[TheForge] Oh, Jeeze...California Considers Table Saw Law

[Andrew Vida]

On 3/20/2012 1:49 PM, Ries Niemi wrote:

> A- this is NOT law, and most likely will not become law. I get so
> tired of half truths and just made up stuff becoming internet
> sensations. There is NO PLACE in the USA where you have to have a Saw
> Stop on your table saw.

I don't people have been complaining about the device, but rather the
"thinking" that goes into the submission of such mindlessly stupid 
legislation.  You cannot protect people from making mistakes.  Every 
cabinet shop in which I have worked removes ALL "safety" equipment from 
their saws - guard and splitter - and usually makes their own - push 
sticks, feather boards, panel jigs, etc.  When such imbecilic laws pass 
it causes two things to happen: costs to rise and lots of people 
removing the safety devices either before or after getting sufficiently 
annoyed with them.

As an employer in a private business it is your prerogative to require 
such equipment if that is what you feel is the right thing for your 
employees' health.  If the next guy does not, that is also his 
prerogative.  Those not liking either your way or the other are free to 
find work elsewhere.

> And, C-   there are many many cases of the market failing big time on
> safety issues. The market does not care about human life, only about
> dollars.

This is categorically untrue.  Firstly, there are entire industries 
devoted to NOTHING BUT safety issues, so you assertion fails on that 
fact alone.  The market does not fail.  When markets for safety products 
arise there is ALWAYS someone there for fill the demand.  There are so 
many examples of this we could fill tomes to the tune of hundreds of 
thousands of pages.  Market history is rife with such things, including 
those for safety products.  What you erroneously attribute to "market 
failure" is actually a fundamental characteristic of human beings.

People remove safety devices on all manner of machinery when those 
devices are perceived as impeding their work.  The point is that if 
there is demand for some safety scheme, SOMEONE will pick up on it and 
attempt to make hay.  It may not come immediately, but is WILL come. 
There are no failures such as you suggest.  The "failures" are the 
result of no demand, and we all know too well what happens to stuff we 
buy that we really do not want.
>
> Would we really be better off without seatbelts in cars, without
> safety glass in windshields,  and so on? Do you really want asbestos
> insulation in houses, lead paint on baby toys, or E coli in your
> hamburgers?

Fallacious argument, suggesting that "government" is the only solution 
to such questions.
>
> Government regulation has saved millions of lives in america.

Arguable.

> Certainly there is a middle ground, between too much and too little.

Finally something we agree on. :)

> Since there are NO laws requiring Saw Stops right now, I would say we
> are still firmly in that middle ground.

Hooboy...