- Joined
- Nov 16, 2012
- Messages
- 5,596
you're dodging the question by using inflammatory rhetoric. If we're actually having a discussion here instead of this being a single viewpoint only echo box, it would be interesting to know your opinion.
- - - Updated - - -
sure, but the suit isn't about the risks inherent in body contact sports as that's self-evident, it's about the fact that the NFL and its teams knew/ know about the risks and ways to avoid or minimise them, but rationally and consciously chose to do nothing. That is the central concept of any of these lawsuits and the key point that people choose to ignore when they read the headlines or hyperbole.
As for the saw suit, that's a tricky one as there aren't any mandated auto-stop safety requirements yet (although I'm sure that there are others) and the safety tech at the heart of the suit is from one supplier only, so comparisons to things like ABS or traction control in new cars don't work. Personally I think it's specious as the plaintiff presumably had a choice between different saws and chose one without the safety tech based on his own preferences i.e. it's a conscious choice on his part and not a lack of care on the manufacturers. Then again, I haven't read the full brief.
Ah yes, not only did the NFL and it's teams know of the dangers, the players did too. I recall reading many magazine articles in various sports magazines about football safety helmets for at least 20, possibly 30 years. I'm not even into football so if I know about it, certainly a professional player does too. If the players wanted different rules or safety equipment, they could have demanded it; yet, the chose to do what they wanted to and were driven by money. I'm sure some of the guys aspire to be good athletes but at the college level, things change and money is the motivator and athletics is just a means to an end. -And they were in control of the decision. In all my years in a ring or on the wrestling matt, we talked about concussions and various other medical issues/injuries every single day. There was two topics: How to be a better fighter -and how not to get injured. I was small time stuff compared to the pro guys but I'll bet dollars to donuts their side-line conversations cover the same topics.
Again, maybe some of the very earliest NFL guys didn't know but any/everyone past the mid 1980's did. I don't see how any of the later crowd could be joining the lawsuits.
Getting back to the issue of machines, I am fully aware of the dangers of lathes, mills, saws etc and if someone invents a device that stops a blade, fine, so be it... I should have the option to buy that feature or not -and not get it rammed down my throat because the industry was pressured into installing them on every machine -or worse yet, by government mandate. Why? quite simple. Because I choose what I want, what I do, what I need and don't need -and I decide what risks are tolerable for me. Some devices are inherently dangerous and this is why we stress safety and proper procedure. When driving on public roads, you need to have a driver's license or motorcycle operator's license -because while on public roads, society wants some proof that you have the skill to operate the vehicle. On your own property, anyone can drive any vehicle they want, any way they want -and do it at their own risk. In my shop, I want to use any equipment I want, any way I want to.
Ray