1- Customers- A list of Complaints
1a) “A false trip mandates replacement of the brake mechanism which is an expensive piece (~$59)”
Consumers would have to pay another $60 if the blade does stop before hitting flesh. This is an inconvenience.
1b) “A low percentage of the 30,000 annual (U.S.) table saw injuries are due to contact with the blade – most are from kickback.”
Most injuries aren’t even from the skin hitting the blade itself, but more so from other things. So, consumers would have to purchase this saw if all others are wiped off the shelves even if the problem doesn’t apply to them.
1c) “The Power Tool Institute (made up of many of the major tool manufacturers) takes strong offense to the concept of making safety devices like this mandatory on products like table saws. They cite both technical and practical/financial problems with mandating SawStop technology – and there are a lot.”
Not everyone agrees that they should be mandatory for there are many problems that stem from it becoming a “necessity.
2- Steve Gass himself
2a) “The saw saves the finger, but mangles the machine.”
Your finger would be safe, yes, but the machine is destroyed due to slowing down in milliseconds. This causes damage to the whole machine, and then you’d have to buy a whole new one.
2b) “That’s like driving a car a thousand miles an hour and hitting a brick wall.”
Discussing the damage done to the machine after stopping so fast would be similar to the damage to a car driving into a wall at a fast pace. This infers there would be extreme damage to the machine that is unfixable.
2c) “This is a man who has faith in his creation.”
Despite what the rest of the video says about the damage, Steve Gass still has full potential in his invention and believes it is quite an amazing invention.
3- News Reporter
3a) “But as well as the technology works, the major tool companies have failed to put this kind of device on any of their table saws — even eight years after Gass offered to license it to them.”
The reporter thinks that these safer saws should have been on shelves when Gass first offered it to them. He wonders why they aren’t for sale yet if they can prevent injury from using saws.
3b) “In other words, let consumers decide. Young says many consumers won’t want to pay for the SawStop technology, which could add $100 to $300 in cost, depending on which side you talk to.”
Consumers can buy it if they want to, but safety doesn’t always sell because of the additional price. Would people rather lose a finger or pay an extra 200 dollars?
3c) “I came across a little ad for a table saw that wouldn’t cut off your fingers. That sounded like a good kind of saw to me; I like doing home-improvement projects. And it just sounded interesting.”
The reporter is interested in the saw because he does home-improvement projects and sees where the injuries could happen. He agrees that these items should be sold for consumers. He thinks it is a good idea.
4- Personal Injury Lawyers
4a) “Table saws cause more than 40,000 injuries every year. Approximately 10% of those injuries, or 4,000, result in amputations every year. Fingers, hands, and arms are the most common parts of the body that are amputated. Only 20% of the injuries occur in people who are on the job, where injuries are usually covered by workplace accident insurance.”
The lawyers say that a change is needed due to the amount of injuries a year. A large percentage of injuries aren’t on the job but from at-home projects.
4b) “The SawStop and other table saw safety devices are actually very simple. ”
They think that the SawStop is a simple machine that reduces injuries.
5-Consumer Product Safety- Sally Greenberg
5a) “Ten people every day – according the CPSC’s own data – have their fingers amputated in power saw accidents. 10 a day! I’ve wanted to push the CPSC for a mandatory standard ever since hearing a story on NPR in May of 2006.”
This woman believes 10 amputations a day from table saws is way too much! When she heard it she instantly wanted a change for safer saws.
5b) “They also took the commendable step of petitioning the Commission and asking that it adopt a mandatory safety standard – that was in 2003. ”
She thinks that SawStop is commendable for wanting the safe saw to be a mandatory machine for everyone to have for they are looking out for people’s safety.
5c) “As NCL told USA Today, if you have a pattern of injury, a safety technology that can address it, and it’s affordable, you should move toward a mandatory safety standard so that all parts of the industry comply. ”
People should be pushing for the SawStop to be mandatory because of how many injuries there are in just a day.
5d) “10 amputations a day and thousands more injuries every year, is an unacceptable toll when a ready fix is affordable, available, and waiting.”
Basically saying, break out the SawStops! We need more protection! It is affordable and ready for consumption, so why isn’t it on shelves yet? It is what she thinks we need.