Government official

“Allow the voluntary standards process continue without initiating a rule making, the frequency and severity of the blade contact injuries associated  with table saws demanded action via the ampr”.

Allow manufactures to make saw safer rather impose sanctions.

Proposal

This claim is unreasonable because there should be safer, so that it can prevent unnecessary injuries.

Customers

“Have changed the lives of tens of thousands of consumers and impacted their families forever”

Table saw cause thousands of injuries, and millions in medical bills.

This claim is consequential

I agree with this claim because both improper use of table saw, it has negative impacts on workers life.

Industry spokespeople

I was moved by what I heard from the victims of these injuries, whose lives were changed
forever, due to one split-second miscalculation while using a table saw. To these victims
and to all of the other victims who have suffered life-altering injuries from table saws, I
want you to know that your efforts to improve the safety of these tools have made a
difference.

The industry spokespeople showed companion about how the life of customers have changed because of their injury.

consequential

The industry spokesperson is concluding that because of how unsafe saw are, they need to make it safer. In  which will  prevent this from happening again.

Consumer safety advocates

“Today we are taking a very positive step forward in committing ourselves to looking actively into the best method of preventing these kinds of injuries”.

Trying to take effective actions which will prevent injuries.

Casual

This claim is completely valid because there  are evident s that shows they are being proactive.

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.

current technology could prevent injury.

 This claim is Consequential  because the company was against safer technology.

This is not a valid claim because the plaintiffs could have take the necessary actions to prevent his injuries.

Personal Injury lawyers

The web page of a table saw injury lawyer states, “Now these manufacturers are facing dozens of lawsuits brought forth by people whose injuries could have been prevented had SawStop or similar safety mechanisms been in place.”

There are thousands of lawsuits against manufactures because they refuse to have sawstop or other safety mechanisms.

This is a proposal claim because manufacturers are facing lawsuits from thousand of customers .

This is a valid claim because manufactures because manufactures are been sued because they refused to use safer mechanisms.

Manufactures

“Based on the injury data obtained in the 2007 and 2008 CPSC special study, our staff’s
injury cost model projected that consumers suffered approximately 67,300 medically treated blade contact injuries annually in 2007 and 2008- with an associated injury cost of $2.36 billion dollars in each of those two years”

Its cost manufactures a lot of money for injuries each year.

Evaluation

This claim is most likely accurate  because  medical bills are expensive.

News Reporter

Clint DeBoer states in his article,” Bosch Tools Dragged Into SawStop-Centric Lawsuit,”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.

Legislator will agree to have safer tools, which will decrease dangerous injuries.

This a a consequential claim because legislator should made it mandatory for manufacturers to have safer products.