you can make choices. This is in my opinion a chance for the insurance industry to dictate government policy. What this comes down to is we must idiot proof things. I have learned that once you do that , they will produce a better idiot.

_________________
John Hall
blues creek guitars
Authorized CF Martin Repair
Co President of ASIA
You Don't know what you don't know until you know it

Todd, when someone claims to have knowledge the rest of us don't have and provides no citations (your aviation cases) that pretty much stops the conversation. Which may be a good thing in this case, but I'll note that you avoided my question.

_________________
Howard Klepper
http://www.klepperguitars.com

When all else fails, clean the shop.

A lady just sued Google because she was hit by a car while following one of their recommended walking routes. Strikes me as being a similar situation. I shake my head at this kind of stuff.

Easy decision - go with the technology because it saves fingers and we all love our fingers and it really sucks to lose one. Why do liability premiums have to enter the equation? Why can't a business do something because it's Right in spite of what effect it has on the bottom line?

I used the term "suppressed" earlier very deliberately. When you're in a unique position to act and you choose not to it's arguably as bad as acting against.

_________________
http://www.birkonium.com CNC Products for Luthiers
http://banduramaker.blogspot.com

So it's been a decade since your CEO buddy has passed on saw stop. Where's the superseding technology? How much money has he spent on developing the next gen?

Was his company for or against the new style riving knives? Did his company offer the new style knives in the past as an option or did he pass because it might open him up to liability?

_________________
http://www.birkonium.com CNC Products for Luthiers
http://banduramaker.blogspot.com

Because idealism almost always requires more money than idealists have. However, if SawStop actually DOES work then there is a price at which they can market it profitably...

...and you will have to pay that price if you want the saw...
...or no one will want to make the saw...
...unless you can convince the governement to make the saw for all of us and sell it cheap...which is where this inevitably leads.

I knew going into this that the argument was not specifically the SawStop case but rather, the argument is over the definition of what is right. But this isn't semantical because dictionaries don't provide philisophical insight.

Andy, do you really want to tell the world that it is responsible to provide you a saw that can tell your fingers from wood? Do you think a government should coerce a business to do that for you? I'm trying to picture the efficiency of having a government and a corporation somewhere between my brain and my fingers but all I can picture is more distance between them....much, much more distance.

_________________
I read Emerson on the can. A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds...true...but a consistent reading of Emerson has its uses nevertheless.

StuMusic

Make a clear argument as to the exact correlation of the SawStop case to these other corporations and any case involving them. Then we can talk specifically about your point.



I contributed heavily to the A.S.T.M. F2506-07 standard for Light Sport Aircraft Propellers, been involved with FAA inquiries, and NTSB investigations as a composites specialist, am a commercial multi-engine instrument pilot, and an ex-ATP (airline transport pilot) flight instructor. My grandfather was a cop, my dad a Marine, my oldest son a Washington State Trooper, my younger son an EMT on the road to being a paramedic. I am no stranger to regulation and certainly no supporter of anarchy.

I'll answer your question from my perspective. With less government regulation and less court involvement there would be fewer paychecks for useless bureaucrats and shyster lawyers. That would be the first noticable effect...followed by their cries and howls. The nanny-state exists ostensibily to create security for you and me but in reality, it's only providing security for a growing ruling class. My 22 years in avaition is anecdotal from a certain stanpoint, I know, but any time you want a good story about government depravity I can give you a fresh one.

_________________
I read Emerson on the can. A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds...true...but a consistent reading of Emerson has its uses nevertheless.

StuMusic

What's a little bizarre here is that there is no government regulation requiring saw stops and no one is proposing one. Yet a lot of these posts are railing against this nonexistent and non-proposed governmental intervention. Ryobi et al were and are free to make business decisions about whether to use this technology or not. No one has changed that.

So the problem people have is . . . I dunno, perhaps that we entrust decisions about liability to juries of other citizens instead of . . . who, exactly? panels of woodworkers for woodworking injuries? panels of people who have some involvement in aviation for aviation injuries? Said panels to be chosen how? Who knows enough, and who will determine that? Sounds like a prescription for a whole new system of government regulation to replace common law. Or is the idea that juries are OK so long as YOU agree with them? I really don't know what people who are unhappy with one case or another are proposing. That we do away with financial responsibility for negligence, and say that all injuries are just tough luck, regardless of how they were caused, and no business is liable for the safety of its products ever? Because if it's not that, who is going to decide, and how are they going to be chosen? Sure, some jury awards (a handfull out of hundreds of thousands) seem wrongheaded; we have appellate courts to review them and reduce the damages. So what do you propose instead? Law of the jungle, anyone can do whatever they want to anyone else? If not that, what do you want? I would like to know.

Yes, Filippo, there are large jury verdicts in aviation cases in which a bunch of people are killed because some manufacturer knew they had a faulty product and kept quite about that. So is your point that concealing defects is OK, and no one should be liable for doing that? Or is it that after reading a short news article you can tell that the jury made a huge mistake? Where do you guys get this idea about your omniscience? I'd like some of what you're smoking so I can know all this stuff, too.

_________________
Howard Klepper
http://www.klepperguitars.com

When all else fails, clean the shop.

The point is that for too many businesses, the "set of facts salient to their business" relates more to short-term profit than to the common good. Often short term profit comes at the expense of lives and limbs. Free markets clearly function better with appropriate regulation backed up by an accessible judiciary system.

And based on what we've seen in the US for the last 60 years or so, it's hard to make a case that government is killing prosperity with too many regulations and lawsuits.



I agree to a point. Sure, regulators can make a mess of things and as Fillipo suggested, they can also be manipulated by the industry they are supposed to regulate. But the solution isn't to end lawsuits and regulation. On the whole, it seems we are striking a pretty good balance. Yes there is inane red tape and ridiculous lawsuits but thanks to regulations and courts, we also have power tools that don't electrocute us, houses that stand up pretty well in earthquakes, and cars that don't explode when someone rear-ends us.

As for regulations driving up prices, let's add some perspective. Those of us that do this for a living are successfully able to sell a lot of luxury items. And many of those that do this for a hobby can seemingly, in the name of fun, afford a shop full of tools, a vault of wood, and still have the spare time to build guitars AND chat about it!! I just don't see a lot of evidence that regulations and lawsuits are killing prosperity, innovation, or the entrepreneurial spirit.

But man, my retirement account would sure look a lot better if those regulators had actually been on the ball.

_________________
http://www.chassonguitars.com

Todd, your buddy gave you some bad information.

For example, in terms of the manufacturers passing on it, Ryobi did not pass on it. Ryobi told Gass they wanted it, and Ryobi negotiated a license agreement with Gass. They even signed it. But when Gass noted some typos in the agreement, Ryobi didn't follow through and never implemented the technology. No one at Ryobi was ever able to explain why. That was all part of the testimony in the lawsuit which led to the verdict against Ryobi.

As another example, your buddy mentioned that the government passed on requiring it. Not true at all. The CPSC is currently evaluating whether to require the technology on all tablesaws, and no decision has been made.

I don't doubt that you are accurately reciting what your friend told you about the history of this technology, but his bias has resulted in a pretty radical distortion of history.

Thirty years from now, our kids and grandkids will have tablesaws that have some kind of flesh-detection technology, whether Gass' or something else. And they will all have all their fingers. And we'll tell horror stories about how, in the old days, our mistakes cost us our fingers.

It's not only stupid people that make stupid mistakes. We all make them from time to time. The only difference is that some of us, through a stroke of good fortune, didn't lose our fingers. Others did. The hundred dollars or so we'll all spend to ensure we don't lose our fingers in the tablesaw will be money well spent.

Did you read the article? Isn't the Consumer Product Safety Commission an independent agency of the Federal Government, created by the Federal Government?

Here is what it said in case you didn't read it,

"Carpinello adds that because of the lawsuit, the Consumer Product Safety Commission is considering a rule requiring flesh-detection technology on table saws."

"That process has not formally been initiated, but we know that last fall the Power Tool Institute (a group of power tool manufacturers) went back to the CPSC and urged them not to adopt the rule; and Gass went down and urged them to adopt the rule. Our understanding is that the commission directed the staff to begin the rulemaking process, although the rule has not yet been published in the Federal Register."

This is from the SawStop website under FAQ's.

26. Can I get a serious injury using a SawStop saw?
In the vast majority of cases, coming in contact with the spinning blade will result in a minor cut. However, if your hand moves into the blade at very high speed, it is possible for you to receive a serious injury.

I wonder what the liability would be on the manufacture if the saw has a sawstop installed and a person still receives a serious injury because their hand went into the blade at a high rate of speed, anyone ever have their hand slip off a board while using a table saw?

We know the liability of not having the SawStop is 1.5 million. What would it be with the SawStop installed 100.5 million?
I can see why the manufactures are hesitant in installing the SawStop on their saws.

Folks I think this can be a productive topic, but lets try to keep it civil and with out judgement on government. That will just light an already smoldering fire.

Just try to keep it with in the boundaries of our guidelines.
If you need to review them they are stuck to the top of the main page.

OLF Code of conduct.

Thanks

_________________
Support the OLF! Bookmark our STEWMAC link Today!
Lance@LuthiersForum.com