I know what you meant, just couldn't resist.

"The purpose of these switches is to prevent personal injury". Agreed. But personal injury to whom? If you read the article in the link you posted, it goes on to mention bystanders as needing protection. That's my point, the innocent need the protection.

I wouldn't have as much problem with operators unhooking safety devices either, provided they were prevented from suing the manufacturer when an accident occurred that was directly related to having the switch unhooked. In addition, I want to see the manufacturer able to sue the owner for improper use, and possible loss of revenue due to biased media publicity.

Also, if an innocent bystander was injured, then criminal charges should be brought against the operator.


Last edited by sprkplug; 04/07/17 06:27 AM.
"Forget pounds and ounces, I'm figuring displacement!"

If we accept that: MBG(+)FGSF(=)HBG(F1)
And we surmise that: BG(>)HBG(F1) while GSF(<)HBG(F1)
Would it hold true that: HBG(F1)(+)AM500(x)q.d.(=)1.5lbGRWT?
PB answer: It depends.