In the article “Bosch Tools SawStop Lawsuit” there many major tool manufacturers who take offense to making safety devices mandatory on products like table saws. They have stated technical, practical/financial problems that comes with mandating SawStop technology. Below are some of the claims made:
- 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.
- Gass (SawStop) is asking for 8 percent licensing/royalties on the wholesale price of each saw sold, a figure that many manufacturers view as near-extortion and monopoly position. This fee would also be passed on to consumers.
- “False positives” or “nuisance trips” produce downtime and expenses. False positives can trip on common materials such as moist wood (think freshly delivered pressure treated lumber).
- A false trip mandates replacement of the brake mechanism which is an expensive piece (~$59)
- A false trip mandates replacement of the saw blade, since it is unknown whether the carbide teeth may be jarred or broken loose – creating a hazard. As most pros know, blades can be upwards of $100 each
- During a braking event, carbide teeth could be thrown through the blade opening
- Existing Underwriters Laboratories document ANSI/UL 987 includes provisions for maintaining safe distance from saw blades and instructions for proper use.
- The “court is out” on how a high-impact braking mechanism will affect smaller jobsite table saws.
- Consumer choice can dictate whether this technology, and its associated potential issues and added cost, will gain widespread acceptance by consumers
- A low percentage of the 30,000 annual (U.S.) table saw injuries are due to contact with the blade – most are from kickback.
The claims that are made by the power-tool industry are factual claims. These are factual claims because of the factual information given as well as the data to back up the claim. Each of the claims made are persuasive as they are trying to provide implications of the SawStop. For example, one of the claims mentions a false trip.
In the article “10 amputations a day: the need for a safer table saw” there are several statements concerning and stating why there is a need for a safer table saw. Stated in the article by Savvy Consumer
“10 amputations a day and thousands more injuries every year is an unacceptable toll when a ready fix is affordable, available, and waiting.”
This is an ethical or moral claim because it is a type of evaluative claim that is making judgement on the social situation of that of needing a safer table saw because of the injuries and amputations the current one is causing. This claim is reasonable as it is giving factual information to support why they should be receiving a new, safer table and why they are so anxious to get it approved.
In the article “Power Tool Industry Defends Table Saw Safety as Disabling Injuries Increase” the author claims that
The SawStop story is about an industry’s ability to resist a major safety advance that could, by now, have prevented countless disfiguring injuries, but might have been bad for business.
This is an evaluative claim, it involves judgement that can be arguable and can be supported with evidence. In this claim it is being evaluated that with the new technology there would be less injuries but it could also have been bad for the business. I agree with the claim being made because there are a lot of problems that come about with the SawStop saws. I feel it does not matter how much the saw costs but they need to be more concerned about the injuries the saws are causing.
In the news letter from Chairman Inez M. Tenenbaum the statement is made:
I want to emphasize that the injuries resulting from the use of table saws are, in many cases, particularly gruesome.
Chairman Inez M. Tenenbaum is addressing all of the issues with the table saw blade contact injuries.
The claim being made in source four is a causal claim, it is the consequences of the use of the table saws. The use of the table saws are causing injuries that are gruesome most of the time. This claim being made is quality as well as facts due to all of the injuries that are occurring as a result of the use of the table saws. Again, the table saws need to be renewed.
In the article “ Table Saw Injury Lawyer” the lawyer makes a claim:
Every year, there are over 40,000 table saw injuries, resulting in more than 4,000 amputations. Table saws cause more injuries than any other woodworking tool.
The lawyer is making a factual claim as well as a causal claim. The question being answered in the article is “How many people are injured?” The lawyer uses factual information which is also a result of the use of the table saws. Table saws are causing more injuries than any other tool that is used. This is a quality claim being made by the lawyer because it should be an eye opener to people when they see how many people are injured or need surgery as a result of the table saws. I feel that the table saw is such an awful tool, it makes me question why people are still using them when they know what is happening to others.