SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
In 2015, 4,700 people in the US lost a finger or other body part to table-saw incidents. Most of those injuries didn't have to happen, thanks to technology invented in 1999 by entrepreneur Stephen Gass. By giving his blade a slight electric charge, his saw is able to detect contact with a human hand and stop spinning in a few milliseconds. A widely circulated video[1] shows a test on a hot dog that leaves the wiener unscathed.
Now federal regulators are considering whether to make Gass' technology mandatory in the table-saw industry. The Consumer Product Safety Commission announced plans for a new rule in May, and the rules could take effect in the coming months.
But established makers of power tools vehemently object. They say the mandate could double the cost of entry-level table saws and destroy jobs in the power-tool industry. They also point out that Gass holds dozens of patents on the technology. If the CPSC makes the technology mandatory for table saws, that could give Gass a legal monopoly over the table-saw industry until at least 2021, when his oldest patents expire.
At the same time, table-saw related injuries cost society billions every year. The CPSC predicts switching to the safer saw design will save society $1,500 to $4,000 per saw sold by reducing medical bills and lost work.
"You commissioners have the power to take one of the most dangerous products ever available to consumers and make it vastly safer," Gass said at a CPSC public hearing on Wednesday.
[1] SawStop Hot dog Video - Saw blade retracts within 5 milliseconds of accidental contact - YouTube.
(Score: 2) by snufu on Saturday August 12 2017, @03:27AM (12 children)
Or their can be no mandate, and instead hold manufacturers liable for public injuries that could have been avoided by using existing proven technology.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Saturday August 12 2017, @04:36AM (7 children)
That's a terrible precedent.
What if you have a similar situation, where there's a dangerous power tool (perhaps a weedwacker), and there's "existing proven technology" that can prevent common accidents that happen with it. Problem is, the "proven technology" is patented, and the patent fee is $100 million per device. Or maybe it's just not even licensed at all, because the company with the patent wants to put everyone out of business.
How is it in the interest of the state, or even not against anti-trust law, for the state to impose these onerous conditions on the other competitors in the field? The whole idea of the government forcing a bunch of companies out of business so that one can be left with a legally-forced monopoly is wrong on MANY levels.
If it's so imperative to have this technology, then the state really should be seizing the patent and allowing these companies to use it at no cost.
And if Gass really wants to stop people from sawing their fingers off, why isn't he offering the patented technology royalty-free?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 12 2017, @04:53AM (2 children)
I miss TMB's old sig line.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 12 2017, @08:27AM (1 child)
What's a TMB?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 13 2017, @12:44AM
The Muslim Brotherhood or The Mighty Boosh [youtube.com]
(Score: 2) by VLM on Saturday August 12 2017, @01:20PM (3 children)
Is lite beer patented? You can imagine teatotaller types putting all the beer companies out of business because their lite beer is safer yet unlicensed.
Sounds ridiculous today but I'd expect someone to try it with legalized weed. "Lite-weed" which is mixed with non cancer causing grass clippings, perhaps.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by mcgrew on Saturday August 12 2017, @02:31PM (2 children)
"Lite-weed" which is mixed with non cancer causing grass clippings, perhaps.
Marijuana doesn't cause cancer. They did a study a decade or so ago studying long-term use of tobacco and marijuana. Those who smoked both cigarettes and pot had half the cancers of those who only smoked cigarettes, and there were fewer cancers among those who only smoked pot and those who didn't smoke anything, although the difference between nonsmokers and pot smokers was statistically insignificant.
The results amazed the researchers, who thought that the result would be that those who smoked pot and tobacco would have twice the cancers of cigarette smokers.
And the only way you could patent a strain of cannabis would be to genetically engineer it.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 12 2017, @07:29PM (1 child)
http://www.lung.org/stop-smoking/smoking-facts/marijuana-and-lung-health.html [lung.org]
Oops, better catch up with research. But the study that you and other pro-weed cite didn't control their numbers for the relative amounts smoked. Turns out those that smoke cigarettes smoke a LOT more. When you control for that, the numbers are not nearly as skewed.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Saturday August 12 2017, @07:52PM
Yeah, if you burn anything and inhale the vapors, plus the nasty combustion by-products, you're polluting your lungs and risking cancer. There are pot smokers who really like "vaporizers" which I guess separate the not-so-harmful vapors from the nastier particulate smoke. But one of the nice things about pot versus tobacco, in my observation as a total non-smoker of anything, is that pot smokers don't smoke *nearly* the volume of material that cigarette smokers do. The cigarette smokers are constantly lighting up, at least every couple hours, but the pot smokers might smoke once in the evening, or even once a week.
(Score: 2, Touché) by darkpixel on Saturday August 12 2017, @05:48AM
Great idea. Hold the creators accountable. Remember that the next time someone browses the wayback machine and finds your old 1995 geocities site complete with the blink tags and has a seizure.
(Score: 2) by shortscreen on Saturday August 12 2017, @08:38AM (1 child)
You must be a lawyer.
No, I take that back. If you were a lawyer you would know that there already was a lawsuit based on this exact concept (person sawed off part of their body and then sued the saw maker for not making their product idiot-proof).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 12 2017, @10:23AM
Lawyers are heavily indoctrinated that they serve the greater good by doing their jobs. And that's not completely bullshit.
But in a case like this, follow the dominoes. What are the outcomes?
1) Sue-er wins, smaller amount, winnings are covered by increasing the cost to future purchasers of saw. Sue-er does get a pile of cash.
2) Sue-er wins, larger amount, sue-ee is bankrupt, sue-er may or may not manage to get a pile of cash, future saw purchasers have one less option, increasing price and/or decreasing features (including safety features) included, possibly even shutting down last supplier. Particularly if a potentially expensive mandate like this one is won.
3) Sue-er loses, no award, only lawyers fees need to be covered so price increase may be extremely modest.
In what possible world is there a better option than 3? How are you making the world a better place when the best possible outcome with you is a modest price increase to consumers for the same good?
Manufacturers are not averse to safety measures - quite the opposite, frankly, they tend to be enamored of them. But these measures are not free, and it doesn't always make sense to pay what they cost.
(Score: 2) by FakeBeldin on Saturday August 12 2017, @09:51AM
Can the manufacturers then hold the suers liable for buying table saws without the existing proven technology, when table saws with the existing proven technology are available?