Counterintuitivity

1. Manufactures

“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 quote is taken from a website called Pro Tools Review.  http://www.protoolreviews.com/news/editorials/bosch-tools-sawstop-lawsuit

This is a consequential  claim, this claim is relevant because the Pro Tools Review website are talking about how the 30,000 annual table saw injuries are not due to flesh contacting with the blade. Manufacturers are claiming that the annual injuries are not due to contact with the blade to make a point that the safe saw technology is not needed in all saws. The manufacturers are claiming that if there were safe saw technology there would not be more injuries or less injuries.

2. Customers

“Table saws account for a significant percentage of power tool accidents, partly because they’re so widely used. Many table saw accidents occur because users permanently remove the blade guard, splitter and anti-kickback pawls. Doing so may make using the tool more convenient, but it’s also infinitely more dangerous” This quote is taken from Larry Okrend, Editor in Chief, HANDY Magazine.

http://www.handymanclub.com/projects/blogs/articletype/articleview/articleid/5879/taking-table-saw-safety-seriously

This is a definitional claim, the claim is relevant because Larry Okrend is saying that table saw users take parts off of their saw to make them “more convenient, but also more dangerous”, if they take these parts off of their saws they do not think that safety is a number one priority. The safe saw technology is built into the saw, so it is more “convenient than blade guard, and splitters” , but who is to say that the table saw users will ever buy the safe saw technology. They will not want to spend extra money to replace the blade, and the extra piece of equipment.

3. Industry Spokesperson

“To our knowledge no manufacturer is anxious to pay SawStop an 8% license fee for this technology anytime soon, especially when the manufacturing for the technology alone will increase the average price of a table saw by anywhere from $150-$200 by the time it hits the shelves.” This quote is taken again from the Pro Tools Review website.

This is a consequential claim, it is a relevant claim because the power saw industry does not want to lose sales of their tools. If the power saw industry has to put SawStop on all of their saws, money will be given to the Saw Stop industry and the technology will make the saw increase in price to where every day customers will not be able to afford the saws.

4. Consumer Safety Advocates

“Technologies exist that prevent serious injuries if a person comes in contact with the blade.” This is a quote from the National Consumer League from the website http://www.nclnet.org/health/99-safety/567-facts-at-a-glance-the-inherent-danger-of-table-saws.

This is a definitional claim, this claim is relevant because the National Consumer League is stating that technologies exist and that people should use the technologies. This claim is not successful because saw owners do not want to spend the extra money and buy brand new saws just for the technology if the saw owner has never had an injury with the saw they currently own.

5. Injured Plaintiffs

“Flesh detection and braking technology” and “user friendly blade guard(s)” have been available for years. The flesh detection technology stops a blade instantly when it is touched by human flesh. Wec says the technology could have prevented his 2007 injury from a Bosch miter saw.” This quote is from Ryszard Wec and it is from the website http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/12/10/Injured_Man_Says_Bosch_Tool_Lobbied_Feds_to_Keep_Safer_Power_Saws_off_the_Market.htm

This claim is a consequential claim, it is effective because Ryszard Wec is a customer of a table saw who has been injured, so other customers will hear his claim and believe him because they could be the next one injured. Other customers of table saws will find this claim effective because they would rather have the technology now that it is available so that an accident like Wec’s will not happen to them.

6. Personal Injury Lawyers

” The Power Tool Institute, an industry group that represents Black & Decker and Bosch, said that the price of their table saws with the safety devices would “increase dramatically,” eliminating low-priced consumer bench-top saws, and SawStop would have an unfair market advantage.”  This is a quote from The Scmidt Lawfirm from the website http://www.schmidtlaw.com/table-saw-injury-lawyer/.

This is an evaluation claim, this claim is relevant because the lawfirm is giving an example of a industry group saying that the table saws would be available to an unfair market of people which is to richer people and the lower class customers would be not able to afford the saws with the safe saw technology.

7. Government Officials

“When the Commission first considered this issue in 2006, the injury statistics and disturbing natures of these life-altering, yet preventable injuries were unacceptable.” This is a quote from

Chairman Inez M. Tenenbaum from the website http://www.cpsc.gov/PR/tenenbaum10052011.pdf

This is an evaluation claim, the claim is effective because a government official is addressing the issue of safer table saws, so safer table saws has gotten the attention of the government because of the danger of operating power tools. The government is sending out this claim to ensure the customers of power saws to use new technology that will prevent injuries.

8. News Reporters

“The major tool companies have failed to put this kind of device on any of their table saws.” This quote is from Chris Arnold of NPR from the website Ask me how I made this link, Eddie.

This is an evaluation claim, this claim is relevant because Chris Arnold is saying how major tool companies have not been interested in putting the Safe Saw technology on to their saws. This is effective because the major companies not putting the Safe Saw technology on their saws is putting the customer at risk, and not giving them a choice on if they could have the technology and use it to not become injured.

One of the claims made my manufacturer Steve Gass is a proposal claim.  Gass proposes that saws without Saw Stop technology result in thousands of injuries every year which is the main reason to buy his type of saws.  This is one his most compelling arguments because it sufficiently proves how dangerous unmodified table saws are.

The claim made by nearly all of Saw Stop’s satisfied customers is an evaluation.  Customers of this product have determined the risks of normal table saws to be too high and have chosen to pay a little more for the security of a saw made by Gass.  This is also a strong claim because certainly a victim from a table saw accident would have rather paid more in the beginning to avoid the injury.

The table saw industry’s spokespeople have turned down the offer to purchase rights to Saw Stop technology from Steve Gass.  Thus far none of the companies that Gass has approached have accepted the offer using a consequential claim.  Their collective claim is that the enormous initial cost associated with converting all their current equipment would force them to raise the prices on their saws, losing them customers and therefore losing them a substantial amount of money.  The majority of table saw users simply do not view this technology as being worth the extra cost.  This is a compelling claim as well because of the huge amount of resources that a tool company would need to allocate in order to convert all their saws to utilize this technology.  From the viewpoint of an executive at one of these companies and knowing that most of the customers will not pay more for the added safety it is clear why the spokespeople have turned down the offer to purchase the Stop Saw system.

Consumer safety advocates rely on a resemblance claim of sorts.  Many advocates of this system claim that this is the newest advance in technology in this field and it makes sense to put the newest technology into use when it comes to safety.  Just as seatbelts and airbags were installed in all cars as they became available and just as more advanced blade guards and safer blades were installed on table saws as it became aware that these upgrades could better protect users.  Saw Stop is the newest advance in the field of tool safety which would potentially save thousands of people from injury and many claim that for this reason it should be implemented.  This argument is not as compelling as the others because customers should have the option to buy this from Gass as opposed to forcing all companies to install this system and requiring a higher payment from the customers.  Especially for those who only use their saws on occasion and have a very low risk of injury.

Injured plaintiffs and their personal injury lawyers have similar claims which are evaluation claims.  Both parties argue that manufacturers should use the Saw Stop system because the system is well worth the extra effort and money.  Lawyers claim that it is unfair to customers that a debilitating injury could have been one hundred per cent avoided using the system.  Again this claim is not as compelling because although it is tragic that they were harmed, often by no fault of their own, the Saw Stop technology has been around for ten years and is fairly well known.  If the customers were concerned with safety then they should have purchased one from Gass.

Government officials also lean towards the claims of the personal injury lawyers in that a preventable injury should be prevented even if it means having to pay a little extra.  This is another evaluation claim.  To me this argument is not compelling because in America no one should be forced to alter their products, especially if there are products that meet the specifications that the officials want them to.  In my opinion I would be more in favor of a government mandate on the saws if the government were to pay a percentage of the cost to upgrade them to the new system.

News reporters use a variety of claims in order to give the audience a more complete view of the subject.  But most often they focus on the proposal claim that Gass also uses because it has the most shock and awe power to it which draws in the audience.  Certainly hearing about 40,000 preventable injuries is shocking news to even those who knew of the dangers of such power tools.  This is a compelling argument because statistics like this really show how needed a product like Saw Stop is.

1. “A low percentage of the 30,000 annual (U.S.) table saw injuries are due to contact with the blade – most are from kickback.” – From an article on Power Tools Institute report on mandating SawStop technology, found here: http://www.protoolreviews.com/news/editorials/bosch-tools-sawstop-lawsuit

This is a consequential claim that most table saw injuries are caused by kickback as opposed to blade contact. It is quite compelling because it directly refutes the reasons many are pushing to require SawStop or other blade safety mechanisms, although it is weakened by not giving the exact percentage of table saw injuries that are caused by blade contact.

2. “I believe every commercial job site and institutional shop should be equipped with this type of saw. The greatly reduced risk of injury (and the associated medical costs) more than justifies the saw’s higher price.” – From Larry Okrend, Editor in Chief of HANDY magazine.

This is a proposal claim. A compelling claim, reasonable, and sufficiently explained by the following sentence.

3. “The real controversy comes in that legislation like this would set a precedent that would mandate any technology that increases the safety of a dangerous power tool. This would necessarily come about since liability issues would force this reality through insurance rates and potential for lawsuits.” — From an article on Power Tools Institute report on mandating SawStop technology, found here: http://www.protoolreviews.com/news/editorials/bosch-tools-sawstop-lawsuit

This is a consequential claim. By federally mandating that SawStop be used, it establishes a precedent where other safety technology would become federally mandated. This claim isn’t very reasonable,, because court cases are not decided on precedent alone and any number of other factors could affect whether safety technology is implemented. Because this quote is in an article regarding SawStop, it is also important to state that the federally government could not mandate who the companies purchase safety tools from, just that these safety tools are now implemented in products.

4. “It is wrong to say that consumers will pay more if safer saws are required because society is already paying $2 billion per year due to preventable table saw injuries.  Society will save money if safer saws are required.”—From an NCL fact sheet on saw safety, found here: http://www.nclnet.org/health/99-safety/567-facts-at-a-glance-the-inherent-danger-of-table-saws

A causal claim, the author is claiming that adopting these safer methods would save society money. The reason this claim is not very compelling is because society is not necessarily the same group as consumers. Just because society would save money doesn’t mean that consumers would be able to spend an extra 100 dollars on a saw.

5. “ Wec says his permanent and “traumatic injury” could have been prevented if Bosch and its competitors had not rejected and fought against the safety technology.” — Injured Man Says Bosch Tool Lobbied Feds to Keep Safer Power Saws off the Market

This is a consequential claim; Because Bosch did not employ more stringent safety devices in their saws, Wec suffered a permanent and traumatic injury. The reasonableness of this claim depends entirely on the circumstances of Wec’s injury. If he was using the saw carefully and properly, and then injury still occurred, it is a reasonable claim. However, if he was drinking heavily and then decided to use the saw, then the power company is not at fault for any resulting injury, because he did not follow proper safety precautions. Thus, the claim is only compelling if Wec also claims he was following proper safety procedure when the accident happened.

6. “Table saws cause more injuries than any other woodworking tool.” – From a law firm advertising their services for injuries relating to table saws, viewable here:  http://www.schmidtlaw.com/table-saw-injury-lawyer/

This is a categorical claim, that table saws belong in the category tool that causes the most injuries. Since the argument is that table saws require more stringent safety mechanisms, this claim is well placed. The problem is just stating table saws cause more injuries is not taking into account the circumstances of those injuries. A saw company is not liable for an injury that occurs due to user error, just like a car company is not liable for the thousands of accidents that occur due to the driver being negligent. Additionally, just because table saws cause more injuries then any other woodworking tool does not mean that the blade is the cause of all of those injuries. Taking those two points into account, it is not a very compelling claim.

7. “Despite my public urging for the power tool industry to make progress voluntarily on preventing these injuries, no meaningful revisions to the voluntary standard were made” – From an October 5^th 2011 report by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commssion, available here: http://www.cpsc.gov/PR/tenenbaum10052011.pdf

This is an evaluation claim, that any revisions made to the power tool industry standards were not effective in preventing injuries. Since the quote is from a report detailing the Commission’s decision to address table saw blade contact injuries, this claim strengthens their argument for imposing federal regulations by claiming that power tool companies won’t adopt any changes voluntarily. As such, it is compelling, because it provides a rationale for attempting to impose federal standards.

8. “That [a table saw that wouldn’t cut off your fingers] sounded like a good kind of saw to me…” – From an article titled “If Table Saws Can Be Safer, Why Aren’t They?” by Chris Arnold, published on June 18, 2011.

Arnold is making an evaluation claim that the table saws that do not cut off fingers are good. This is an entirely sufficient claim, because there’s little need to prove that saws that prevent amputations are good. It is not entirely necessary, however, because few would hold the idea that more dangerous saws are better then safer ones. Thus, the claim is not that compelling, because it could have remained unstated without weakening the argument.

1. Manufacturers This claim is from the website :http://www.protoolreviews.com/news/editorials/bosch-tools-sawstop-lawsuit.  “A false trip mandates replacement of the brake mechanism which is an expensive piece (~$59)” This claim is a consequential claim. It tell you how a false trip will cause replacement of the broken mechanism and cost the manufacturer more money. This is relevant because the company is already paying more to install the product, paying a percent to Steve Gass, and then having to rise their price of saws because of all the costs they have to pay. This could all result in less business for them and cost them lots of profit showing how this safety mechanism is too costly for the manufacturers to put in because it can’t fit into their expenses.

2. Customers-This claim is by Larry Okrend, the editor in chief of HANDY magazine and customer of the safe saw technology. “Table saws are only part of the power-tool safety problem.” The claim is a definitional and evaluation claim because it defines that the table saws are a problem, but also states that it is only part of the problem by saying it’s just a piece that needs to be fixed with power-tool safety. This is irrelevant because it says that we shouldn’t use the table saw safety equipment because it doesn’t solve all the safety problems with different power tools. It does help with the table saw safety, which is the main purpose of the equipment, not to make the wood shop safe from all of the dangers that people face there. It just doesn’t make sense to ignore one piece of safety equipment because it doesn’t solve all of your dangerous problems you face while working in a wood shop.

3. Industry Spokespeople- This claim is made by the industry spokespeople from the site: http://www.protoolreviews.com/news/editorials/bosch-tools-sawstop-lawsuit. “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 claim is a resemblance and definitional claim. It states what Gass wants and is defining his price to the saw industry. It’s also a resemblance claim because it states how the royalties Gass is asking for is just like a monopoly in demanding such a high price with no alternative to go to for this type of safety equipment. This claim is relevant because it shows the saw industry’s concern on incorporating this technology when Gass is asking for a high price of royalties from the saws. The comparison to a monopoly seems very relevant because he is the only one out there selling this technology and if the industry goes with his asking price then they fall under his control because he could raise the price as high as he wants with the industry having no other way to get the safe saw technology into their saws. They would be powerless and it seems like they do not want to give Gass that kind of control over them.

4. Consumer Safety Advocates- this claim is by  Dr. John D. Graham, head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs for President George W. Bush. “an average table saw equipped with an automatic safety system will deliver $753 in benefits due to reduced injuries.” This claim is an evaluation and proposal claim. It creates an evaluation of what the outcome would be if the safety device was installed. It also proposes to creating benefits of up to $753 from the decrease in injuries. This claim is relevant because it shows how much money will be saved through the safety technology when the cost to install the equipment only costs $100. It creates a view of the saw stopping mechanism to be very cost efficient.

5. Injured Plaintiffs- This claim is by Ryszard Wec who sued Bosch Tool Corp. for his injury from their table saw. “Wec says his permanent and “traumatic injury” could have been prevented if Bosch and its competitors had not rejected and fought against the safety technology.” This claim is an evaluation and consequential claim. Wec states the consequences of not having the safety equipment as permanent and traumatic. He also evaluates that it could have been prevented if they had the safe saw technology. This is relevant because it shows how not having the safe saw technology can cause lawsuits and how people feel that having the safety equipment in the saws can lessen the chance of a traumatic injury such as the one Wec faced.

6. Personal Injury Lawyers-This claim is from the schmidt law firm. “If this safety mechanism had been included in the table saw, Osorio’s injuries would have been limited to a 1/8-inch cut on only one finger, instead of two unusable fingers and three fingers with no feeling, requiring five surgeries and $384,000 in medical expenses.” This claim is a consequential and evaluation claim. It states the consequences of injuries the man faced by not having the safe saw technology in his table saw. It’s also an evaluation claim because it states if this safety mechanism had been included in the table saw that Osorio’s injuries would have been limited. This claim is relevant because it states the severity of costs the man faced from not having safer saw technology, but at the same time is irrelevant because you can’t confirm that the injury would have went a different or a certain way with the safe saw technology in because they have no idea what would have happened when the technology was in place. They are basing their claim off of demonstrations they have seen, but don’t know for sure what the extent of the man’s injury would be because it didn’t happen and they don’t have time travel, or magical powers to view this difference if the technology was in place.

7. Government Officials- This quote is by Chairman Inez M. Tenenbaum of the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Comission. “Very serious injuries, including fractures and avulsions, as well asamputations, have changed the lives of tens of thousands of consumers and impacted their families forever.” This claim has multiple claims in it starting with each injury they talk about with the fractures, avulsions, and amputations to the talk about the seriousness of the injuries, the change in lives, and how families have been impacted forever. The claim is a consequential claim because it talks about all the consequences of not having safer saw blades. They talk about the injuries that have been caused by this and how its affected thousands of families and changed their lives. This claim is very relevant because it shows the severity of injuries from unsafe saw blades and supports their main argument that there needs to be safer saw regulations to take away from this constant injuring of people using saws.

8. News Reporters- This claim is from the NPR newscast in 2004. ” but the power-tool industry has resisted it….” This claim is an evaluation claim. This use of the word resisted makes an evaluation that there is either something wrong with going with this type of safe saw technology, or that the industry is making a mistake for doing so. They seem to make the point though of it’s a mistake by the industry for not accepting it because they talk about how great the invention is. It is relevant because it talks about the defiance of the industry to accept a piece of technology that sounds like it would be so helpful to all that use the industry’s table saws.

1. Wec says his permanent and “traumatic injury” could have been prevented if Bosch and its competitors had not rejected and fought against the safety technology.

2. Ryszard Wec is claiming that if the new “flesh detecting technology” had been put on the saw that he was using he would not have had a permanent injury, and he would not have had to deal with the trauma of that accident either.

3. This claim is a casual claim.

4. There is accuracy to this claim because if the saw did have the “flesh detecting technology” on it then it would not have been such a permanent injury but the saw could have still done damage to him, so it would not have been that he just got a little cut and he is fine now. The quality of this claim is not too great because he is just saying that his injury could have been prevented not that it would have been prevented. He is not saying that there would not have been an injury if he had the new safety features on the saw too. This claim is reasonable because people will believe his claim, he is an injured man and people who work with saws know that injuries can happen, but if a type of blade can help injuries not happen, then why not have it on saws. He is not as persuasive as he could be with this claim, but people will think about it and agree with him because they believe the more safety you can have on a tool like a saw the better because just in case something does happen it will be minimal damage thanks to the new safety technology.

1. Steve Gass says, “…can tell the difference between your finger and the wood…” This is a definitional claim simply says exactly what the saw does. The saw’s technological safety device picks up electro-conductivity of flesh and stops the blade from spinning. This is a compelling claim, because the saw can in fact tell if it is cutting into wood or your finger.

2. Customer and Editor in Chief of HANDY magazine says, “The greatly reduced risk of injury more than justifies the saw’s higher price.” This is another evaluation claim, that evaluates the claim within the claim of “The greatly reduced risk of injury…” Simply, it says that since there is a small chance on injury, the saw should be bought. This is a justified claim because it is backed up by the background.

3. Power Tool manufacturers say, “…to implement this technology is estimated to be between $150-$200 per product.” This is an evaluation claim, that evaluates the added cost of making the safety mechanism mandatory. In context, this is a valid point, because the tool makers are arguing that they should not have to put this device on their saws, because it will raise prices, and turn people away from their product.

4. The National Consumers League says, “…blade guards have proved to be ineffective,” which is a definitional claim. In the article, the NCL says that in order to do most tasks with a table saw the plastic guard must be removed. Plus, even when the guard is not removed, one third of blade contact injuries occur with the guard on. With the background information, the definitional claim is accurate because it is supported with evidence that proves it.

5. A man that was cut by a Bosch miter saw says, “Robert Bosch Tool Corp. colluded with its competitors…” which is an evaluation claim, looking at the situation of tool makers not using this safety device. This man claims that tool companies purposely keep this “SawStop” technology from being required on table saws. This claim is very far fetched. There are many reasons why a company would elect to not put this technology on their product, one being cost. Plus, he was cut by a miter saw…not a table saw. Adding the information about him being cut by a miter saw discredits his anger towards the lack of safety on a table saw.

6. Table Saw Injury Lawyers state, “…the manufacturers have refused to adopt it.” This is a categorical claim saying that since tool makers are not using this safety equipment, they must refusing to use it. This is an unfair claim. Just like the man cut by the miter saw (5), it is possible the tool companies are not making tools with this safety mechanism, because it is too expensive, or many other possibilities. There is a huge difference between choosing not to implement the safety mechanism, and refusing to implement it.

7. Chairman Inez M. Tenenbaum says, “…far more serious injuries are occurring all too often.” This is an evaluation claim, exploring the idea that very serious injuries occur too often, but can be avoided. While “too often” is truly an opinion, I think it is an opinion that many agree with when talking about amputations. Therefore the claim that without extra safety equipment too many serious injuries occur is a compelling one.

8. According to Chris Arnold of NPR, “the major tool companies have failed to put this kind of device on any of their table saws.” This is an evaluation claim. It is not fair to say major companies have failed to do anything. They have had the opportunity to apply this device, however they choose not to. While many might hear this claim and agree, it is not a very well substantiated claim.

1. “By agreeing not [to] employ such safer alternatives, defendant and its competitors attempted to assure that those alternatives would not become ‘state of the art,’ thereby attempting to insulate themselves from liability for placing a defective product on the market” – Ryszard Wec, victim of table saw injury

2. Wec is claiming that all of the larger power tool companies as a group have access to alternatives in saw safety, such as the SawStop technology produced by Steve Gass, but that they choose instead to avoid the technology altogether in order to deflect responsibility or liability for a product that can ultimately maim its users.

3. This is a definitional claim; The power tools companies reluctance to accept regular use of SawStop technology is an attempt to “insulate themselves from liability.”

4. It is more than reasonable to say that SawStop technology is safer for all who use it and will result in a decrease in injury lawsuits against the power tools companies. But Wec’s claim that companies aren’t employing this technology because they want to save themselves from liability isn’t entirely fair because he is unclear whether or not he means that the saws themselves are the “defective product on the market,” or if he is referring to the saws enabled with SawStop technology. If it is the former, his argument places a very negative light on the saw companies, supporting his case in court, suggesting that they care more about their success than the safety of their consumers. But if it is the latter, then he is actually somewhat supporting the stand of the power tool companies — if the SawStop saws are the “defective product,” it means that the power tool companies would have to place complete faith in Gass’s product and accept any lawsuits made against them by injured consumers for failure of the technology to function properly; this is a reasonable cause for reluctance to use the technology if they are not completely sure Gass’s product will eliminate the chance of injury.

However, he also states that Robert Bosch Tool Corp. “acting through PTI, has also actively lobbied the Consumer Product Safety Commission … to prevent the adoption of flesh detection systems as a safety standard on table saws,” which shows that not only does Bosch refuse to employ the technology, but that they also actively attempted to prevent regulations for safer technology to be required by the Consumer Product Safety Commission, supporting his original claim that they aren’t as concerned about consumer safety as they are about the continued success of their company.