MarkMacLeod

For those of you who are offended by the nanny state - who do you think ends up supporting injured persons when they can no longer work/look after their families/send their kids to school - and the list goes on? YOU do and your society loses. That's why safety is important. Most of you are ready to let the guy rot because he was so stupid/careless/unskilled. Well at the end of the day you will pay for his injury and the injuries of others when their tools/workplaces are not safe.

The responses here are so typical of vision that is narrow and horizons that are so low. It's arrogant and self-congratulatory.

Safety is everyone's business. It is responsible to ensure that equipment has safety features when they are available. My next saw - a SawStop. No question.

Ah you are all crazy - or a majority of them.

The reasonable man test is "is there a technology out there that will reduce the risk of injury in a product or machine that has a known risk (and now a preventable risk) associated with its use?"

So there is - and SawStop has it and I am sure they are willing to sell it for a price - just as each of you would be if you had thought of it and done the R&D

Does Sawstop have to sell it to other manufacturers? I don't know if there is any legal imperative to do so - there may be an ethical reason to sell it to other manufacturers.

If other manufacturers don't buy it or can't come up with their own, they may be out of business. It really depends on how much they want to stay in business. It may be that all other manufacturers are now at risk of being out of business - because their technology isn't good enough. Does anyone remember the Corvair or the Edsel?

The idea that each user is the only one responsible for risks is quite simply - stupid. Would you drive a car with a known mechanical problem that has a known fix? No, probably not. Well maybe YOU would but would you let your grandkid?