Safer Saws-theshocker69

1. Creator

Steve Gass invented a woodworking device that stops the teeth of a saw within 4/1000’s of a second. Steve now is a manufacturer of the product and has never had a customer who has suffered amputation or serious injury from his saws.

2. Manufacturers

Most manufacturers believe that a large part of their demographic does not want the SawStop because it adds cost for something that they don’t need because they take proper safety precautions beforehand. Black&Decker holds firmly stating, “SawStop is currently available in the marketplace to any consumer who chooses to purchase it,” since the SawStop is available online, they believe if you want that product then you should buy it directly from them.

3. Customers

The customer’s claim on the subject depends on who you ask. They will either be delighted to have it, or angry. Many customers do not like the SawStop because of the added cost, false positives (which increase cost and extend time of project), braking event poses a hazard, and they also believe that if you want this technology then you should buy it directly from the creator.

4. Industry Spokespeople

Industries such as the Power Tool Industry (PTI) argue that making all saws compatible with SawStop would be too expensive. Although it would prevent over 40,000 injuries and it’s cost, the manufacturers are not the one’s paying for it. The PTI holds that if you use the proper safety equipment and follow the proper safety procedures, that you do not need a SawStop.

5. Consumer Safety Advocates

Consumer safety advocates such as Chairman Inez M. Tenenbaum seek to find solutions to reduce to amount of table saw accidents every year. They look at the 67,300 medically treated table saw accidents in 2007-2008 which resulted in $2.36 billion dollars in medical bills which have changed the lives of many families. Tenenbaum stands strong in his argument that preventable injuries are unacceptable and claims that the manufacturers are responsible.

6. Injured Plaintiffs

One injured plaintiff argued that Bosch “colluded with competitors” and lobbied the Consumer Protection Safety Commission to stop “flesh detection and braking” technology from being a requirement. He also argued that this technology has been out since his traumatic injury, and if Bosch utilized that technology then he would not have been injured. Another plaintiff extended the same argument and won 1.5 million dollars.

7. Personal Injury Lawyers

Personal injury lawyers have held companies reliable for personal injuries stating that they are liable for the reason that had the safety mechanism been utilized, their injuries would have been miniscule. Rewards have been given for medical expenses, pain and suffering.

8. Government Officials

Government officials look at the statistical side of the situation and not much else. They hold that table saws cause thousands of serious injuries every year, which costs billions of dollars to the consumer. They state that table saw safety standards have been ineffective in preventing harm. The officials maintain that there is technology that exists that can protect the consumer, therefore it should be forcefully implemented

9. News Reporters 

Mother Jones made us aware that SawStop has had two reports of amputations. They also attacked the manufacturers on their arguments to not implement the SawStop technology. Mother Jones assumes that manufacturers are not utilizing the technology because they are scared of a wave of liability lawsuits. Although this very well may be true, the manufacturer’s arguments of higher prices and conductivity problems that are pointed out here are very sound. Mother Jones also talks with table saw victims for a dose of pathos to the reader.