Comment from Brian Ogilvie

I am firmly against any proposed rule making. There simply is no need. If you were to look at the table saw accidents to date (including the recent large court award) the majority share the fact that the existing blade guard was REMOVED by the user. I do not see how new technology, regardless of how well motivated it is, can change human nature. The current systems work well, when they are applied. And I am sure that any new system would work well WHEN it is applied, but the reality is that contractors and woodworkers will find a way to defeat the system if it gets in their way (Sawstop even has an intentional defeat mechanism). My second reason for being against new requirements is that the Sawstop inventor would likely make millions from his inventions, but only AFTER a lengthy and costly court fight that would serve no public good. During this drawn out court battle, new tablesaws would be in limbo and both consumers and tool companies (include Sawstop the tool manufacturer) would suffer. Costs would go up, but overall safety would not be improved. I urge the commission to look at the broader good and see that existing technology if correctly used is sufficient and no new mandate is required.