8 year old hurt

[mboulais]

Good point. It should have shut off when she was not on the seat and the tractor went into gear. Now why didn't I think of that. Nice going sherlock mccarty.

How many tractors come with that??? I do buy the frequently used line "if it saves one life it's worth it...." It is used to justify more and more "safety" devices and more laws to "protect" us from our own foolishness.

 

[MikeD74T]

How many tractors come with that??? I do buy the frequently used line "if it saves one life it's worth it...." It is used to justify more and more "safety" devices and more laws to "protect" us from our own foolishness.

Same line Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino is using regarding gun control because a child was killed in his own home by a handgun in the illegal possession of his multiple violent felony convicted parents.

Maybe nobody should own a tractor, they're just too dangerous.

mboulais - I'm not picking on your message, just applying the text to another subject. I agree absolute safety cannot be legislated. I hail the person that can invent enough safety features to protect me from me. MikeD74T

 

[mboulais]

How many tractors come with that??? I do buy the frequently used line "if it saves one life it's worth it...." It is used to justify more and more "safety" devices and more laws to "protect" us from our own foolishness.

Actually my brain got ahead of my fingers and missed a whole word, that shoulda said I do not buy the frequently used line "if it saves one life it's worth it...."

 

[dmccarty]

I want the safety equipment. If you think safety equipment some how is a loss of your rights you are entitled to your opinion.

When my engine cuts off because the tractor is smart enough to know I am not in the seat and the tractor is in gear, that is a good thing. When this happens to me I'm getting ready to get of the tractor. Which means stepping in front of that big heavy tire. I am glad the tractor is cutting off the engine when my coat or hip puts the transmission into forward.

Later,
Dan

 

[N80]

Dan, I agree with you.

It has very little to do with 'rights' people. It has to do with litigation. The 'average American' is a peculiar beast. He wants to be left to his own devices, free to be as stupid and reckless as he wishes but when he hurts himself being reckless and stupid, he thinks he is entitled to become a millionaire for his troubles. THAT'S the problem. Not overlegislation. Operator presence switches just make good common sense. Just like a ROPS. If you don't like them, then disable/remove them. But don't expect anyone to cry when you or one of your loved ones are mangled/killed by a machine whose safety features you disabled/removed. Problem is, if you're like most Americans, you will expect the sympathy AND a big ole check.

 

[mboulais]

I don't think you are giving country folk enough credit. Those raised in rural areas aren't as quick to sue. I don't want the government to protect me from myself and cost of living would be a lot lower in this country if we weren't paying a premium for consumer goods like cars and tractors with excessive safety requirements on them.

I don't need a ROPS, but it was a convienent place to weld brackets to for additional lights.

I don't wear a seatbelt on the tractor. My first two tractors and both of the tractors I grew up on didn't have them or ROPS.

I don't need a driver presence switch on my tractor, I don't even have one on my mower. Children are injured around riding lawn mowers every year despite all the safety devices on them due to legislation and litigation. Those accidents occur due to that attitude that it must be safe because it has all these safety devices. People do dumb things because they do not respect the power they are dealing with.

I don't expect any sympathy from anyone, or any $$$$ from a lawsuit if I get hurt operating equipment.

I am niether reckless or stupid.I take responsibility for my own safety and manage quite well. Safety is more about thinking through a job and managing risks than relying on someone to legislate safety into your life.

The only legislation we need is to prevent product liability lawsuits. In the event that product liability is proven, fines can be levied thereby eliminating the lucrative nusiance lawsuit business.

"The government that governs least, governs best."

Sorry for the rant, but I only posted my opinion before and I felt the last post was a little personal. I obviously hit a nerve.

 

[N80]

I don't think you are giving country folk enough credit. Those raised in rural areas aren't as quick to sue.

I've been around country folk all my life and do not find a lawsuit barrier there. I'd like to think that 'they' are less likely to sue, but just like anyone else, country folk come in a lot of varieties and all of them are not necessarily good.

I don't want the government to protect me from myself and cost of living would be a lot lower in this country if we weren't paying a premium for consumer goods like cars and tractors with excessive safety requirements on them.

I'm not sure I understand your rationale. Most of the proven safety features are demanded by consumers, at least the ones who have any common sense. It took the auto industry a while to figure this out. Now it is a marketing feature, as important as performance, luxury and price to most consumers. So I don't really see big brother as the culprit here. I think the tractor industry is the same. I would not buy a new tractor without a ROPS or driver presence switch, neither would most informed buyers.

I don't need a ROPS,

Why not? Is your tractor rollover proof? Everyone has this idea of themselves as being bulletproof. It comes from a lack of foresight and scope, not taking into account the unknown and/or the unexpected.

I don't wear a seatbelt on the tractor. My first two tractors and both of the tractors I grew up on didn't have them or ROPS.

I've never understood this rationale. My first car had metal dash and no seatbelts. I never got killed in it. Does that make it safe? How about shatter proof windshields? Why, back in the old days, that's all they had. Does that make them smart or desirable? Of course not. The fact that older tractors lacked modern safety features is meaningless unless you are looking at how many lives were lost or ruined without those safety features.

I don't need a driver presence switch on my tractor,

Why not? Are you immune from fatigue induced mistakes? If so, congratulations, you're the only one on earth. Are you immune from any situation that might incapacitate you? Stroke, MI, syncope, a blow to the noggin?

Children are injured around riding lawn mowers every year despite all the safety devices on them due to legislation and litigation.

How is that an argument against safety features? That's like saying that because people fall down stairs all the time that banisters are not needed. That's called a non sequitur. It makes no sense, it does not follow.

Those accidents occur due to that attitude that it must be safe because it has all these safety devices.

That is unsupportable. There is no evidence that this is true and the presumption is that if you are careful enough, and respectful enough, you'll never need safety features. Which is also unsupportable.

People do dumb things because they do not respect the power they are dealing with.

There are several things wrong with this statement. If it is true, and many times it is, how would removing safety features solve the problem? But the fundemental flaw is that you have to do something "dumb" in order to need safety features. Again, that comes from a lack of foresight and too narrow a scope of the things that can cause a tractor accident. It comes from the (often fatal) assumption that you are always in control. Making that assumption is among the dumbest things that people do.

I don't expect any sympathy from anyone, or any $$$$ from a lawsuit if I get hurt operating equipment.

Its funny, that's what everyone says. And yet, we're the most litigious society in history. So you'll understand if I view your claim with skepticism.

I am niether reckless or stupid.I take responsibility for my own safety and manage quite well. Safety is more about thinking through a job and managing risks than relying on someone to legislate safety into your life.

Again, this thinking is full of holes. Unexpected events are unexpected. You are not always in control, as much as you'd like to assume that you are. And just because someone legislates safety (I don't really know what you are talking about) doesn't mean that you don't have to be safe. The people who make that mistake are the same people who are going to do everything else wrong anyway.

The only legislation we need is to prevent product liability lawsuits.

Well of course that's not true. Like anything else, used properly, product liability has an appropriate role in keeping products safe and reliable. History is sufficient proof.

In the event that product liability is proven, fines can be levied thereby eliminating the lucrative nusiance lawsuit business.

Who gets the fine money? The government? Hmmm, so the government dishes out the fines AND benefits from them? Aren't you the one that just said:

"The government that governs least, governs best."

Sorry for the rant, but I only posted my opinion before and I felt the last post was a little personal. I obviously hit a nerve.

Well sure its personal. If someone responds to your personal opinion, well, that's personal. If you share an opinion in a discussion forum, you should be prepared to defend it, or at least not to be offended when someone else diagrees. And I disagree. And I still don't understand the 'legislation' issue in this. You could totally de-legislate seatbelts and airbags in cars and not one single automaker would remove them and if they did, virtually no one would buy them. Why? Because they work, they cause little or no problems and they save tens if not hundreds of thousand lives a year. You'll never meet a more 'small government' guy than me, but I think the 'legislation' issue is overblown here.

ROPS and operator presence switchs will never achieve the sort of efficacy that automobile safety features do because the numbers aren't there. But they do save lives and they are incredibly unobtrusive. And like I said before: How can people who complain about running into things with his ROPS contend that they are so diligent they they could never have a rollover.

And when all is said and done, why all the whining? Don't like the ROPS, pull it off. Don't like the safety switchs? Remove them. If you're that bullet proof, more power to you. But, the problem is that when you share that sort of attitude/opinion on a web site that attracts new and potential tractor owners you run the risk of having such people assume that what makes sense for you, makes sense for them too. And it doesn't.

I've looked at ROPS and driver presence switchs long and hard from both sides and from a rational point of view. And I've spent two years using a tractor that has them. The more I think and the more I use the tractor the less credible and rational become the complaints against them.

 

[mboulais]

And when all is said and done, why all the whining? Don't like the ROPS, pull it off. Don't like the safety switchs? Remove them. If you're that bullet proof, more power to you. But, the problem is that when you share that sort of attitude/opinion on a web site that attracts new and potential tractor owners you run the risk of having such people assume that what makes sense for you, makes sense for them too. And it doesn't.

I've looked at ROPS and driver presence switchs long and hard from both sides and from a rational point of view. And I've spent two years using a tractor that has them. The more I think and the more I use the tractor the less credible and rational become the complaints against them.

It wasn't whining, It was explaining my view. New visitors to the site should get to see a variety of viewpoints and opinions. Again your assesment of others is pretty low if you think new tractor owners should not see an opposing view to the norm. I stress planning jobs and thinking ahead, not relying on the machine to protect you, that's all.

Every time you add a safety device to a machine you complicate the machine and complicate the operation of the machine.

My point with the lawn mowers is that no amount of safety devices on a lawn mower or tractor is going to compensate for stupidity.

Safety seems to too volatile a subject for us to discuss rationally. anyone who don't espouse the use of every possible safety feature on the market gets replies like the last two you just posted.

OK... you win, you can have the safety forum.

 

[N80]

I stress planning jobs and thinking ahead, not relying on the machine to protect you, that's all.

And I'm not saying that is wrong. I'm just saying that you can't plan for everything. And if you work a tractor on property like mine, doing the wide variety of things like most of us do, planning is only going to account for a small percentage of what we actually end up doing at any given time.

Every time you add a safety device to a machine you complicate the machine and complicate the operation of the machine.

Yes, I'd agree with that. But at the same time you have to ask yourself just how much of a complication is a ROPs, or a seatbelt or a seat switch. I've got all that on my tractor. It complicates absolutely nothing for me.

My point with the lawn mowers is that no amount of safety devices on a lawn mower or tractor is going to compensate for stupidity.

Again, you are absolutely right, but that is not an argument against the safety equipment. You can't protect every idiot out there but there are countless seasoned tractor operators out there whose bacon has been saved by ROPs, seatbelts and seat switches.

Safety seems to too volatile a subject for us to discuss rationally. anyone who don't espouse the use of every possible safety feature on the market gets replies like the last two you just posted.

I'm sorry you feel that way. Go back and look at my last few posts and look at yours. Who is being rational? Just because someone can't, won't or doesn't want to be rational doesn't mean that others can't. And I've been on these boards long enough that others can tell you, I'm not a member of the Safety Nazis. Just because I recognize the intrinsic value of 3 simple safety features doesn't make me an extremist.

OK... you win, you can have the safety forum.

That's fine. But it sounds like a cop out to me. If you have a valid point, make it. But don't just make it by saying "I do this" or "I never do that." So maybe we should start over. I'll throw these questions out and there not just aimed at you. For anyone who has or intends to disable these three saety features I'd love to hear your logic for doing so. Maybe there are aspects that I have not thought of that would change my miind and the minds of others who generally appreciate the safety features on our tractors.

You say you don't like your ROPS. Why not? What problems does it cause? Are those problems sufficient enough to remove it and put yourself at risk? what about other people who might use your tractor? Many of us have kids and older parents who are capable of using our tractors.

You say you still have your ROPS, but don't wear your seatbelt. Why not? How much trouble is a simple seatbelt? What realworld problems does it actually cause for you. Is that trouble sufficient enough to make not wearing a seat belt (on a tractor with a ROPS!) a reasonable risk?

I don't remember what you said about the operator presence switch. Have you or would you disable it? It is simple to do. If so, why? What actual, real world problems does it cause for you? How significant are those problems compared to the myriad ways in which you can leave the seat of a tractor in ways that you never planned, never intended and have no control over?

So, there's your chance. If you have an opinion on these matters, share it and defend it. If its just an opinion, and nothing else, well....you know what they say about opinions, we all got one just like....well...you know.

 

[Runner]

OK, I have an example of a safety feature that I believe is over-the-top and rediculous. My mom recently bought a Sabre (JD) lawn tractor with a hydro transmission that has a reverse "safety" button on the dash that you have to push before it will let you back up. If you try to back up before pushing the button, the engine dies.

I realize I am talking about a lawn tractor and not a CUT or bigger, but the principle is the same. I may be wrong about this general statement, but I can't believe there isn't one person on this board who wouldn't find some way to bypass this switch because the tractor was such a pain in the neck to use. I did it the second time I had to use the tractor.

This is not to say I'm against all safety items, ROPS, neutral-start lockouts, guards for moving parts, etc. make sense to me, but I do believe they can go too far sometimes.