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 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.