Shopsmith Forums

I think this whole issue turns on the moral question "To what lengths should a society go to protect its citizens from their own folly?"

Technology becomes toxic when applied to protecting the foolish from the consequences of their folly.

It is a fuzzy line. Saw guards, airbags, seatbelts, childproof caps, OK. Artificial intelligence, not OK?

Ultimately it will be decided by economics, not morals. How much protection can be afforded, and who may profit?

Folly and ignorance are not the same.

Unfortunately there are far too many ignorant fools that assume the world should be perfectly safe.

Risk is something that intelligent beings recognize and act accordingly.

Only one being is responsible for their own actions/lack thereof.



Not adhering to the last is where things go awry.

Today is the last day to comment on the CPSC proposed rule: Safety Standard: Blade-Contact Injuries on Table Saws

You can leave a comment for the commission at this site: https://www.regulations.gov/commenton/C ... -0074-1365

You don't have to leave personal identifying information.

For all you haters of patent holders (like myself) in general, and of SawStop specifically, Matt dropped a follow-up video to the CPSC proposed rule change saga that you will go gaga over. There were a few interesting tidbits related to the responses that a few table saw manufacturers filed with the CPSC that Matt reviews, so I thought I would share the video for anyone interested. I am checking out of this thread, so don't expect any responses from me on any of this...EXCEPT if a photo or video surfaces of that Mark V that flipped over at Shopsmith HQ and/or more details about what the heck Shopsmith engineers were doing to that poor, helpless, defenseless Mark V to cause it, then I might check back in on this thread. Until then, I continue to want to believe.


_

Table the 'discussion for 9 years(or until Sawstop agrees to be reasonable.)

The content of this thread is a good example of why the Shopsmith website is loosing readership.

Really Sad!

WHY.

Because Dusty does not like the content.

Probably some truth to his opinion.

OK...I'll bite. Care to spell out exactly which content is not appropriate on this thread and how it is responsible for a decline in readership on this forum? This thread started to discuss the potential for the CPSC to change tablesaws forever in this country. Doesn't Shopsmith manufacture a tablesaw? Couldn't this ruling potentially impact all Shopsmith owners as well as Shopsmith as a company? Shouldn't woodworking injuries, and avoiding them, be a priority for all Shopsmith owners? Or is it that you object to the patent related discussion? Perhaps you think ONLY Shopsmith topics should be covered here and there is NO room to discuss, compare, contrast competing manufacturers so you object to any mention of other brands like SawStop? As a relatively new forum member here, I continue to be befuddled by the obtuseness present on this forum at times. Can you list the Shopsmith forum rules,the unwritten ones, so that those of us that painted outside of the lines on this thread can attempt to comply?

P.S. It has been my understanding that forum readership, if it is in decline, has been due to members leaving for other platforms such as FB which has a few Shopsmith groups. Now, Scott has a new forum pertaining to Shopsmith on his new website as well that could impact readership on this Shopsmith forum.

I agree with RFGuy. The subject matter, and by extension the content, of this thread is of significant interest to many forum members and readers. Table saw safety is relevant to anyone that uses a table saw. And the proposed rule itself acknowledges that some or many table saw manufacturers, especially small ones, will not survive implementation of the rule in the saw manufacturing business. And the Mark series, as discussed in this thread, would be among the most difficult to implement AIM technology as contemplated by the CPSC of any table saw. Therefore the rule, as proposed, has the potential to end production of the Mark 5/V/7/4 etc. line after 70+ (almost contiguous) years. That is of significant interest to me and I'm very interested in all opinions on the matter, regardless of whether or not I agree.

- David