> The company pushing the legislation has a major agenda that is not safety - patent licensing. I'm not convinced this is reason enough to argue against it; ra

> The company pushing the legislation has a major agenda that is not safety - patent licensing. I'm not convinced this is reason enough to argue against it; rather, it's reason to demand that whatever regulation is proposed doesn't mandate the technology used, or to fix the licensing fee at a reasonable amount. > You know why [… other safety precautions for woodworking …] I don't find this argument very compelling. By analogy, you could argue against airbags in cars, since people wear seat belts, have licensing + supervised training, brakes, etc. All of those things are human-dependent, and thus may not be used appropriately in all situations.