AFAIK schools already have these because they're pocket change to a school budget and students are notoriously dumb. It makes sense. So perhaps, we can think about a law but we should first evaluate if it is necessary. I can agree with the sentiment.

As TFA discusses, this certainly wasn't the case in 2013 when Mr. Ward had his hand destroyed in a high school shop. This technology had already been available for a decade at that point. Anyway the fact that a $400 machine has this feature doesn't mean that big multi-user shops can spend $400 and get it. Cheap table saws are made very cheaply, and are much less useful than $2000-and-up table saws. (More expensive/better built saws also last much longer than cheap saws.) Are there really public schools that wouldn't notice lots of additional spending?

Lots of additional spending? We're talking about one saw per district, a saw meant to last years. If they can't shift the budget to work in a one time purchase of a single tablesaw, in exchange for the safety of hundreds of woodshop students, that's on them. Most equipment in a school woodshop lasts multiple decades.

That said, many school districts already have made the switch. My high school already had a Sawstop by the time I first took a woodshop class in 2006, and it had already stopped multiple students from losing fingers.

Everything is relative, of course. It's likely that not all public schools have the same enrollment or tax base that yours had. At some point the number of public school shops without this technology will be low enough that an ethical company like Bosch could just give all the poor schools a new table saw. That seems less involved than the lobbying efforts described in TFA.

just make injury insurance mandatory for tools like this in institutions, and have lower premium for safe tools.

Same could be done for guns.

Insurance is after the fact. Won't prevent you from losing your fingers.

To state the obvious, a consolation prize to someone who loses a finger isn't the point. Rather the purpose of said proposed legislation would be to incentivise rational economic actors to purchase safer machines. Assuming the premium discounts were greater than the added cost of the "safe stop" technology amortized over the lifespan of the machine, they would. Either that or go out of business, further automate production, move shop to Mexico, etc.

The point is that any insurance company asked to provide a policy for table saws would mandate this technology for any saws it covers. Same way we got UL (underwriters laboratories!) listed electrical equipment.

It's both. Having to pay increased premiums if you put someone in danger means your more likely to buy safer tools in the first place.

insurance offers discount for car alarms and lo jack, and that drives purchase of those items.