Safer Saws- abcdefg577

Posted on October 9, 2015 by Joe Gramigna
  1. Manufacturers-
    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. 
    2. The majority of powersaw injuries are from kickback, not from blade contact.
    3. This is a causal claim, stating that a large percentage of injuries result from the kickback, and a low amount from the blade itself.
    4. This is a reasonable argument for the powertool manufacturers to make. They are under fire to implement safety features that would prevent injuries from direct contact to the blade. They point out that only a low percentage of harm happens due to cuts from the blade, while many result from kickback. This helps their argument for not utilizing the safety mechanism, since it would do nothing to prevent kickback, from which most injuries occur. 
  2. Customers-
    1. As advanced as table saw safety has come, there is still no substitute for training, experience, good judgement and alertness. (Outside article- Why Not a SawStop?)
    2. One should not rely on the SawStop alone for protection. Training and focus are the most important when it comes to using table saws.
    3. This is a value claim. The author places more value on judgement, alertness, experience, and training than on the SawStop itself.
    4. This customer makes it clear that the safety mechanism alone will not prevent all injuries. This makes complete sense, for one should know how to install the Sawstop correctly, operate a table saw, and avoid kickback, and not just blindly rely on the invention to prevent all injuries.
  3. Industry Spokespeople-
    1. Many industry representatives believe that modification of consumer behavior through information and education campaigns could best address the hazard.
    2. Industry spokespeople want to inform consumers about the hazards of power saws through education campaigns and sharing information.
    3. This is a causal claim, since spokespeople believe informing and educating the public on how to safely operate power saws will alleviate the risks.
    4. It seems that most power saws are straight forward and come with instructions/safety guides. The spokespeople might be anxious to initiate this campaign of information to avoid the costs associated with implementing SawStop technology. The SawStop would not require a modification of consumer behavior; it would just stop the blade on skin contact, preventing serious injuries. The use of the word modification lends a forceful air to this claim, as if the consumers are currently at fault for the injuries they are experiencing. This campaign could cause a gap between companies and consumers, since consumers may feel inferior after the companies start trying to teach them how to properly use the tools.
  4. Consumer Safety Advocates-
    1. It is on the market already and has demonstrated its effectiveness with over 1000 finger saves.
    2. SawStop has saved north of 1000 fingers.
    3. This is a consequential claim, saying that over 1000 fingers have been “saved” as a result of SawStop technologies.
    4. It is accurate that SawStop is on the market and has indeed prevented some injuries. However, since this a Consumers Advocate group making this claim, they use strange wording that is meant to be to their advantage: finger saves. The word saves could be interpreted as saved from amputation or being cut right off. However, it is impossible to know how many fingers have been “saved.” Without SawStop, many of these fingers may have just experienced a cut, rather than complete amputation. Their vague use of the word saves is making SawStop out to be a savior that stops inevitable finger destruction at the hands, or jagged teeth, of a power saw.
  5. Injured Plaintiffs- 
    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. The plaintiff is claiming that he was injured because the company he purchased a power saw from fought against safety advances and chose to not incorporate them into their products.
    3. This is a causal claim, saying the companies’ rejection of SawStop caused his traumatic injury.
    4. Later in the article, the plaintiff says that the safer technology has been on the market for years. He knows that safer options were available for purchase and admits it, but chose to use the dangerous saw instead. Although the safer saws on the market may have been out of his price range, if the entire power saw industry becomes required to build in the safety mechanism for which Wec advocates, the price will rise due to royalties and the contraption costs regardless. Wec could have saved himself pain and hospital bills by using the already available safe saw on the market, but instead he got injured, and chooses to advocate for mandatory installation when it is already too late. If he was truly passionate for his cause, he could have refused to use the dangerous saws and fought for safer saws from the beginning, rather than after he has already experienced an injury.
  6. Personal Injury Lawyers-   
    1. Every year, there are over 40,000 table saw injuries, resulting in more than   4,000 amputations. 
    2. Every year, there are over 40,000 table saw injuries, resulting in more than 4,000 amputations.
    3. This is a factual and consequential claim. The claim is stating statistical findings that report the number of injuries and amputations, which are facts, unless the numbers have been inflated and/or deflated. “Resulting in more than 4,000 amputations” makes this a consequential claim, since it is saying the amputations were a consequence of the table saw injuries.
    4. This claim is just stating statistics, but the injury lawyers have clients to gain by how they phrase their claims. They leave out the fact that most of those 40,000 injuries are from kickback, and make sure to include the most gruesome result: amputations. They do not make clear if the amputations are from the blade itself, spinning and hacking a finger or hand right off, or if doctors wind up doing most of the amputations at a hospital. This claim is concocted to make power saws seem like very dangerous machines, in which the blade alone is responsible for over 40,000 injuries.
  7. Government Officials-
    1. Very serious injuries, including fractures and avulsions, as well as Page 2 amputations, have changed the lives of tens of thousands of consumers and impacted their families forever.
    2. Power saw injuries affect the victims and their families forever.
    3. The families and victims are said to be impacted forever by power saw injuries, making the power saws the cause of much grief. This amounts to a causal claim.
    4. This claim is an emotional appeal, using “impacted their families forever” and “changed the lives of tens of thousands of consumers” to attempt to instill outrage or sympathy in readers. In this emotional respect, the claim is written well. However, emotions should generally not be utilized for rational decisions that government officials should be making. They should look strictly at the facts, and this claim generalizes the negative impacts that power saw injuries have. Many consumers surely recover from their injuries, and their own lives and the lives of their families are not changed forever.
  8. News Reporters-
    1. All of that happens in less than five thousandths of a second, ten times faster than a car’s airbag.
    2. SawStop stops the blade faster than a car’s airbag deploys.
    3. This is a factual claim, stating the time it takes for the SawStop safety mechanism to deploy and comparing that to the length of time in which an airbag deploys.
    4. The time in which the blade stops when SawStop deploys is given, which backs up the overall aim of this technology, to prevent your finger from receiving a bad injury. Consumers can relate to the airbag comparison, since many have seen or felt the speed in which airbags deploy. Since SawStop is ten times faster than an airbag, this provides legitimacy and comparable speeds by which to judge the technology.
This entry was posted in abcdefg577, E07: Safer Saws Claims. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

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

Gravatar
WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Cancel

Connecting to %s