4 ms·

"CPSC Acting Chairman Ann Marie Buerkle said she was also concerned that the rule might force companies to license technology from SawStop, which she said might

"CPSC Acting Chairman Ann Marie Buerkle said she was also concerned that the rule might force companies to license technology from SawStop, which she said might create a monopoly." I think this is a valid sentiment. Why should the federal government literally award a monopoly to one company? This is not consumer protection. People know what they are getting into when dealing with a saw. This is government overreach. If people want the safety, and if a $400 stopsaw is has equivalent functionality (excluding sensing tech) as a $200 normal saw, than the increased demand will prove that the extra $200 is necessary.

jdavis703 9y ago
If SawStop wants to show good faith they'll open source all of their patents. Otherwise this looks like blatant regulatory capture.
oliwarner 9y ago
Do you also resent your goverment for legislating the cars are safer? There are more than glancing similarities between SawStop and airbags. That this is currently patent-encumbered isn't really relevant. It would be trivial to write the law now but defer its enforcement. We're only 4 years away. It's time to let manufacturers know this is what they'll be building.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- jdavis703 9y ago
  Cars should be made safer WRT to the people outside the car who might have to deal with the consequences. For example, a car with spikes on the outside should probably be illegal. But as long as the danger is knowingly and exclusively contained to the occupant of a vehicle I see no reason to make it illegal. Motorcycles, for example, lack standard safety features like seatbelts and airbags, and yet we haven't made them illegal.
  - oliwarner 9y ago
    I guess I asked for it but I didn't really expect somebody to argue against things like airbags and SRS. Hey, what about driver seatbelts? It's a constant surprise to me just how much some people want to forgo very reliable and affordable technology to play contrarian and stick it to the man. The problem is, it's a team of paramedics, police, fire and rescue who have to scrape your broken arse off the road. You don't just evaporate when your self-reckless decisions snuff you out. And in many counties and US states, motorcyclists have to wear helmets that meet certain safety guidelines.
    - jdavis703 9y ago
      I'm not trying to stick it to the man. When I pass on certain safety features it's for practical reasons. I don't like side view mirrors with blind spot detection -- it'll lull me in to not checking over my shoulder if I ever have to drive a car without that feature (or the feature fails). Same thing with wearing a bike helmet, while it sounds excessively vain I have an afro that gets completely destroyed by a helmet, so I don't wear those. At the end of the day I want to be able to opt-in or opt-out of safety features based on a set of personal calculations.
    - setr 9y ago
      Its not about eliminating the technology; its about choosing its presence. These safety features are not free to have, and are not necessarily worth their cost, in every situation. But by enforcing it at the federal level you remove that choice from consumers everywhere, with at best a limited understanding of the environment in which the rule is being applied. It is not nonsensical that I might want a $400 death trap versus a $5k properly regulated and safety-confirmed vehicle if I immediately need a car, and I don't have 5k to spend. What regulations do is fuck over anyone who wants the $400 death trap (valid reasons), by only allowing the $5k (and better) to exist. The guys who can afford the regulated machine are better off, the guys who can't are worse off. Why might I be fine with a death trap? Because its that or I lose my job, and I'm willing to take on that risk. And I'm assuming I can better gauge the meaning of that risk for myself than the governments can (whereas they have a better understanding at a macro level) Its not about safety, its about autonomy, and the belief that the government is just able to make poor decisions as you are, but their mistakes are far longer lasting, and destructive.
- yazan94 9y ago
  I agree with your point, and safer technology, if available, should make its way into the market. But on the other hand, people are more willing to pay for something if the benefit outweighs the cost. Looking at their site[1] (their $400 saw out yet), and you can tell why their saws aren't more ubiquitous: their cheapest saw is $1300. A somewhat equivalent (I am not super familiar with important metrics about saws, but looking at amps and saw blade diameter (15A, 10")) table saw made by a more recognizable manufacturer (Ridgid) is already $400. Here is a link to a /r/woodworking thread about SawStop saws [3] (albeit 3 years old). I think that they would be the target audience for the saws more so than many of us. [1] http://www.sawstop.com/table-saws/by-model/jobsite-saw#build-price http://www.sawstop.com/table-saws/by-model/jobsite-saw#build... [2] http://www.homedepot.com/p/RIDGID-15-Amp-10-in-Heavy-Duty-Portable-Table-Saw-with-Stand-R4513/100090444 http://www.homedepot.com/p/RIDGID-15-Amp-10-in-Heavy-Duty-Po... [3] https://www.reddit.com/r/woodworking/comments/1ubckp/has_anybody_here_used_a_sawstop_brand_table_saw/ https://www.reddit.com/r/woodworking/comments/1ubckp/has_any...

jdavis703 9y ago

If SawStop wants to show good faith they'll open source all of their patents. Otherwise this looks like blatant regulatory capture.

oliwarner 9y ago

Do you also resent your goverment for legislating the cars are safer? There are more than glancing similarities between SawStop and airbags. That this is currently patent-encumbered isn't really relevant. It would be trivial to write the law now but defer its enforcement. We're only 4 years away. It's time to let manufacturers know this is what they'll be building.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
jdavis703 9y ago
Cars should be made safer WRT to the people outside the car who might have to deal with the consequences. For example, a car with spikes on the outside should probably be illegal. But as long as the danger is knowingly and exclusively contained to the occupant of a vehicle I see no reason to make it illegal. Motorcycles, for example, lack standard safety features like seatbelts and airbags, and yet we haven't made them illegal.
- oliwarner 9y ago
  I guess I asked for it but I didn't really expect somebody to argue against things like airbags and SRS. Hey, what about driver seatbelts? It's a constant surprise to me just how much some people want to forgo very reliable and affordable technology to play contrarian and stick it to the man. The problem is, it's a team of paramedics, police, fire and rescue who have to scrape your broken arse off the road. You don't just evaporate when your self-reckless decisions snuff you out. And in many counties and US states, motorcyclists have to wear helmets that meet certain safety guidelines.
  - jdavis703 9y ago
    I'm not trying to stick it to the man. When I pass on certain safety features it's for practical reasons. I don't like side view mirrors with blind spot detection -- it'll lull me in to not checking over my shoulder if I ever have to drive a car without that feature (or the feature fails). Same thing with wearing a bike helmet, while it sounds excessively vain I have an afro that gets completely destroyed by a helmet, so I don't wear those. At the end of the day I want to be able to opt-in or opt-out of safety features based on a set of personal calculations.
  - setr 9y ago
    Its not about eliminating the technology; its about choosing its presence. These safety features are not free to have, and are not necessarily worth their cost, in every situation. But by enforcing it at the federal level you remove that choice from consumers everywhere, with at best a limited understanding of the environment in which the rule is being applied. It is not nonsensical that I might want a $400 death trap versus a $5k properly regulated and safety-confirmed vehicle if I immediately need a car, and I don't have 5k to spend. What regulations do is fuck over anyone who wants the $400 death trap (valid reasons), by only allowing the $5k (and better) to exist. The guys who can afford the regulated machine are better off, the guys who can't are worse off. Why might I be fine with a death trap? Because its that or I lose my job, and I'm willing to take on that risk. And I'm assuming I can better gauge the meaning of that risk for myself than the governments can (whereas they have a better understanding at a macro level) Its not about safety, its about autonomy, and the belief that the government is just able to make poor decisions as you are, but their mistakes are far longer lasting, and destructive.
yazan94 9y ago
I agree with your point, and safer technology, if available, should make its way into the market. But on the other hand, people are more willing to pay for something if the benefit outweighs the cost. Looking at their site[1] (their $400 saw out yet), and you can tell why their saws aren't more ubiquitous: their cheapest saw is $1300. A somewhat equivalent (I am not super familiar with important metrics about saws, but looking at amps and saw blade diameter (15A, 10")) table saw made by a more recognizable manufacturer (Ridgid) is already $400. Here is a link to a /r/woodworking thread about SawStop saws [3] (albeit 3 years old). I think that they would be the target audience for the saws more so than many of us. [1] http://www.sawstop.com/table-saws/by-model/jobsite-saw#build-price http://www.sawstop.com/table-saws/by-model/jobsite-saw#build... [2] http://www.homedepot.com/p/RIDGID-15-Amp-10-in-Heavy-Duty-Portable-Table-Saw-with-Stand-R4513/100090444 http://www.homedepot.com/p/RIDGID-15-Amp-10-in-Heavy-Duty-Po... [3] https://www.reddit.com/r/woodworking/comments/1ubckp/has_anybody_here_used_a_sawstop_brand_table_saw/ https://www.reddit.com/r/woodworking/comments/1ubckp/has_any...