Comment by taeric
7 months ago
I mean, we have effectively outlawed cheaper vehicles that could probably have worked for a lot of needs. And... that largely seems like a fine thing?
I think it is fair that a holistic analysis of the legislation would make a lot of sense. I would be surprised to know that changing a saw from 150 to 450 would be a major change in its use. But, I could be convinced that it is not worth it.
I will note that is also taking at face value the cost of implementing the tech. In ways I don't know that I grant. I remember when adding a camera to a car's license plate was several hundred dollars of added cost. And I greatly regret not having one on my older vehicle. Mandating those was absolutely the correct choice. My hunch is when all saws have the tech, the cost of implementing will surprisingly shrink.
Maybe some power tools that get only occasional use could be fine with a better rental market. Not long ago I bought a ceramic tile cutter because renting one for 3 days was more expensive that buying one outright, but if that market went towards more expensive but safer models I'd reconsider and would do just fine with renting. And then tradespeople who need these tools more than 10 days per lifetime need to buy upscale anyway...
> we have effectively outlawed cheaper vehicles that could probably have worked for a lot of needs. And... that largely seems like a fine thing?
Odd conclusion given the highest rate of pedestrian deaths in the US in history correlated strongly with a work truck tax deduction passed in 2017.
Or when scooters and ebikes have changed both high density traffic and recreation significantly over the last decade.
That feels like evidence for my point? We have causal evidence that safety regulation works. Sometimes we relax those rules. Often new technologies require adjustments. Still largely seems correct?
$150 is the cost of a really good table saw blade - a decent one would be half that. If you're using the saw at home, $150 is only 2-3x more than the shop vac you'll need to clean up after anything. At a job site, it's a lot less than the cost of the nailgun you'll use once you've cut something.
> we have effectively outlawed cheaper vehicles that could probably have worked for a lot of needs.
Some states have done that but many states have not. This would be fine as a state law but it is infringing as a federal law.
If these were the actual concerns, you can start the discussion at jurisdiction. Starting the debates with costs, though, sorta belies that concern?
Then, a problem you are going to run headlong into is that there are plenty of things that you can argue should not be done at different levels, but that are effectively controlled at a larger level. As a fun example, who makes sure that turmeric coming into the US doesn't have too much lead? Why can't/don't we leave that up to the individual states to fully deal with? Probably more fun, what about state laws that cover how much space is required for live stock for shelved products?