MHoggle

I realize it's easy, and relatively fun, to jump at every chance to attack "liberals and lawyers," but did everyone read the article?

"According to the Journal of Trauma, an estimated 565,670 table-saw-related injuries were treated from 1990 to 2007 in U.S. emergency rooms. The vast majority involved a hand coming in contact with the blade, and about 10 percent ended in amputation. "

and...

"SawStop asks for licensing fees of 3 percent of the saw's wholesale price to start. As the device becomes more widespread, the fees could increase to 8 percent... Manufacturers would have to redesign saws, which could cause a price increase of about $150."

I'm all for freedom of choice, but these numbers are not that high...and the cost increase resulting from a redesign should diminish with time. It's bazaar to me that the major tool manufacturers didn't implement this technology, especially on their higher end products where the redesign cost would have meant a relatively insignificant increase.

Everyone says "it's inexperience" or "his own fault." Sure, those things can play a role, but when progress provides you an opportunity to change a machine from inherently dangerous to far, far less dangerous, the reason not to incorporate the new technology needs to be more than "we won't make as much money." This is especially true when the machine is widely used in businesses and high schools.

And, no, I don't own a sawstop. If the technology had been implemented by the largest manufacturers, I could probably afford one. However, since they all passed and the inventor had to create his own line of tools (increasing the cost dramatically), it's not doable for me.