SawStop Part II – Brent Adkins

  1. Manufacturers – “The additional cost to manufacturers to implement this technology is estimated to be between $150-$200 per product, an amount that will be passed on to the consumer.”  This is a consequential claim, stating that increased regulations would cost the manufacturers money that would be passed on to the consumer, effectively supporting their defense against the SawStop.
  2. Customers –“I am 110% against a mandated requirement for this device, especially when it is profit motivated.”  This is an evaluative claim that states that the mandate for SawStop is bad because it is motivated by profit, which the customer (forum member) does not clarify, losing some credibility.
  3. Industry Spokespeople – “A low percentage of the 30,000 annual (U.S.) table saw injuries are due to contact with the blade – most are from kickback.” This is a consequential claim that clears up the idea that cuts are the big issue with table saw injuries, and that kickbacks are the bigger issue.
  4. Consumer Safety Advocates – “Current table saw safety standards have proven ineffective in protecting consumers.”  This is a proposal claim that is very compelling because it is supported with statistics that state that 40,000 injuries and 1,000 amputations occur each year due to table saws.
  5. Injured Plaintiffs –   “A man who was cut by a miter saw says Robert Bosch Tool Corp. ‘colluded with its competitors’ and lobbied the Consumer Protection Safety Commission to keep ‘flesh detection and braking technology’ from being required on table saws.”  This is a consequential claim that effectively blames the Bosch Tool Corp. for his cut by statin that they kept the CPSC from making regulations that would have prevented his accident.
  6. Personal Injury Lawyers – ““Though the proposal was introduced in 2003, it has languished due to industry opposition.” This is a consequential claim.  It is not necessarily compelling as it now shifts the blame from the CPSC to the industry itself.
  7. Government Officials – “Very serious injuries, including fractures and avulsions, as well as amputations, have changed the lives of tens of thousands of consumers and impacted their families forever.” This is a consequential claim, although it is not compelling, as it does not state whether the changes are positive or negative and how they are either one.
  8. News Reporters – “What came next is a bit of controversy as Gass attempted to pursue legislation to make his patented technology mandatory through the Consumer Protection Safety Commission, apparently after receiving little support for his proposal to license the technology to manufacturers.”  This is an evaluative claim as it states that Gass’s attempt to patent his technology, and then request its employment to be mandatory, has become a controversy, fully supporting it with the insight to see the monopoly it would create.
Advertisements
This entry was posted in A04: Safer Saws, Brent Adkins. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to SawStop Part II – Brent Adkins

  1. davidbdale says:

    Thanks for posting early, Brent. I enjoy commenting before the deadline for you. I hope it’s always helpful.
    1. I mostly agree with your phrasing, Brent. Is it too much of a shortcut to say the regulations will cost the manufacturers money? Certainly installing the effective safety device will cost them money. I also want to submit, not that you need to acknowledge this, that the cost to manufacturers might be $30-$40. That manufacturing cost gets marked up several times before the consumer finally pays the retail price.
    2. I agree, it’s a serious accusation to make without any stated basis.
    3. It’s certainly a step in that direction. The “low percentage” is suspicious. Combined with “most,” it seems to indicate fewer than 15,000 blade contact injuries occur. If it’s significantly fewer than that, you’d think the industry would say so. Would the public endorse an expensive safety feature that saved 15,000 blade contact injuries per year?
    4. This is equally squirmy on the details, isn’t it? Do the CSA want us to think the 40,000 injuries could be avoided with SawStop? It wouldn’t avoid kickback injuries, would it? One more thing. Is it really true current standards haven’t protected consumers? As a table saw user, I’m pretty sure the guide-rails, push sticks, and blade guards have saved me from injuries.
    5. Grammar note: use single quotes around colluded with its competitors. Collusion is a criminal accusation that should be made very carefully. Does organizing competitive manufacturers to lobby a government agency qualify as criminal activity? You draw more conclusions than the claim justifies (though I agree with your claims). He merely claims here that Bosch lobbied to resist brakes, not that they succeeded nor that his accident was a result. Also problematic about his claim is that he was cut by a miter saw, on which StopSaw is not available, not a table saw, on which it could be.
    6. I disagree. How does industry opposition effectively block legislators?
    7. I love this. At first your objection sounded ridiculous, but at second glance, I see you’ve taken my advice to heart. You are absolutely correct to note that the claims of “change” and “impact” are as vague as “the fire in the corner changed the temperature of the room.”
    8. There are so many claims here, it’s hard to evaluate, particularly the “controversy” angle, which the reporter appears to utilize out of sheer laziness. What if anything is controversial about the story?

    Nice work overall, Brent. I may not have offered much actual criticism, but I hope I’ve offered additional food for thought.

  2. davidbdale says:

    4 is not a proposal claim until a recommendation is made. It could easily be followed immediately by a proposal, but none is made in this quote.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s