Gov't mandates gas can flame arrestors.

[Torvy]

While I certainly agree with you in theory, the idiots who do successfully or unsuccessfully sue the manufacturers cost the manufacturer's money which in turn gets passed on to us the consumers so we end up paying for their stupidity. Then those same idiots use the local state Medicaid and go on disability for their injury and again we as the taxpayers end up footing the bill.

I am very much anti-nanny state and like most of the folks here these types of laws are bad for our collective blood pressure. Don't know what a good solution is, maybe more robust protection for manufacturers from idiot misuse of their products

Simple. We just need tort reform. 1) We have a messed up idea of juries. If I sue company A for injury while using their products, the jury is typically a bunch of consumers. Since the concept is supposed to protect the defense (company A in this case), the jury should be made up of officials from similar types of companies. Medical malpractice heard by a jury of medical professionals, etc. 2) There is nothing to dissuade lawyers or consumers from filing frivolous suits. I'd change the law to prohibit lawyers getting a %. Also, the value of the suit should never be able to exceed demonstrable losses (Maybe + 10%). Any punitive monies should go to the state of jurisdiction, not to the plaintiffs or the attorneys. I'd also make every plaintiff liable to pay substantial penalties if they lose. Maybe not 100% loser pays, but at least proportional to the assets of the parties. Attorneys who repeatedly file frivolous suits should have license suspension for a year, longer if egregious.

Ever since Lawyers could advertise (1977 Scotus case), suit have been increasing. Lawsuits are seen as a way to profit rather than simple justice.

 

[Jstpssng]

) There is nothing to dissuade lawyers or consumers from filing frivolous suits. I'd change the law to prohibit lawyers getting a %.

The risk of lawsuits is an oft repeated refrain whenever talking about allowing access onto your land. Many, if not most states have laws protecting the landowner. Maine has taken that one step further though; if you sue a landowner and lose, you can be on he hook for all of his expenses, including but not limited to lawyer's fees. Because of that there has not been one successful lawsuit since the law was implemented in 1979. There is no incentive for a sleazebag* lawyer to toss out wholesale lawsuits, just to see what sticks.

*Note: I don't consider all lawyers to be sleazebags.... just a certain class of bottom feeders who can't get a real job so need to capitalize on somebody else's misery.

 

[GeneV]

Here's a cutaway view.

View attachment 783208

I don't think mine have this, mine just has a mesh screen. And it didn't have a vent hole, so I added one.

 

[mx842]

While most of us can agree that ROPS is a good idea, it and any other safety device should not be mandatory. I don't have a problem with the government recommending a device, but mandates can easily be turned into political or financial opportunities that have zero to do with keeping anyone safe. If a device actually works, people will buy it and pay extra as long as the extra is within reason...of course, the market being the best arbiter of price, equilibrium will occur and shift as needed.

Here here........nicely stated.

 

[mx842]

I get the frustration with the newer gas cans. Pain in the arse. But the comparison with Fentanyl is illogical. Gas cans are a manufactured product, and like all products in the US, are subject to safety review. The fentanyl crossing the border is not a product subject to US laws. And "sealing the border" sounds great, but will never happen. Walls or no walls, it will always be permeable. Our US ports only inspect a tiny minority of the shipping containers that arrive here everyday. If not in backpack, it will just come in a metal box.

Doesn't matter whether it's lead in dishware or faulty electrical products or gas cans. Once the hazard has been identified, it's morally correct to at least try to remedy it. The problem isn't government bureaucracy, it's the individual who injures himself with a product, and rather than accepting responsibility for his stupidity or recklessness, wants to blame the manufacturer of the product. Both government and industry has no choice but to make things safer. Those of you who have re-engineered your cans to bypass the safety feature (including me) are also the guys who would take ownership if something went wrong, and not look for someone else to blame if you injured yourself. You're right, stupidity will always exist, and it can't be engineered or legislated away. Chainsaws and tractors will always be dangerous no matter what we do to improve them. But some changes we all can agree are just sensible (like ROPS). What needs to change is an enduring sense of personal responsibility and common sense.

yeah, and maybe the chain brake on your chain saw that one has saved a few fingers and hands along with some skin and bone a time or two. All change is not bad it's just the feel good change that some of these people come up with that will drive ya crazy. One thing I don't understand is just how will that dumb screen keep someone from catching on fire if they pour gas out of a can and on to a fire? It's the fumes that are going to get you. I had a can blow up in my hand one time while dumping burnt motor oil on to a fire. It was a small 21/2 gal can that I once used as a gas can. I quit using it for gas because it became rusty on the inside. I used that can for almost a year to catch oil change oil to make it easier to haul it to my used oil tank. I was burning brush piles and everything was wet because it had been raining for a week. I got about 4 piles burning and this one pile just didn't want to catch up. I went bact to my truck to get some more paper and dry 2x4's to add to the mix and went to add the last little bit of oil in the can to the fire and it blew up. I still have a couple scars left from that moment of stewpidity. I guess there were still some gas fumes left in the tank after all that time.

 

[bvanek]

Anyway, somehow I'm definitely a victim in all of this. I miss the gold old days, when a chainsaw would kick back and take half your face off, like God intended. I love my neighbor as I love myself, unless my neighbor happens not to know any better then I'm high-fiving Darwin all the way to the water-cooler story bank!

".05 cents in 1968" is $15.00 today...... and counting.... not the tag word "inflation" but simply what it costs an "individual" to own and operate theses items.

The "additions" never stop, so one might wonder when the "good of mankind" has an end or even a reasonable result that doesn't compromise the folks who use these items regularly? Follow the money and public safety is often just a slogan for hire. All most of us look for is a simple balance of safety integrity vs virtue signalling in the name of safety. There is a history of hidden agendas to the EPA's use of regulations but millions of people in the US don't own a chainsaw or even a gas can....This is how "public safety" can often get manipulated even though it might have some good intentions initially.

There are always risks in life as "God intended". A chainsaw is a tool that demands respect, but many operators need efficiency, and anti-kickback chain and other "safety" devices often restrict ones ability to get the job done. I always take the notion that if you bypass devices that have safety in mind, "You use at your own risk"......and thus my responsibility not some government agency.

So maybe you feel empowered and superior with your over-dramatic sarcastic wit in a tractor forum, but it falls way short of honest debate and actual solutions to people's concerns.

Maybe this; God gave us a brain which allows for reason and common sense to use and calculate risks. Darwin gave us a theory.

 

[Pixguy]

This showed up on my fb page. They are paying attention to what we read.

 

[two_bit_score]

This showed up on my fb page. They are paying attention to what we read.

I counted 4 different types of replacement gas can spouts at Atwood's today and I wasn’t even looking for them.

 

[jyoutz]

Never before has here been such anguish and discussion about a small screen in a fuel can. There are lots of things to worry about. This isn’t one of those things. Seems a little silly.

 

[two_bit_score]

Never before has here been such anguish and discussion about a small screen in a fuel can. There are lots of things to worry about. This isn’t one of those things. Seems a little silly.

Those screens have never caused me a bit of trouble, ever.