dumb question

[Hugenpoet]

and as far as I can tell, have no down sides whatsoever.

While the benefits of safety equipment are clearly compelling, the "down sides" are equally obvious, increased initial cost of the tractor in order to incorporate the safety features and increased long term operating costs associated with repairing/replacing the safety related equipment. To quote the old Eagles song, "For every form of refuge there's a price."

 

[ShenandoahJoe]

Midsouth, have you ever taken a look at the website of the Centers for Disease Control's FACE program?

Back when I was shopping for my Kubota, I did a lot of web searching. Mixed in among the hits I got from Google were plenty of fatality reports. That kinda changed my attitude towards what I was about to undertake.

Even though only 9 states are participating these days, you can still find 178 people who killed themselves with farm implements. The lack of a ROPS shows up pretty often.

 

[N80]

While the benefits of safety equipment are clearly compelling, the "down sides" are equally obvious

Sure, but if you're going to take it that far then you have weigh that against all the other potential costs. For the tractor manufacturer, not putting an obvious, simple, basic and proven safety feature (like a ROPS) on a tractor is going to cost them a lot more in liability suits that the cost of manufacture. Liability losses will be felt in the pockets of the consumer just as mush as raw materials and labor. For the consumer, the cost of these features is far less than the loss of life or limb. So the "obvious" isn't so obvious. And why should we, or anyone else, expect any "form of refuge" for free?

And, the cost of manufacture is pretty low, and for any informed consumer those things are expected to be on the tractor. You don't have 'em then we don't buy 'em. Once again, that makes the cost a wash.

As far as repair costs: trivial to the point of insignificance. Now, sure as heck someone is going to pipe up with some $10,000 repair on a safety feature but, 1) it isn't common and 2) at least on my tractor all the features mentioned above are extraordinarily simple and easy to fix.

So once again, even when you go beyond the "obvious" the downsides remain trivial compared to the alternatives.

And don't get me wrong, I'm sure there are poorly implemented safety features out there. I'm not making excuses for those. Poor quality and design is poor quality and design regardless of the system.

 

[Midsouth]

The point i was trying to make was i really wonder if there was more people killed or hurt back then than now. You would have to factor in the number of tractors in use then compared to now. sorry if it didn't come across that way. I do agree that some of the safety devices that we have now have been needed for a long time.

 

[N80]

I see what you're saying, and I'd guess a lot more people are getting hurt now than then but mostly because tractors have become relatively mainstream rather than just farm implements. There are so many people with tractors out there now compared to even 25 years ago.

On the other hand, I think farming was (and still is) a pretty dangerous occupation. A trip to any good tractor show and you will see machines that look like they were designed not to serve on a farm but to remove extremities from their operators:

 

[Midsouth]

I agree some of the older equipment was really dangerous to be around even when you was watching what you was doing. I was raised on a farm and knock on wood only a few bumps, bruises and cuts to show for it. But it could have easily been different with one careless move.

 

[TrippleT]

I remember when I was much younger almost every year someone locally got killed on tractors without ROPS and seat belts. I think they are fine. Just my take on it. And the Doc has a point about them putting protection on those older tractors.

 

[piller]

On the other hand, I think farming was (and still is) a pretty dangerous occupation.

I have been studying some training materials for work this week and there was a chart on occupational risks. Agriculture was #3 on the list, only construction and mining occupations were considered more dangerous.

 

[ultrarunner]

I agree some of the older equipment was really dangerous to be around even when you was watching what you was doing. I was raised on a farm and knock on wood only a few bumps, bruises and cuts to show for it. But it could have easily been different with one careless move.

Every Farm family knows someone maimed or killed in a Farm Related Accident...

I had a very distant cousin about my age killed at his family's farm operating a buzz saw off the tractor PTO flat belt pulley... the belt came off and struck him in the head... he never recovered and passed away several days later... the whole thing happened in an instant.

My 85 year old Grandfather always chopped wood with and an ax for kindling... my cousin bought a log splitter and it took 3 of Grand Dads fingers... left him with a pinkie and thumb...

This is why I value TBN safety reminders... because I'm not on my equipment day in and day out.

 

[Redneck in training]

All tractors in Czech republic have to have a cab designed to withstand a rollover. I grew up in a village that had only few tractors when I was a kid but I was still a witness of a guy killed during tractor roll over. Later on as more tractors were introduced to the agriculture accident rate increased proportionally to their number I suppose. If I remember it right it was around 1960 when the compulsory tractor cab was legislated.