Let's get real here BB, Ok?
You feel that by enforcing the rules of safe chipper operation on each chipper model as stated in the manufacturers instruction manual of that model, is a sufficient means, or atleast acceptable means of reducing these deaths currently plaguing the tree industry. And that the same degree of adherence to those instructions is a valid defense for the manufacturers of that model in a US court of law if it ate an incapacitated treeworker on the job?
Am I right BB?
Now, I simply disagree with you quite strenuously on your opinion, and further that I firmly believe I could kick the butt of any manufacturers taking such a blatantly criminal line of defense.
One, that defense's success to date very accurately illustrates the current escalating death toll's driving factor that enables the death toll number to continue escalating into the future.
And all a well to do family of an operator who has been eaten while incapacitated by a manufacturer's chipper would have to do to win in court big time, is hire an attorney and an engineering firm, and document that the technology existed in 1996 to prevent incapacitated operators from being sucked into a whole tree chipper, then prove it by documenting an engineering firm, like say EG&G Astrophysics in Dallas Texas, building such a chipper and demonstrating it's effectiveness to the court using the technology that existed in 1996.
Once that is accomplished, all the Attorney has to prove is that the technology was presented and offered to the manufacturer for license, and that the manufacturer chose not to pursue it purposely.
And it's simply a matter of time before either a grieving wealthy family proves this, or state and federal safety officials finally get the bright idea to do their jobs by proving it, thereby bringing an end to this deception by the manufacturers that these deaths were not within their capabilities to prevent or mitigate with the technology offered to them at that time.
The clock is running out on their continued deception perpetrated on the very operators of their equipment.
It's a huge deception, and all it would take to prove it is an engineering firm, a lawyer, and some money.
So we simply disagree BB my friend, accept it and deal with it.
Effective safety systems that prevent the unnecessary death of an equipment operator are a good thing, ignoring such systems as a manufacturer leads to being convicted of the gross negligence they themselves falsely accused the dead victims of. Kind of a karmic justice coming full circle finally reducing the death toll, and actually getting it to drop substantially at last.
The judge will probably wonder which statutes of law these manufacturers have broken, apply best to the case the jury will be deciding, gross negligence leading to death, or cruel and unusual corporate behavior leading to death.
Your preferred safety controls are self evident in their failure to prevent the death toll escalation we are currently witness to.
Where as Mather's system being not only economically more appealing than mine, will prove relatively much simpler to engineer using off the shelf parts for almost every component.
The same engineering that could have helped burnish their corporate reputations so long ago will now be used against them in court.
Jomoco
