And it amazes me how you can take over 300 words or more to simply NOT answer this my question. Who are these companies? By the way, I have been in the forklift business since 1980.

My point was why take any company that is trying to make a safer product to task for doing so? Do you remember when Clark designed a non-fade clutch pack braking system? It was a great idea! Unfortunatly it was poorly designed and actually resulted in a less safe forklift. Clark lost millions of dollars in warranty claims. Trying to lead this industry in making a safer forklift is risky. And where did you get the idea that the SAS is a substitute for operator training? Not from Toyota. Our dealership conducts safety training at customer locations regularly and encourages yearly refresher couses.

Might I ask what you believe is the cause of most auto accidents? Operator error of course. With your logic, as I understand it, why should we have airbags, lap and shoulder belts, and specially designed collapse zones? We have those safety systems because, in my opinion, our society values human life, even if it is imperfect and error prone. Not because there are more parts and labor to sell. From 1999 to 2004 over 150 people have been killed in the USA because of forklift tip overs. Not one of those fatalities involved a Toyota SAS equipped forklift. That is a fact.

NACCO is presently fielding a brake system that uses the transmission clutch packs to assist in braking. The idea, as I see it, is to reduce brake fade and reduce brake repairs. I hope it works. If it does their forklifts will be safer. See my point of view? I will not accuse NACCO of looking for additional parts and labor revenues.

Safe forklifts are good for the operators, good for the industry, and good for business. Let's encourage each other to make the safest forklift possible. Happy Holidays!!!