Yep, but there's more. I've seen some production machines in the distant past get retrofitted with the latest safety interlocks and gadgets, only to find that the accident rate increased. The problem wasn't just that the workers felt safe. The problem was that the added complexity of the safety devices prevented the worker from actually understanding how the machine operated. Without this knowledge, they are incapeable of understanding how much damage the machine can do to the operator. There's also the problem of idiot error on the part of the machine vendors. The clear acrylic "safety shields" probably clobbered plenty of fingers because the worker could not see the shields (because they were so clear). This is the reason that many such shields now have brightly painted borders. I could go on forever on the topic...
Yeah, I know. The problem is that Consumer Reports (Consumer Union) allegedly pays for "expert opinions" on their products, but doesn't appear to hire what I consider to be experts. When they do, they don't let them do what all experts enjoy most.... tearing into the product. However, the test are not performed by experts. They're performed by competent technicians.
Not much online:
How We Test:
Lab Tour:
I've had the displeasure of trying to specify a repeatable and valid test for various consumer devices. That certainly does take an expert. However, the actual tests can be performed by any competent technician, who may not necessarily be qualifies to pass judgement on the results. When I was running a small R&D group, I had to constantly remind the techs *NOT* to pass judgement on data. I certainly did not want them "modifying" the units under test in the process. Methinks Consumer Reports is doing the right thing and keep the itchy fingers out of the electronics.
Also, I think (not sure) that they sell the units they test afterwards, so I'm sure they don't want them trashed.