Latest from CPSC on the Tablesaw Issue [Archive] - Sawmill Creek Woodworking Community

Alan Schaffter

10-07-2011, 4:14 PM

Here is the latest from the CPSC (http://www.cpsc.gov/PR/adler10052011.pdf) on tablesaws. You can follow the previous link, but it was short enough so I just copied it below. I'm sure all the magazines and their E-zines will carry this and provide info how we can comment. I added the red bolding and underline- this pretty much says which way the CPSC is leaning unless they get an overwhelming number of comments with alternatives. I'm not sure what it will take to dissuade them.

U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
4330 East West Highway
Bethesda, MD 20814

STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER ROBERT S. ADLER REGARDING THE ADVANCE NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING (ANPR)
FOR TABLE SAWS

October 5, 2011

Today, I joined my fellow Commissioners in unanimously approving the Commission staff’s recommendation to publish an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) for table saws. This is the first step on the road to a possible mandatory performance standard. I did so with a sense that we have reached a critical point with this issue.

Shortly after I joined the Commission in 2009, I saw a demonstration of a braking mechanism for table saws, called SawStop, which would stop a saw blade instantaneously upon encountering someone’s finger or hand. This led me to take a look at the injury data for table saws. The injuries associated with this product are horrific – deep lacerations to the arms and hands, broken bones and, worst of all, amputations to fingers and thumbs. Injuries like these often leave victims facing long, painful recoveries as well as significant financial hardship and employment challenges. I have met a number of these individuals, and, as far as I could tell, every one of them was an experienced woodworker who made a single small misstep or had a momentary lapse in attention – with ghastly consequences. To my mind, small errors like these should not produce tragic results on such a grand scale. In the case of table saws, roughly 36,000 blade contact injuries occur annually, with about 10 percent of them resulting in amputations.1

Since 2003, the federal government has known that SawStop’s flesh-sensing technology seems to virtually eliminate the amputations and severe lacerations that result from contact with a blade saw. Over the years, no one has stepped forward to challenge the efficacy of this technology. I realize that serious policy issues remain regarding how best to address table saw injuries, but I think that if someone had evidence that this new technology didn’t work, we would have heard from that person.

1 I note that a disproportionate number of the injured appear to be Americans 65 and older – a matter of great concern to me. I welcome any comments on specific steps that the agency might take to address safety issues with table saws for this increasingly vulnerable group of consumers.

I am also aware there are other competing technologies to SawStop that have yet to be brought to market. I know, for example, that the Power Tool Institute has developed flesh-sensing technology. Further, I have met with a gentleman named Dave Butler whose company, Whirlwind Tool Company, is seeking to patent a similar technology. I hope efforts on these and other fronts will continue. Although I find myself extremely impressed by the SawStop technology, I am not in favor of writing a standard that would result in mandating a patented technology if such a result is avoidable.

On this point, I note that when CPSC writes product safety standards, we do not mandate a particular technology. We write performance standards and leave it to manufacturers to decide how to meet them. Of course, simply writing a performance standard doesn’t automatically guarantee that other technologies will find their way to the market, but I remain hopeful that they will.

My personal preference is that the table saw industry finds a way to adopt a voluntary standard that would substantially reduce or eliminate these 36,000 annual injuries. Flesh-sensing technology is definitely one solution that they should consider. Whether there are other approaches that are equally effective, I leave to them at the moment.

Our job is to work on behalf of consumers, keeping in mind that the cost of the safety must be reasonable. In making this point, I note that CPSC staff estimates the annual cost of table saw injuries in the billions of dollars. I also note the serious concerns in the industry about new technology adding considerably to the price of this product. This, of course, explains why the Commission wants to publish an ANPR: we need to gather more data on costs and benefits.

Our comment period closes in 60 days. I cannot stress how important it is for all interested parties to weigh in on the ANPR. Comments from the public inform and enlighten us as to whether moving forward with this mandatory rulemaking is necessary and, if so, exactly what direction it should take.

I know the Commission stands ready to work collaboratively with all parties on important safety improvements. Now that we have reached this critical moment it is in the interests of all stakeholders, especially consumers, that the table saw industry, including Mr. Gass and other inventors, and the Commission continue to work together to improve table saw safety.

JohnT Fitzgerald

10-07-2011, 4:24 PM

Here we go.Preface - I own a sawstop and like it a lot. It is a well built saw.Now, trying to be compliant to the TOS.....I think all I will say is that I am not sure I like where this is going. I hope to find out where I can give my proper feedback to the CPSC

Rod Sheridan

10-07-2011, 4:52 PM

Not unexpected, in my opinion.

It's difficult to argue against a proven safety improvement unless there are serious obstacles to the implementation.

The manufacturers now have the ball in their court, if they can develop other safety features that prevent blade contact, or like SS drastically reduce the injuries associated with blade contact, the legislation will be very generic and broad.

The public also has the ball in their court, can we as users of the machinery voluntarily reduce our injury rate? Unfortunately I doubt that we can, as we already have the tools to reduce injuries and yet we often don't use them.

Change is always upsetting, however I doubt that anyone seriously doesn't want a safety improvement in power tools.

Regardless of what direction this course eventually follows, it may be 10 years before we see any actual changes or come up against the deadlines imposed.

Regards, Rod.

fRED mCnEILL

10-07-2011, 5:44 PM

WOW, what a neat way to increase the cost of tablesaws by $1000.

Rod Sheridan

10-07-2011, 6:34 PM

WOW, what a neat way to increase the cost of tablesaws by $1000.

Fred, that's a big assumption.

Just for the sake of discussion, how about a non removable guard of some description?

They are looking for alternate solutions, and I predict it will be not very expensive............Rod.

Mike Henderson

10-07-2011, 6:45 PM

I hope they do something to cut down on the number of accidents. Yesterday, I saw an old woodworking friend that I hadn't seen in a while. He had cut his index finger to the bone on his Unisaw. They had to fuse the bone so he can't bend that finger any more. Adding safety features to saws wouldn't have helped him, but it'll be a start to help woodworkers in the future.

He's been woodworking for at least 40 years but just had a moment of carelessness. I'll certainly go and make comments that support requiring safety features. Thanks for posting that.

Anyone have the link to the page to leave comments?

Mike

Bryan Slimp

10-07-2011, 7:24 PM

Jim Foster

10-07-2011, 7:38 PM

Only likely when a competing technology is available. Unfortunately the manufacturers of all saws have ignored innovation for cheap labor and cutting cost for many years as a way to more profitability and this type of an event might be inevitable. As a novice whose had a serious accident and who traded up for a Powermatic T66 afterwards, I now find it ridiculous in that in the mid 90's Powermatic did not know what a riving knife was.

There's also the chance that the economy of scale will force the cost of the technology down. There is a market for $99 table saws that won't disappear. SawStop appears to make a really nice saw with an innovative safety feature. They're the first but it doesn't mean they have the best solution.

I love old machines, but if I had the cash I would probably get an SS machine.

Henry Ambrose

10-07-2011, 8:20 PM

Bad idea.
Anyone who wants to buy a "safe" saw can do so today - just go buy a Saw Stop equipped saw.
This is a perfect example of what we don't need any more of in the U.S. - more regulation and a higher cost to consumers who don't want it.
Please write and tell them "No".

On the other hand, if you own an interest in Saw Stop, maybe this is a great idea!!
And lobby for it!
http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=F41330&year=2011
http://reporting.sunlightfoundation.com/lobbying/client/saw-stop-llc

http://reporting.sunlightfoundation.com/lobbying/firm/cuneo-waldman-gilbert/D5C209DF-8426-4508-94F3-5F1D2A9CFCDD

http://www.cuneolaw.com/lawyers/pamela_gilbert.php
(http://reporting.sunlightfoundation.com/lobbying/client/saw-stop-llc)

Chris Tsutsui

10-07-2011, 8:23 PM

I entered to win one of the sawstops free drawings. Then they pestered my local woodcraft to leave messages on my phone trying to make a sale. I literally walked into my woodcraft a week later and the woodcraft manager started talking to me about sawstop.

Sawstop is sort of like when they introduced seatbelts on motor vehicles. The law can't enforce everyone to use them, especially motorcyclists. :)

I see SS on Rough Cut with Tommy mac, I see SS on closed threads on forums, and I don't really like to eat hot dogs that much now either.

Stephen Cherry

10-07-2011, 8:46 PM

On the other hand, if you own an interest in Saw Stop, maybe this is a great idea!!

Maybe in the short term, but maybe not. If saw stop looses the exclusivity of the stopping tech, a short term gain of liscensing fees may end up being all of the money that they see. If Powermatic, Delta, Griz, etc. have similar technology, who would you buy from? I would choose a company with a long term history of product support. And the liscensing fees only would last a limited time. tick tock tick tock!

I think it's great.

Also, the format style sliding table saw with the arm mounted guard/dust collector is worlds ahead of the sawstop, in my opinion, for safety. It puts your hands very far away from the blade, and collects the dust much more effectively. What good are your fingers if your lungs are gone.

Barry Stratton

10-07-2011, 8:48 PM

I've often wondered how many table saw accidents would be avoided by NOT removing the blade guard?

Stephen Cherry

10-07-2011, 8:54 PM

Here's a great Milton friedman video from the 80's.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3535456672331412636&q=Milton+Friedman+Free+to+choose+duration%3Along&total=16&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=6#

David Kumm

10-07-2011, 9:55 PM

While we are throwing blame we should save some for ourselves. In part due to the threat of lawsuit, companies can not offer safety devices as an option and give us the choice. I would like the option of upgrading the brakes in my vehicles rather than removing and replacing them. Doesn't happen because offering that option is an admission that the stock brakes are inadequate. I would much prefer a choice from each company whether of not to purchase the SS. I probably would if someone manufactured a new saw of real quality. Forcing the issue may make the technology better. I'm surprised the Euros aren't mandating this. They are even more regulatory minded than we are. I could feel better about the mandates if people could not cash in for doing stupid stuff by a jury that doesn't have to pass any tests for competence. Dave

JohnT Fitzgerald

10-07-2011, 10:04 PM

Fred, that's a big assumption.Just for the sake of discussion, how about a non removable guard of some description?They are looking for alternate solutions, and I predict it will be not very expensive............Rod.Rod - I believe the wording means they will enforce some sort of flesh detection and blade stopping technology. A blade guard just wouldn't cut it.

Alan Schaffter

10-07-2011, 10:15 PM

The blade guard discussion is a non-starter. Look at how many operations can't use one: tenoning jig, box joint jig, panel beveling jig, and most cross-cutting operations when a miter gauge extension is used . . . . and the list goes on. To be truly effective, the saw needs to sense at the blade and stop and/or react quickly. I'm not a Sawstop owner, and I'm not planning to buy one, but if someone gives me one, I'll take it and sell my Unisaw.

Dan Friedrichs

10-07-2011, 10:30 PM

WOW, what a neat way to increase the cost of tablesaws by $1000.

Well, there are approximately 750k table saws sold per year in the US (according to the CPSC). If you added $1k to the cost of each one, you've charged consumers an additional 750 million per year. That sounds like a lot, but again, the CPSC states that the annual cost of table saw injuries is in the "billions". So, by adding this very expensive technology, you've collectively saved us a big chunk of money. How is that a bad thing?

Ultimately, the economies-of-scale will push the price well below $1k/unit. Sure, the $99 bench top saw may now become the $119 bench top saw, but your health insurance/worker's comp/etc premiums will go down because of the billions of dollars we save in health care and lost productivity.

From a purely economic perspective, even at the current price, this technology will save you money.

Stephen Cherry

10-07-2011, 10:46 PM

, you've collectively saved us a big chunk of money. How is that a bad thing?

, this technology will save you money.

The problem in this reasoning is that money is not owned collectively.

Remember when we were free?

Alan Schaffter

10-07-2011, 10:49 PM

your health insurance/worker's comp/etc premiums will go down because of the billions of dollars we save in health care and lost productivity.

From a purely economic perspective, even at the current price, this technology will save you money.

Since when have insurance companies been inclined to lower premiums?

Dan Friedrichs

10-07-2011, 11:09 PM

The problem in this reasoning is that money is not owned collectively.

True, but why should I pay higher health insurance premiums because you insist on using dangerous equipment? Essentially, integrating any flesh-sensing technology into the saw takes a large expense (health care - previously paid for by everyone) and integrates it into the purchase of the tool, as a much smaller expense, which is now borne only by the person using the tool. Plus, no one loses any fingers.

Alan - true. Maybe I should have said "will go up less" :)

Stephen Cherry

10-07-2011, 11:25 PM

True, but why should I pay higher health insurance premiums because you insist on using dangerous equipment?
:)

Actually, I have a Felder K975 saw, which is much much safer than any cabinet saw. That's my personal choice of what to do with my money, and how to reduce risk. But I would hope that I would never assume the role of dictating how someone else lives their life, and what sort of risk they take. We all take risks, and we all have our reasons. The problem arises when things go wrong and instead of sucking it up, we start crying like a babies. (none of this directed at you personally Dan)

David Kumm

10-07-2011, 11:31 PM

If we keep up this line of reasoning we also have to give up bacon and sex- and I like my bacon. Dave

Jason Adkins

10-07-2011, 11:44 PM

but your health insurance/worker's comp/etc premiums will go down because of the billions of dollars we save in health care and lost productivity.

From a purely economic perspective, even at the current price, this technology will save you money.You dont actually believe this will happen do you??

Mike Henderson

10-07-2011, 11:53 PM

You dont actually believe this will happen do you??
There's a lot of old table saws in use today so the accident rate will not decline very quickly. But lots of table saws are sold in the US each year and those will gradually replace the installed base. If those new saws contain effective safety devices, the overall accident rate will decline, and this decline will mean less total cost of treating injuries due to table saw accidents.

The cost of medical insurance is increasing each year. If insurance companies pay less because of less accidents, this should be reflected in the medical insurance rates, perhaps not in a decline but in a slower rise.

Mike

[I'll ask my question again - The CPSC is asking for comments. Anyone know how to submit comments on this matter?]

David Kumm

10-08-2011, 12:12 AM

Brian Kent

10-08-2011, 12:13 AM

U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
4330 East West Highway
Bethesda, MD 20814

Phil Hughey

10-08-2011, 12:23 AM

Wow is this ever one tough question. It is so easy to make a mistake and hurt oneself on a table saw, that is for sure. However, trying to protect myself through government legislation violates the basic freedom of the individual that so many before us have sacrificed and died to give us. I'm not too fond of centralized legislation to regulate automotive manufacturers but I can understand it to some degree because driving on the road is a cooperative effort to stay safe. But this kind of regulation is reaching straight into my garage, and limiting the choices that I have for my own personal use. It's true, the saw stop appears to be a fine saw, but WAY beyond my ability to afford. Plus I'm sure it is not a perfect saw for every application. It just gets scary when the social engineers assume the responsibility for our personal safety.

I'm not trying to be prideful here, like an accident can't happen to me, I know it can, however, what kind of price can you put on our freedom? Isn't our freedom more valuable than our personal safety?

Sorry for rambling but this stuff scares me to death for our country.

Mike Henderson

10-08-2011, 12:47 AM

But cigarettes are still legal. If the purpose of regulation is to reduce health care costs we need to be fair and regulate all kinds of things that society tolerates and even encourages. While the purpose of reducing injury is tough to criticize it is pretty subjective compared to the choices we are allowed to make regarding our health.

I am sure there will be comments submitted far more coherent than mine. I hope their minds aren't made up one way or the other. Dave
It isn't necessary to solve all of society's ills in order to address one. That same logic used to be used earlier about smoking - "Alcohol causes lots of problems - go fix alcohol before you put regulations on my ability to smoke". Of course there are lots of regulations, restrictions and costs on smoking. You can't smoke in most public places, there's a BIG tax on cigarettes, and smokers pay more for health insurance to name a few.

But the issue here is not smoking, it's table saw safety. Attempting to bring cigarettes into the mix is just an attempt to deflect discussion of the issue at hand.

Mike

Mike Henderson

10-08-2011, 12:50 AM

U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
4330 East West Highway
Bethesda, MD 20814
Thanks, but I was hoping for an electronic method of submitting comments. You're suppose to be able to do it through www.regulations.gov. The docket number is CPSC-2011-0074 but it doesn't seem to have been posted yet on www.regulations.gov yet.

Mike

David Kumm

10-08-2011, 1:24 AM

Mike Henderson

10-08-2011, 1:38 AM

Mike, I wasn't attempting to deflect the discussion to cigarettes. I was addressing the statement that the benefit of the regulation would be to reduce health care costs. If that argument is used there should be an explanation as to what health risks we as individuals should be allowed to take and which are decided by someone else. If flesh sensing technology is mandatory for tablesaws- and I'm not taking a position here- it should also be required on bandsaws, drill presses, shapers, routers, and lawnmowers. I'm not totally serious here but a certain amount of that logic does apply. We all draw the lines in different in different places.
A lot has been done for lawnmowers to improve the safety since a lot of people were cutting off their toes or mangling their foot or hands. If you use a modern lawn mower, you'll experience a lot of safety features that were not on lawn mowers 30 years ago. For tools like bandsaws and drill presses, I would bet the injury statistics are significantly lower than table saws. When you address accidents, you generally start with the high injury areas. The injury rate for bandsaws and drill presses may be low enough that it would not be economical to require additional safety devices. However, when we look at the cost of table saw injuries, it's clear that the benefit of certain safety devices will outweigh the cost.

But, again, I'll comment that it's not necessary to solve all the problems in order to address one. If people feel strongly that certain other tools should have additional safety devices, they should petition the CPSC for those safety devices. But that's a separate discussion than what's being discussed here, which is safety devices for table saws.

Mike

David Kumm

10-08-2011, 2:16 AM

As I said, I 'm not being totally serious here. I agree that tablesaw injuries occur in greater numbers and hope that you are correct that solving that problem won't lead to more regulation in other areas. This potential regulation though does seem in some part to be the result of the much publicized lawsuit. If mandating the SS ends large settlements to people trying to rip boards without a fence I can live with it. Again, I have seen saw accidents first hand and have no real objection to anything that avoids them, although to be fair SS should warranty the module and replace any misfire. Being able to choose the technology on the saw of my choice will be a great benefit. It will be interesting to see where the line finally is drawn. Dave

Larry Edgerton

10-08-2011, 7:40 AM

First, I think this is the kind of thing that adds cost to a job/product, and we are already behind on that in the world market. I suppose the next logical step that government would take would be to make it manditory for businesses to use these tools. I can barely make a profit now and I have done everything I can to cut costs.

I have nothing against the idea, and in fact if another product that is better designed comes along that is not so expensive when fired/misfired I will most likely buy one. The SS may do a fine job, but one misfire on a job between the downtime, cartridge and the cost of a new commercial blade would mean I lost money. Thats not why I am in business.

"For the greater good" is a scary term that has been used in many countries throughout history, so I am a little leary of this kind of legislation/regulation. I do not wish to impose my will on anyone else in their personal lives, and I do not wish to be imposed apon.

One good benifit is that it will force the others to invent a better mousetrap, one hopefully that is less expensive in use.

Larry

John Coloccia

10-08-2011, 8:43 AM

True, but why should I pay higher health insurance premiums because you insist on using dangerous equipment? Essentially, integrating any flesh-sensing technology into the saw takes a large expense (health care - previously paid for by everyone) and integrates it into the purchase of the tool, as a much smaller expense, which is now borne only by the person using the tool. Plus, no one loses any fingers.

Alan - true. Maybe I should have said "will go up less" :)

The correct solution to your insurance dilemma would be for you to start your own insurance company (while you still can), and in all your policies declare that you're not covering table saw injuries. Then go ahead and sell yourself insurance. The correct solution is NOT to change everyone else's life around to make yours more convenient.

The real problem here isn't tablesaws, insurance premiums, stupid lawsuits and political maneuvering. The heart of the matter is that departments like the CPSC have nearly dictatorial control over our everyday lives, and can by whim hand down orders that have the capacity to affect our lives negatively, destroy businesses, etc. I'm just happy I wasn't a lawn dart manufacturer in the 90s. LOL.
a

Jim Foster

10-08-2011, 9:37 AM

I think the biggest reason the table saw has the most accidents is because it's the most widely owned stand alone shop tool. A novice woodworkers first big purchase is most likely the tablesaw. In an old FWW article, the RAS was responsible for the worst accidents, but the table saw very much responsible for the most accidents.

Also, I suspect bandsaws tend to be owned by more experienced hobbyists as a third fourth of even fifth big purchase. And bandsaws probably don't exist on job sites

A lot has been done for lawnmowers to improve the safety since a lot of people were cutting off their toes or mangling their foot or hands. If you use a modern lawn mower, you'll experience a lot of safety features that were not on lawn mowers 30 years ago. For tools like bandsaws and drill presses, I would bet the injury statistics are significantly lower than table saws. When you address accidents, you generally start with the high injury areas. The injury rate for bandsaws and drill presses may be low enough that it would not be economical to require additional safety devices. However, when we look at the cost of table saw injuries, it's clear that the benefit of certain safety devices will outweigh the cost.

But, again, I'll comment that it's not necessary to solve all the problems in order to address one. If people feel strongly that certain other tools should have additional safety devices, they should petition the CPSC for those safety devices. But that's a separate discussion than what's being discussed here, which is safety devices for table saws.

Mike

Mike Henderson

10-08-2011, 9:51 AM

The correct solution to your insurance dilemma would be for you to start your own insurance company (while you still can), and in all your policies declare that you're not covering table saw injuries. Then go ahead and sell yourself insurance. The correct solution is NOT to change everyone else's life around to make yours more convenient.

The real problem here isn't tablesaws, insurance premiums, stupid lawsuits and political maneuvering. The heart of the matter is that departments like the CPSC have nearly dictatorial control over our everyday lives, and can by whim hand down orders that have the capacity to affect our lives negatively, destroy businesses, etc. I'm just happy I wasn't a lawn dart manufacturer in the 90s. LOL.
a
There's a conflict between what we seem to want. Let me discuss.

We live in a society and because of that, we receive certain benefits. For example, when our house catches on fire, we can call the fire department and they'll come to fight the fire. When we are injured in an accident, we can go to an emergency room and receive treatment - free, if we do not have any assets. For those benefits, and for many more not mentioned, we submit to certain rules and regulations. For example, we have building codes that reduce the chance of fire and slow the spread of fire once it starts. We have those codes because it costs society (all of us) money to maintain a fire department. Similarly, it costs all of us money, either in taxes or in increased insurance premiums, to pay for treating injuries. For businesses, we have OSHA to make safety rules and enforce them. For consumers we have the CPSC.

If everyone was willing to let buildings burn down if the individual did not have their own fire fighting equipment, or to let people die from injuries if they did not have the money to pay for their injuries, we could take the attitude of "what you do is your own business." But that's not the route we've taken as a society.

There's a balance in this, however, between cost and freedom - and that's what we should be discussing. We'll pay either way - either for safety features or for treating injured people. We have information on the costs. Which way do you want to pay?

Mike

Stephen Cherry

10-08-2011, 9:51 AM

The real problem here isn't tablesaws, insurance premiums, stupid lawsuits and political maneuvering. The heart of the matter is that departments like the CPSC have nearly dictatorial control over our everyday lives, and can by whim hand down orders that have the capacity to affect our lives negatively, destroy businesses, etc.. LOL.
a

Well said! We've gone from "give me liberty or give me death!", to just "give me something".

Roger Wilson

10-08-2011, 10:31 AM

Regardless of where one stands on the politics of the size and scope of government, the table saw is a ridiculously dangerous tool. Given that the government is the size that it is and has a safety oriented group, pushing table saw manufacturers to put reasonable safety devices on tools isn't all that onerous. If you read the Fine Woodworking articles it looks like the WhirlWind device works electrically to stop the blade causing no damage to the blade. It is very cheap to build AND can be retrofitted. The problem with government is that it is mostly regulating things that don't have any clear rational or cost/benefit analysis and can better be handled by the market however sometimes markets don't work.

WhirlWind youtube video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ltFuEKCnM4

Steve Griffin

10-08-2011, 10:54 AM

The problem in this reasoning is that money is not owned collectively.

Remember when we were free?

5 star post.

John Coloccia

10-08-2011, 11:00 AM

There's a conflict between what we seem to want. Let me discuss.

We live in a society and because of that, we receive certain benefits. For example, when our house catches on fire, we can call the fire department and they'll come to fight the fire. When we are injured in an accident, we can go to an emergency room and receive treatment - free, if we do not have any assets. For those benefits, and for many more not mentioned, we submit to certain rules and regulations. For example, we have building codes that reduce the chance of fire and slow the spread of fire once it starts. We have those codes because it costs society (all of us) money to maintain a fire department. Similarly, it costs all of us money, either in taxes or in increased insurance premiums, to pay for treating injuries. For businesses, we have OSHA to make safety rules and enforce them. For consumers we have the CPSC.

If everyone was willing to let buildings burn down if the individual did not have their own fire fighting equipment, or to let people die from injuries if they did not have the money to pay for their injuries, we could take the attitude of "what you do is your own business." But that's not the route we've taken as a society.

There's a balance in this, however, between cost and freedom - and that's what we should be discussing. We'll pay either way - either for safety features or for treating injured people. We have information on the costs. Which way do you want to pay?

Mike

I hear what you're saying, Mike, but if I have a problem with my building codes or something like that, I can walk down to the town hall and petition my case. If the codes become onerous, I can go around my neighborhood and get the zoning and building board fired. I can walk down to my fire department and have them tell me when they're happy with my fire suppression system for a spray booth.

When the CPSC rules, I have no real recourse. I have theoretical recourses, but as a practical matter they rule and am their subject, as though I'm a peasant on a lord's estate. I don't feel like we have much of a say over such matters. I would much prefer the free market to drive things like this, and by and large it HAS. SS is the best selling saw in the world as far as I know, and I also happen to know that others (in addition to Whirlwind) have been looking at SS alternative technology very seriously. There's no reason for anyone to step in and mandate what I buy when I can do it just as well myself.

Dan Friedrichs

10-08-2011, 11:20 AM

phil harold

10-08-2011, 1:07 PM

I am a big fan on safety,
I wonder how many people wet their finger and gently touch the saw when sawing?

I would actually like to see a dry turkey leg shoved into the saw

jim mills

10-08-2011, 1:14 PM

David Kumm

10-08-2011, 1:49 PM

I suspect that if the Government is this far into it, they will write some sort of rules. Good or bad we will get used to it. Don't think for a minute that the economics of scale will keep the improvements from raising costs. Fact of life. Companies use safety mandates as an excuse to raise prices for some period of time. They are dumb if they don't. As time progresses the cost of the technology will come down but pricing pressure we are all guilty of demanding will also bring down the quality of components to maintain the margin at as low a price as possible. That includes the outsourcing of labor and materials. I am fine with paying for improvements. Makes us think before setting mandates. Compensating by shifting labor abroad or reducing quality, or assuming we can have and eat cake, upset me more. Dave

Bill Maietta

10-08-2011, 1:49 PM

Great discussion here. If you haven't seen FWW's piece today on this, check it out. An email exchange with Steve Gass of Sawstop. He and the FWW writer say, in part (this is just me paraphrasing what I read, not any direct quote):
• the cost of adding sawstop technology to jobsite saws is estimated at $55 (we'll believe it when we see it, but it's not $1,000)
• the next step is for manufacturers to give CPSC advice on how to achieve greatly enhanced safety
• standard is preventing serious injury if flesh moving at one foot per second contacts the blade
• manufacturers have had a lot of input already as CPSC has worked on this
• costs of injuries are $2 - $3 billion annually
• FWW writer seems to strongly support riving knives as the solution, but Gass says that misses the point of the bulk of the injury costs and of the CPSC's investigation

Now, on the economic and political aspects of the problem:
Free markets are great things, but they aren't perfect. They fail sometimes. When markets get bigger they fail more often and in more ways. Failing basically means someone imposes a cost on others without having to pay for it. This is classic Econ and the classic examples are pollution, accidents and monopoly or oligopoly markets (any time it costs so much to start a business that it is extremely difficult to enter the market).

We're lucky, or something, two of the three classics apply to our table saw problem (pollution, including smoking, doesn't exactly apply). The third failure applies since Sawstop's entry (against the odds) to this market changed the stakes in the safety discussion.

We do pay for some of the costs of table saw accidents... insurance premiums, tax subsidies for huge insurance companies and for medical institutions, to name a few ways we pay. There are others.

This is what happens when free markets fail, everyone pays.

And that is precisely when government should come in to help... NOT in any socialist way, but usually at the request of capitalist businesses trying to balance costs and payments for market failures. Remember, most all of our politicians are pretty darn rich and got that way in our capitalist system. Many pols go back and forth between business and government, and all of them deal with big money lobbyists.

The idea is to mitigate the costs to society at large from the table saw industry's market failure. It's a natural part of any modern capitialist economy.

We should be able to give input, as primary consumers of TS's. I'll bet there's a nice little chunk of the overall TS market here at SMC. This link may be at the start of the thread, but in case, here it is again:
http://www.cpsc.gov/volstd/tablesaws/tablesaws.html

CPSC asks for comments at cpsc-os@cpsc.gov. The more people who comment, the more likely it is the a big agency will take note.

We want to keep our country free. However, freedom is not just the absence of government. In some cases we are not free unless government intervenes. The less intervention the better, but the economics here seem to me to make a lot of sense.

And hey, thanks for all the info. I read SMC a lot even if I rarely jump in. You all are the experts.

Bill

jim mills

10-08-2011, 2:36 PM

standard is preventing serious injury if flesh moving at one foot per second contacts the blade

Who's standard is this, and what does it mean if I am injured by the blade, and it is proven that my hand was moving faster that the standard?

Bill Maietta

10-08-2011, 2:47 PM

From what I saw in FWW that is the standard the CPSC is working towards. Like I said it's not an exact quote, and the manufacturers are all still trying to get the best deal they can. It's an evolving process, it seems.They would test machines against this standard or whatever carries the day. I doubt your hand will be involved in testing. Hope not. More likely another hot dog.

Karl Card

10-08-2011, 6:35 PM

I dont know, I am sort of on the balance beam on this one. I do believe there are people who do need this type of safety. I also beleive that we live in a country that to some extint we need to be able to decide. Now if an average saw is 600 dollars (this is just for example sake) and the cost is now going to be 750 but with the addition of the safety features then that might work, but I myself cannot afford 2500 dollars for a table saw in anyway shape or form. But then again if someone wants it bad enough they will work to get it...

Chris Parks

10-08-2011, 8:10 PM

If I lived in the US and was a part of this debate I would have no issue with the imposition of laws to force the industry and users to use flesh sensing technology. What I have an issue with is the monopoly of one company forcing others to license that technology back to them due to legislative change. If it becomes a mandatory requirement then the company that holds the technology through patents should lose those patents as it is those patents that have stopped anyone else moving forward and equipping their machines with the technology except under license. If it is not made mandatory by legislation then I have no issue with the patents as by all accounts the machine manufacturers were given the opportunity and could still use the technology by paying the license fees and they missed the boat or choose not to get in the boat.

Bill Maietta

10-08-2011, 8:55 PM

If it becomes a mandatory requirement then the company that holds the technology through patents should lose those patents as it is those patents that have stopped anyone else moving forward and equipping their machines with the technology except under license. If it is not made mandatory by legislation then I have no issue with the patents... That's a great point. SawStop should not benefit materially from any change in safety reg.s. According to the FWW pieces I've see there are multiple systems being considered. One of the earlier entries in this thread (from Roger) mentioned the whirlwind tools approach (whirlwindtool.com). Sawstop creator Stephen Gass mentioned a system PTI developed but shelved (PTI is group of TS manufacturers... minus Sawstop). So, it seems to be early in the game... but I agree. I'm not sure I'd say Sawstop should lose their patents, rather other companies innovate their own solutions, or buy and develop something like whirlwind. There's more than one way to stop careless woodworkers from skinning themselves. Right?

Greg Hines, MD

10-08-2011, 9:11 PM

Fine Woodworking had a long discussion from Asa Christiana including a discussion with Steve Gass of Sawstop. They say that it could cost somewhere between $55 and $100 to add to even jobsite saws.

http://www.finewoodworking.com/item/41527/appeals-court-upholds-osorio-tablesaw-verdict-feds-consider-landmark-safety-standard/?&lookup=auto&V18=&V19=&V20=&V21=&V22=&V23=&V24=&V25=&V26=&V53=&V54=&Taun_Per_Flag=true&utm_source=email&utm_medium=eletter&utm_content=20111008-tablesaw-verdict&utm_campaign=fine-woodworking

Greg Peterson

10-08-2011, 9:31 PM

It's a shame the legal system is both instrumental in denying widespread implementation of the SS technology and the potential for a mandate.
Much as I think the SS is a really good saw, it's too bad it is not available on lower priced units from other manufacturers. I am aware of the SS contractor saw, but having moved to a hybrid saw, I am not least bit interested in revisiting the short comings of a CS.

My hope is that by the time I a ready to upgrade to a real cabinet saw, braking technology will be ubiquitous.

Kevin Gregoire

10-08-2011, 9:56 PM

i got the fww email yesterday and it made my blood boil again knowing that scumbag that sued ryobi won his award as the ruling wasnt overturned.
some of the judges in this country have to be out of there mind? how can someone that takes off the safety guards and doesnt use the rip fence
who then cuts his hand gets awarded big bucks because the saw doesnt have stopping technology. absolutely incredible that all companies will now
have to start implementing this technology.

so does this mean i can sue a drill manufacturer when i drill something and the bit locks up and the drill torques over hard and sprains or breaks my
wrist?? or what about bandsaws, they better put stop technology on them too? im all for safety but this all just sets a bad standard for mfg's having
to add more safety and the consumer paying a lot more for it.

its going to be a big mess im afraid and the debate will go on and on.

David Kumm

10-08-2011, 10:00 PM

Leo Graywacz

10-08-2011, 10:13 PM

I thing the gov should stay the heck out of our lives. This is not their job. The technology is out there. If you want it you can buy it, if you don't you shouldn't be forced.

If you are an employer I would think you would be crazy not to have it, insurance, liability and all. But for the guy in his garage using it on occasion I don't see why the gov should force it on you.

Kevin Gregoire

10-08-2011, 10:29 PM

The technology is out there. If you want it you can buy it, if you don't you shouldn't be forced.

If you are an employer I would think you would be crazy not to have it, insurance, liability and all. But for the guy in his garage using it on occasion I don't see why the gov should force it on you.

very well said and in complete agreement!

Tim Janssen

10-08-2011, 11:16 PM

Has there been any discussion on how safe the SS technology REALLY is? Sure, I've seen the hot dog slowly feed into the spining blade, and I've even seen the owner of the company touch the spinning blade, But what if I'm forcefully feeding a board because the blade is dull, and I slip and jamb my hand into the spinning blade? Is the SS technology still as effective? How about slapping that hot dog down on the spinning blade at the speed of a slipping hand and see what happens? Seems like a waste of my favorite food, but I wonder what the result would be.

The blade drops down in about 5 milliseconds that's a speed of about 700" per second. That's pretty damn fast (about 40 miles/hr I think)

Tim

John Coloccia

10-08-2011, 11:21 PM

Greg. I am not sure how the legal system is responsible for blocking the technology. It may turn out that it played a role in the implementation of the mandate due to the jury award even though it was kind of a "bad facts" case. Dave

I suspect most manufactured passed on Gass' initial offer for fear that adding the technology to any saw would inevitably lead to lawsuits of the form:

"I bought their cheaper saw (without SS technology). They knew it was dangerous. Look! They had to start adding brakes to their saws! I'm suing because Delta is negligent for selling a product that they themselves admit is too dangerous to use without additional safety mechanisms".

Not to dump on politicians and lawyers, but it's difficult finding another group of people that cause so much trouble.

Leo Graywacz

10-08-2011, 11:22 PM

Has there been any discussion on how safe the SS technology REALLY is? Sure, I've seen the hot dog slowly feed into the spining blade, and I've even seen the owner of the company touch the spinning blade, But what if I'm forcefully feeding a board because the blade is dull, and I slip and jamb my hand into the spinning blade? Is the SS technology still as effective? How about slapping that hot dog down on the spinning blade at the speed of a slipping hand and see what happens? Seems like a waste of my favorite food, but I wonder what the result would be.

As long as the SS is in working order the damage you get from that scenario will be substantially less than if the saw was a normal one. If you are expecting zero damage or a slight abrasion of the skin we don't know. But we know that it won't be catastrophic.

John Coloccia

10-08-2011, 11:28 PM

Has there been any discussion on how safe the SS technology REALLY is? Sure, I've seen the hot dog slowly feed into the spining blade, and I've even seen the owner of the company touch the spinning blade, But what if I'm forcefully feeding a board because the blade is dull, and I slip and jamb my hand into the spinning blade? Is the SS technology still as effective? How about slapping that hot dog down on the spinning blade at the speed of a slipping hand and see what happens? Seems like a waste of my favorite food, but I wonder what the result would be.

Well, they've documented hundreds of saves and try as I might I can't find a record of even one serious injury from using the SS. I'm sure there are ways to get hurt with it, just as there are ways to kill yourself even if you're wearing a seatbelt and have an airbag, but there is absolutely no doubt that SS provides a significant safety enhancement.

David Kumm

10-08-2011, 11:42 PM

Yes John, manufacturers are in a bind when dealing with safety equipment. They can not offer it on certain machines or as options. It is all or none. Partial means you become your own worst witness. Not sensible but the way it is. Dave

Greg Peterson

10-09-2011, 12:20 AM

The legal system protects the patent holder, in this case SS, from having their invention used without license, and it may ultimately be the legal system that mandates the SS technology. That and the manufacturer that fails to make it standard equipment on all their models is asking for trouble. So by not implementing the technology they are able to avoid lawsuits based on reasonable safety.

I recall reading at one time that Gass had been working the legal levers to get a mandate on the books, providing him with an upper hand in licensing negotiations. While this tactic is legal I also find it unethical despite the obvious benefit to all.

Kevin - The case you mention has many angles. The worker filed his own claim, but the company's workers' compensation insurer hired his legal team and joined the claim as a third party. Seems they were tired of paying out on these types if injuries, especially since there was technology that could have prevented such an accident.

But more to the point, SS and Ryobi had an agreement to implement the SS technology. According to Gass and the plaintiffs, the depositions from Ryobi representatives at trial pointed fingers at one another over why the contract was never ironed out and the technology installed.

In short, Ryobi could not offer a substantive answer in court as to why the technology they signed off on was never implemented. Ergo, Ryobi was negligent in that they did not make their saw reasonably safe.

Given the various technologies available, I can think of no reason why a table saw should be considered an inherently dangerous tool.

Dan Friedrichs

10-09-2011, 12:33 AM

I thing the gov should stay the heck out of our lives. This is not their job. The technology is out there. If you want it you can buy it, if you don't you shouldn't be forced.

I want to buy a car without airbags and seatbelts! It's none of the government's job to say how safe my car ought to be! The technology is out there for people who want it.

(see how silly that sounds?)

Seth Dolcourt

10-09-2011, 2:40 AM

Kevin W Johnson

10-09-2011, 3:13 AM

Kevin W Johnson

10-09-2011, 3:20 AM

Furthermore, manufacturers should be able to offer saws with and without such features, without the fear of being sued because one chose without and cut their fingers off. Lawsuits like the one above should never have seen the light in a courtroom, period. In this case, since it did, the jury SHOULD have been of his peers, WOODWORKERS. Woodworkers who would have had no pity on him for doing something so stupid.

Steve Griffin

10-09-2011, 8:04 AM

I want to buy a car without airbags and seatbelts! It's none of the government's job to say how safe my car ought to be! The technology is out there for people who want it.

(see how silly that sounds?)

What sounds silly to me is comparing expensive sawstop technology to seatbelts.

I can think of hundreds of 1000 dollar safety features a car COULD have, like finger detection at each door to prevent smashed fingers. Did you know according to a report released by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, nearly 150,000 people in the U.S. are injured every year by closing car doors. Car door stop technology is the only answer, all other answers are silly.

Henry Ambrose

10-09-2011, 10:11 AM

If a blade braking system shows itself to have real benefit it will find its place in the market, no help from government needed.
We don't need anymore nanny state regulations. Government "picking the winner" by providing regulation or law favoring one manufacturer or "technology holder" over others is corrosive and corrupting. Before too long the competition of the marketplace is replaced with the competition to hire the best lobbyist.

Leo Graywacz

10-09-2011, 11:06 AM

I want to buy a car without airbags and seatbelts! It's none of the government's job to say how safe my car ought to be! The technology is out there for people who want it.

(see how silly that sounds?)

Doesn't sound silly at all. Back in the day when we didn't have then there were still accidents. But those accidents had benefits (believe it or not). When someone has a fatal car accident someone else, or possible several people will now survive. They were the people getting to organs that were harvested from the unfortunate accident victims. Now the hospitals are always scrounging for organs to transplant.

This was not mandated by the gov, it was mandated by the insurance lobbyists.

My mother still won't use a seatbelt. I don't know why, but she won't. She has still survived even though the gov put her off as a person with a death wish.

We have been making laws for over 230 years now. Don't you think we have enough?

David Kumm

10-09-2011, 11:31 AM

I'm not sure it is fair to use babies to justify every regulation in the history of the world. Each must stand on its own. Some are needed, some are not. The mandate might help employers and schools to have a choice. Great old saws are thrown out and replaced with SS. At least some real production machines might be an option. It will be interesting to see if the job site saws get disabled and who will be liable then. At least until they quit putting staples in every 2x4 made. Dave

Greg Peterson

10-09-2011, 12:17 PM

In a recent report on NPR (http://www.npr.org/2011/09/23/140708285/regulators-consider-safety-brakes-for-table-saws), it was stated that many table saw manufacturers claimed the cost of adding the brake would cost between $100-$200. My hunch is this figure is probably somewhat inflated and that the scale of economy will eventually lower this expense.

I'm sure that anyone with an aversion to the technology, for what ever reason, likely has all ten digits. It is an antiquated, even quaint, notion that table saws are inherently dangerous. And how many that have posted here in opposition to SS already have a TS with no plans on upgrading?

During a trip the emergency room earlier this year to stitch up the aftermath of a utility knife gone wild, the doctor sewing me up was telling me about the disproportionate number of retired men he sees with table saw injuries. He did not go into extreme detail but did mention the wounds are gruesome messes. Lots of torn, mangled flesh and bone. Pretty nasty injury. I bet many of these patients would not choose to spend their golden years rehabbing from a TS accident.

There are millions of table saws in garages and shops that don't have a splitter or blade guard. Any hobbyist should have little problem buying a TS without the latest safety technology.

Leo Graywacz

10-09-2011, 12:33 PM

Yep, pretty sure the SS would prevent these injuries. They would look at the price of the saw and say I can't afford that and find a different hobby :rolleyes:

mreza Salav

10-09-2011, 1:07 PM

Yep, pretty sure the SS would prevent these injuries. They would look at the price of the saw and say I can't afford that and find a different hobby :rolleyes:

That might be a good thing depending on how you look at it; there are many people who shouldn't be using some tools (lack of proper training).

Howard Acheson

10-09-2011, 1:15 PM

>>>> How about slapping that hot dog down on the spinning blade at the speed of a slipping hand and see what happens?

That was done years ago. The hot dog was affixed to the end of a stick and couple of feet long as I recall. The dog was slammed into the spinning blade. A surgeon assessed the wound to require a couple of stitches to close with no damage to tendons or bones.

I believe the write up on this is on the SawStop web site.

Howard Acheson

10-09-2011, 1:24 PM

>>>> the cost of adding sawstop technology to jobsite saws is estimated at $55 (we'll believe it when we see it, but it's not $1,000

That has always been a point of contention. I believe that the cost of the components of the SawStop technology may be $55 but SawStop claims that you can't just install the components on an existing saw. The saw must be designed for it. The forces required to stop and lower the blade would damage saws not engineered to withstand those forces. The $1,000 could be the costs associated with the design or re-design of a saw.

Leo Graywacz

10-09-2011, 1:44 PM

All you are talking about is the brake cartridge. There and many mechanical aspects to the SS machine that normal machines just don't have. How do you suspect my Unisaw will lower itself in the split second that the SS does? It is not capable of doing that, it is locked into the gear system and nothing you do will let it drop that fast. The SS has an override mechanism that performs that action. And as to field saws, the same thing. They are not designed to operate in this fashion.

Bill Maietta

10-09-2011, 2:12 PM

That $55 figure was not about retrofit. It was an estimate for adding flesh sensing to future job site saws designs. It's from the FWW email exchange with Sawstop's Stephen Gass. I'm still not sold it could be that cheap. Who knows? Innovation is a beautiful thing. Speaking of which, what will table saws look like in 50 years? In 100? 500? How safe will they be then? Is it possible that increasing safety could be the best thing for the long term health of machine makers? Remember that this CPSC process is as much a business endeavor as it is government bureaucracy. We always want to pit the two against each other. I blame 24-hour news networks for that. The reality is, not much difference between the two. Often same people changing hats and seats over time. Government working with business to rework regs to promote innovation?? Crazy.

Neil Brooks

10-09-2011, 3:02 PM

A few months ago, I dragged out my tired old "I want a cabinet sawwwwwww" song and dance -- same one I've been doing, on and off, for a few years.

My brother is a woodworker, and -- for years -- was the rep for MagSwitch. Industry insider. He's also ... ahem ... verrrrrry politically conservative.

I asked him ... "So ... if you were going to plop down the money for a 'buy once, cry once' cabinet saw, what would YOU buy ??"

He scratched his head ... hemmed and hawed ... and said ... "I guess I'd have to buy the SawStop, because of that darned braking technology." You could tell ... it killed him to say that :)

I've said it many times before: I ride a motorcycle, but with ATGATT (All The Gear, All The Time), and a bicycle (with a helmet). I wear my seat belts, and have air bags. I'll buy me some insurance, if/when the price is right.

I have my issues with Gass's approach, and my suspicions that they could -- in the end -- backfire on him, if only in part.

But ... guess what's sitting in crates and boxes ... in my garage ... until we finally move ? Give you a hint: it's 220V, 1ph, 5HP, and ... rhymes with JawSlop :)

And I get giddy when I peek out at it. Current shop is in the basement, though. No 220V, and NO desire to get 700lbs down AND up, in a span of a half year ;) It's much more fun to just sit, and listen to the gentle sounds of the saw depreciating, but ... I don't care ... since I ain't never gonna' sell it :D

Greg Peterson

10-09-2011, 3:17 PM

Yep, pretty sure the SS would prevent these injuries. They would look at the price of the saw and say I can't afford that and find a different hobby :rolleyes:

I say that now about any professional grade cabinet saw.

If I had a choice between a modern table saw with or without a SS braking system, a 5%-8% difference is not a deal breaker. I would absolutely choose the safer of the two. $200 wouldn't even cover the deductible for the emergency room visit.

If there is a technology that reduces serious injuries, frees up medical resources and decreases medical expenses to all, I think there is an obligation by industry to implement that technology.

Delta can put all the bells and whistles on their Unisaw, but failing to implement a braking technology on their latest product indicates what they think of their customers.

Stephen Cherry

10-09-2011, 3:31 PM

My brother is a woodworker, and -- for years -- was the rep for MagSwitch. Industry insider. He's also ... ahem ... verrrrrry politically conservative.

I asked him ... "So ... if you were going to plop down the money for a 'buy once, cry once' cabinet saw, what would YOU buy ??"

He scratched his head ... hemmed and hawed ... and said ... "I guess I'd have to buy the SawStop, because of that darned braking technology." You could tell ... it killed him to say that :)

Neil, I think you are missing the point- your brother is talking about his own personal choice, not the choice made by a beurocrat who may have gotten a call from a representative, who was "influenced" (remember the 50 K dollars) by a lobiest because a manufacturer of a product did not want to compete in a free market.

Your brother was taking about choice for his needs, but how about someone who works mostly on pressure treated wood? Or the person who dosen't really differentiate the dryness of wood. Don't these saws fire off on pressure treated? I know one thing for sure, if this technology is mandated, and then sold at a "satisfaction gauranteed" store, the returns are going to be astronomical, and may even sink a few ships.

All with good intentions, plus a little non-competative greed. Remember greed? The thing to remember about greed is that greed is good when both parties of an exchange enter at their own free will. Buyer and seller are both winners. Anything else could be characterized by theft.

All I can say is that if this technology was so great, it wouldn't need to be crammed down anyones throat.

Greg Peterson

10-09-2011, 3:46 PM

...how about someone who works mostly on pressure treated wood? Or the person who dosen't really differentiate the dryness of wood. Don't these saws fire off on pressure treated? I know one thing for sure, if this technology is mandated, and then sold at a "satisfaction gauranteed" store, the returns are going to be astronomical, and may even sink a few ships.

All with good intentions, plus a little non-competative greed. Remember greed? The thing to remember about greed is that greed is good when both parties of an exchange enter at their own free will. Buyer and seller are both winners. Anything else could be characterized by theft.

All I can say is that if this technology was so great, it wouldn't need to be crammed down anyones throat.

The brake can be disabled by the user.

There are some very good legal reasons why the technology is not available. Ryobi learned the hard way that they needed a better reason for not installing the technology than they gave in court. The technology is proven but the manufacturers likely don't want to pay the licensing fee. And then there is the matter of whether they have a legal obligation to make it standard equipment on all their models.

Perhaps you would be willing to sign a waiver on your health insurance so that any table saw accident you experience will not be covered by your policy?

The 'free market' has as much in common with a fair market as the justice system has with the legal system. Why not at least let the 'free market' operate in the way it always has and deliver a consumer friendly technology?

Stephen Cherry

10-09-2011, 5:26 PM

The brake can be disabled by the user.

Perhaps you would be willing to sign a waiver on your health insurance so that any table saw accident you experience will not be covered by your policy?

The 'free market' has as much in common with a fair market as the justice system has with the legal system. Why not at least let the 'free market' operate in the way it always has and deliver a consumer friendly technology?

This is my point:

1. if the thing worked, it would not need to be disabled. When it is disabled, who would be responsible for the users safety?
2. My health insurance is between me and my insurer, and really not for you to tell me what waiver to sign (nothing personal, just making a point) Plus my table saw is worlds better than any sawstop. With a format style saw your hand is nowhere near the blade, and you have a good overarm guard, good workholding, and a real riving knife, and dust collection that is something more than an afterthought. But sawstop is paying the lobyist, so that is what will be crammed.
3. The free market is actually working, there are contractor saws, cabinet saws, the sawstop, and the eurosliders. Something for everyone. So what you (nothing personal) consider safe is already here. What this thinking will end up doing is making a contractor who works in wet wood buy technology that he does not want or need. It is not economically efficient. And if it is any value to you, it erodes your personal freedom and replaces it with an arbitrary decision of a beurocrat to benifit a company that desired not to compete in the marketplace.

Basically, there are two types of people in the world,
1. those who want to make their own decisions, and respect others to make decisions for themselves; and
2. those who want someone else to decide for everyone

Greg Peterson

10-09-2011, 6:12 PM

if the thing worked, it would not need to be disabled. When it is disabled, who would be responsible for the users safety?

I guess your definition is 'works' is an absolute without variance. I'll settle for the unit working with low moisture wood. As for who is responsible for users safety when the unit is disabled, that is an interesting question. I would assume that the user is responsible. SawStop can not be held responsible for accidents where the unit was disabled. There are simply situations that are beyond the present technology of SS to address.

Basically, there are two types of people in the world,
1. those who want to make their own decisions, and respect others to make decisions for themselves; and
2. those who want someone else to decide for everyone

I think this is a pretty broad brush you are using. But I will agree there is a very vocal minority that embrace a hierarchy and authoritarianism.

Mike Henderson

10-09-2011, 6:14 PM

This is my point:

1. if the thing worked, it would not need to be disabled. When it is disabled, who would be responsible for the users safety?
2. My health insurance is between me and my insurer, and really not for you to tell me what waiver to sign (nothing personal, just making a point) Plus my table saw is worlds better than any sawstop. With a format style saw your hand is nowhere near the blade, and you have a good overarm guard, good workholding, and a real riving knife, and dust collection that is something more than an afterthought. But sawstop is paying the lobyist, so that is what will be crammed.
3. The free market is actually working, there are contractor saws, cabinet saws, the sawstop, and the eurosliders. Something for everyone. So what you (nothing personal) consider safe is already here. What this thinking will end up doing is making a contractor who works in wet wood buy technology that he does not want or need. It is not economically efficient. And if it is any value to you, it erodes your personal freedom and replaces it with an arbitrary decision of a beurocrat to benifit a company that desired not to compete in the marketplace.

Basically, there are two types of people in the world,
1. those who want to make their own decisions, and respect others to make decisions for themselves; and
2. those who want someone else to decide for everyone
Remember that the ANPR does not specify the SawStop technology. What companies implement will be up to them so any arguments about the advantages and disadvantages of the SawStop technology are not germane to this discussion.

Plus, there is a third type of person - a person who wants to minimize the overall cost to society.

Mike

Neil Brooks

10-09-2011, 6:19 PM

Neil, I think you are missing the point-

Not really, Stephen.

More like ... ignoring the most hacked-away-at topic in woodworking: the politics of SawStop.

Besides ... I figured I'd try to create at least one post that the moderators could leave behind, after they purge this thread of all the political (against the Terms of Use, for SMC) stuff ;)

Kent A Bathurst

10-09-2011, 6:30 PM

That might be a good thing depending on how you look at it; there are many people who shouldn't be using some tools (lack of proper training).

Fair enough. So then, who gets to cull the herd on what technology each person is allowed to buy?

John Coloccia

10-09-2011, 6:35 PM

Part of the problem is Gass politicized the issue by seeking legal and regulatory remedy to his vision of the world. I have a SS but it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. How do you separate the issues when they've become so intimately intertwined. I'll say this. My SS contractor saw is far and away the best contractor saw I've ever had the pleasure of using. The saws themselves are world class, and it's a shame that they couldn't just leave well enough alone.

Dan Friedrichs

10-09-2011, 6:45 PM

2. My health insurance is between me and my insurer, and really not for you to tell me what waiver to sign (nothing personal, just making a point)

If you believe that to be true, you have a very specious grasp of how insurance works. If you and I are policyholders of the same company, your risk-taking directly translates into my premiums.

Kevin W Johnson

10-09-2011, 7:25 PM

Just as your risk taking affects his. Yet he can't tell you not to smoke, or what car you have to drive based on crash ratings, or what food you can or cannot eat either.

Kevin W Johnson

10-09-2011, 7:38 PM

As for who is responsible for users safety when the unit is disabled, that is an interesting question. I would assume that the user is responsible. SawStop can not be held responsible for accidents where the unit was disabled. There are simply situations that are beyond the present technology of SS to address.

I can tell you who's gonna lose that lawsuit, the manufacturer. The guy in this case buys or uses a table saw bought knowing that it didnt possess a "flesh detecting device", the fool not only doesn't use the guard, but doesn't even use the fence while attempting to rip a board, injures himself, and wins a lawsuit.

NO ONE should be allowed to even file such a lawsuit when they could have bought a saw with such a feature or device and didn't. Period.

The manufacturer will once again be under the gun when someone injures themselve in bypass mode. The arguement will be that it should have been designed as such as to not have to bypass it.....or one of a thousand other excuses why its someone else's fault that someone hurt themselves.

Will Rowland

10-09-2011, 7:46 PM

Since the Ryobi decision was not overturned, the horse may be out of the gate on similar lawsuits. As such, we may see the companies who provide liability insurance begin to increase the premiums demanded of the major tool manufacturers who produce table saws without "flesh-sensing" technology. That alone may drive mass adoption of such technology.

The cost to society of table saw injuries is another matter. I would imagine that the majority of those injured in table saw accidents lack sufficient insurance, which means that us taxpayers eventually foot the bill for their carelessness. In that case, while I am no fan of government interference in private enterprise, levying a tax on table-saws sold without SawStop-ish technology could also drive the industry to adopt the technology. Or, have the government seize control of the patent from Gass - with some compensation - and make the technology part of the public domain.

Jerome Hanby

10-09-2011, 8:09 PM

Basically, there are two types of people in the world,
1. those who want to make their own decisions, and respect others to make decisions for themselves; and
2. those who want someone else to decide for everyone

Actually there are 10 types of people in the world; those that understand binary and those that don't.

Seth Dolcourt

10-09-2011, 8:26 PM

So, while this thread continues to steam and boil, I have sent a message to Commissioner David Adler. For anyone who believes "The Government" is a monolithic, faceless entity, with a little effort, I have discovered they are surprisingly reachable. Here is the contact page I found on the CPSC's website.

http://www.cpsc.gov/about/contact.html#co
(http://www.cpsc.gov/about/contact.html#co)
I have done my part, communicating my desires to said faceless and non-responsive government agency. The text of my message to Commissioner Adler follows:

Dear Consumer Product Safety Commission,

Re: Commissioner David Adler's Oct 5 2011 message related to the CPSC's deliberation of mandating performance standards for table saws.

The safety standards effected in June 2011 to mandate the elimination of drop-gate baby cribs is a strong and positive example of using government process to bring needed change to a version of a product that has brought documented injury and death to its intended users. Automobile manufactures (whether by tort, pressure from insurance carriers, or government regulation) have overcome their industry's deeply ingrained aversion to safety engineering by offering a multitude of innovations, such as crumple zones, retractable seat belts, air bags, anti lock braking, collision detection, etc. Today's automobile buyer has been well trained in assessing what a safe automobile should be, and would summarily reject purchasing a new car that could not meet the upgraded level of safety.

I disagree with the premise that tool manufacturers - with only a kind word spoken - will voluntarily incorporate additional safety measures into their product, as no major manufacturer has brought a similarly equipped table saw to market since the introduction of the Saw Stop brand table saw as a viable, widely available product. The absence of "me, too" products could be perceived as a collusion by major manufacturers to discourage the idea that the table saw - as produced in its current form factor for many decades - is inherently unsafe.

Creating a safety performance standard for woodworking tooling is long past due. On any woodworking forum, one can stumble upon posts created by forum members describing table saw accidents that range from just a scare (and a request by the poster for everyone to think about safety) up to members who have had fingers deeply injured or amputated by the table saw blade. In many cases, the poster talks about root cause of the accident as fatigue, inattention, the wood behaving in unexpected ways, etc, which are conditions clearly not within the preview of the tool's maker.

Manufacturers might point to the availability of wood working books, magazines, TV and web shows, forums, etc as educators of safe set up and general use of woodworking tools. But that does not speak to the responsibility of the manufacturer to incorporate new and effective safety measures commensurate with science and technology that is available to us now, as has automobile manufacturers. Table saw manufacturers might prefer to suggest that what ain't broke, ain't need to be fixed, which is the attitude similar to automobile manufacturers of yester-year.

Please endeavor to produce a safety standard that requires manufactures to provide additional layers of safety using advanced technology. Though the CPSC will not desire to build the standard specifically around the Saw Stop detection and brake technology, it is clear from its time in the marketplace that the Saw Stop does afford a significant example of what a high technology safety layer can achieve.

Of note, the Saw Stop provides a pre-operation test to the saw's user, where a user can determine if the detection technology would respond with activation to a cutting situation, e.g. wet wood. Saw Stop also provides a per-operation override of the detection and brake technology prior to the start of the saw, which resets to a protected condition when the saw is powered off after the unprotected cut. The CPSC should carefully consider what exemptions a manufacturer can develop for their high tech safety layer.

The typical US hobbyist wood worker strongly desires operational versatility with a table saw, due mostly to the expense of a quality tool and the relatively limited space of a residential shop environment. Ripping and cross cutting operations are easily protected with a blade guard, anti-kick back pawls, riving knife and advanced technology, but operations which require the removal of most of the safety equipment (e.g. dadoing, coving, use of a specialized jig) will pose a significant challenge to the safety performance standard. The CPSC should carefully consider the kinds of cutting operations which fall under the high technology safety layer, and provide manufacturers a clearly defined boundary, which can be communicated to the potential user of the saw.

Submitted with respect,

Seth Dolcourt.

Dan Friedrichs

10-09-2011, 8:58 PM

Just as your risk taking affects his. Yet he can't tell you not to smoke, or what car you have to drive based on crash ratings, or what food you can or cannot eat either.

Actually, he can (to an extent). I cannot buy a car without seatbelts, and even if I could, I could not legally drive it that way - solely because our society has decided that the collective dangers of not mandating seatbelts is more onerous than the government imposing its will by forcing us to wear them. We do this all the time - tablesaws are no special case.

Leo Graywacz

10-09-2011, 9:03 PM

The insurance companies decided that for the government and lobbied hard for it until it happened.

Kevin W Johnson

10-09-2011, 9:18 PM

Actually, he can (to an extent). I cannot buy a car without seatbelts, and even if I could, I could not legally drive it that way - solely because our society has decided that the collective dangers of not mandating seatbelts is more onerous than the government imposing its will by forcing us to wear them. We do this all the time - tablesaws are no special case.

I said nothing about seatbelts. I said crash ratings..... you know how the IIHS gives ratings to vehicles that are based on occupant safety and injuries likely to be sustained in the event of a crash.... as do other agencies.

Kevin Groenke

10-09-2011, 9:50 PM

As a signator of the original petition to the CPSC, I applaud their consideration of this matter. The "flesh-sensing technology" incorporated into the SawStop is the first significant advance in tablesaw safety in years. Considering the societal costs of injuries caused by said machines and the failure over time of most manufacturers to develop safer equipment, I feel it is reasonable for performance standards to be developed/applied.

If PTI members don't want to license SS's technology, they are free to develop other ways to solve the problem. I have heard rumors of "non-destructive blade stopping systems" under development. Some aspects of these designs may meet the USPTO's requirements for patent-ability (http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/appxl_35_U_S_C_102.htm)... if they do, are the developers of such systems likely to surrender the patent rights as some critics suggest Gass should do with his "flesh sensing technology"?

The stimulation of innovation is one of the keystones of the patent system. The guaranteed protection of unique intellectual property acts as a strong incentive to generate/improve technologies. If Mr. Gass had not had that protection, do you think he would have invested years of R&D and raised millions of dollars to develop the system and bring it to market...only to have it stolen by the manufacturers who made and sold millions of saws over the years that would amputate a finger/hand without so much as dimming the lights?

As (presumably) avid woodworkers, I think many frequent participants in this discussion (SMC, FWW, etc) sometimes fail to consider that numerous, perhaps a majority of, users of potentially injurious equipment are woefully uneducated in the safe and effective use of readily available and inexpensive power tools. It is those masses who the CPSC is charged with protecting (http://www.cpsc.gov/about/about.html). Sure saws come with instructions and guards, but we all know how many of those really get read/used. Surf a little you-tube or watch a bit of HGTV and you will undoubtedly see folks using tablesaws in fundamentally unsafe manners: often people presented to the public as authorities on the subject who one would expect would follow commonly accepted safe operating procedures.

Plus my table saw is worlds better than any sawstop. With a format style saw your hand is nowhere near the blade, and you have a good overarm guard, good workholding, and a real riving knife.

While sliding tablesaws have their place, they are not a panacea and do not address many common tablesaw operations that can be problematic. Can a sliding saw be easily transported to a construction site? Is a sliding saw economically or spatially available to hobbyists and other non-professional woodworkers?

Another potentially promising development, the Whirlwind system may work for some, but it is CANNOT protect a saw user when it's most important (when a operation requires one to work close to an unguarded blade)

(have a look at the techniques for making box pulls/components in the latest FWW...I wouldn't want any of our students employing many of those techniques on a saw without SawStop: if these techniques could be done on a sliding saw it wouldn't be inherently safer than on a conventional saw, they would be impossible with the Whirlwind).

Since the SawStop is basically a passive system, it is protecting the operator whether they know it or not. In our academic shop, narrow rips and other cuts in small stock are a routine operation. While we've developed techniques and jigs to handle small stock safely, having the SawStop there in the event of a primary system failure is very reassuring.

Like it or not, we live in a civilized society and one role of collective governance is the protection of the innocent and the ignorant.

-kg

Roger Feeley

10-09-2011, 9:56 PM

There's also the chance that the economy of scale will force the cost of the technology down. There is a market for $99 table saws that won't disappear. SawStop appears to make a really nice saw with an innovative safety feature. They're the first but it doesn't mean they have the best solution.

I love old machines, but if I had the cash I would probably get an SS machine.

I think the notion of there being some other effective flesh detection out there may be wishful thinking. Steven Gass is a trained physicist and a patent attorney. I've read that he wrote a heck of a patent.

Steve Griffin

10-09-2011, 10:07 PM

Well said Seth. I sure hope those reading the letter don't notice that the examples of safety regulation you give are to prevent death. I also hope those reading the letter are fooled into thinking a table saw is "inherently dangerous". It's not of course, as millions of users successful have used it for a lifetime without injury.

But why stop at table saws? I demand expensive flesh detecting technology for all power tools such as drill presses and chop saws. It's almost certain that once our heavy handed laws are put in place, those running businesses will be forced to replace existing machinery for legal and insurance reasons. This will help keep the public even safer, as there will be less people woodworking. Eventually, we may succeed in banning woodworking altogether, so no one can get hurt.

Roger Feeley

10-09-2011, 10:08 PM

I don't know where this $1000 per saw cost of SS technology is coming from. The estimates I read are around $400 currently. I'm told that that number could go to around $100 with economies of scale so the $100 saw will be $200.

that said, the numbers are for someone better than me to analyze. According to the CPSC, we as a nation spend about $2 billion per year on table saw injuries. We sell about 750,000 new saws per year. There are something like 8 million saws out there. I don't know how they will figure up the risk/reward.

jim mills

10-09-2011, 10:33 PM

But why stop at table saws? I demand expensive flesh detecting technology for all power tools such as drill presses and chop saws. It's almost certain that once our heavy handed laws are put in place, those running businesses will be forced to replace existing machinery for legal and insurance reasons. This will help keep the public even safer, as there will be less people woodworking. Eventually, we may succeed in banning woodworking altogether, so no one can get hurt.

Kinda reminds me of my Dads description of his tenure with the FAA: "When I went to work for the FAA in 1965, there were four employees in the GADO and four hundred private aircraft on the ramp. When I retired, there were four airplanes on the ramp and four hundred employees in the office."

Stephen Cherry

10-09-2011, 10:49 PM

While sliding tablesaws have their place, they are not a panacea and do not address many common tablesaw operations that can be problematic. Can a sliding saw be easily transported to a construction site? Is a sliding saw economically or spatially available to hobbyists and other non-professional woodworkers?

Another potentially promising development, the Whirlwind system may work for some, but it is CANNOT protect a saw user when it's most important (when a operation requires one to work close to an unguarded blade)

(have a look at the techniques for making box pulls/components in the latest FWW...I wouldn't want any of our students employing many of those techniques on a saw without SawStop: if these techniques could be done on a sliding saw it wouldn't be inherently safer than on a conventional saw, they would be impossible with the Whirlwind).

Since the SawStop is basically a passive system, it is protecting the operator whether they know it or not. In our academic shop, narrow rips and other cuts in small stock are a routine operation. While we've developed techniques and jigs to handle small stock safely, having the SawStop there in the event of a primary system failure is very reassuring.

Like it or not, we live in a civilized society and one role of collective governance is the protection of the innocent and the ignorant.

-kg

Actually, I have two sliding table saws, one felder, and another inca, which is about as small and light as a table saw gets. It's a great, very pricise saw, with a sliding table that works about as well as the felder within it's size constraints. THere is also good blade protection, and saw operations are performed with your hands well away from the blade, safely pushing the table. In wet wood situations, which I am assuming are a reasonable percentage of the use of a contractor saw, the sawstop would provide no benifit to the user, and add cost and complexity to their saw. One thing to remember about the sawstop is that it adopts the archaic topology of the cabinet saw-- an operators hands are around the blade in normal operations. THis is in contrast to the sliding saws where for most users, the right hand is pushing the table, and the blade is covered in a way that the wood just fits under the gaurd. It would take real effort to cut your hand.

Also, It is important not to understate the inadequate dust collection of the cabinet saws, including sawstop. This is a consequence of the archaic design.

As for working close to an unguarded blade, you can not regulate away stupidity. I've done it, as have most people, but I do not do it. As far as operations that require that the gaurd be removed, most of these are addressed by a arm mounted gaurd, and other operations, such as tenoning, are best performed with a vertical spindle tool- router table or shaper, with appropriate protection.

Actually, the more I think about it, the more I consider that the sawstop is a bandaid to extend the life of the cabinet saw. The problem with the cabinet saw being that in normal operation, an operators hands are in the same area as the blade. What I would really fear is that regulations would be set in place that would further extend the life of this obsolete arrangement.

This video is very relevant to this discussion:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3535456672331412636&q=Milton+Friedman+Free+to+choose+duration%3Along&total=16&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=6#

Kevin W Johnson

10-09-2011, 10:54 PM

I personally don't see the problem with table saws that you guys who support this move do.

Using the number of estimated table saws, 6-10 million, lets use 8 million since its in the middle, and the average of 31,500 accidents from an article in the Science Daily in Jan 2010. If all these saws were only powered on ONCE PER YEAR, you would stand less than a .394% chance of sustaining an injury each year. Given that millions and millions of cuts are made on table saws each year, the chance of an injury is nearly imeasurable.

Again, having the opportunity to trip a saw stop at a demo, i think its a good safety device. However, i don't think mandating it (or comparable devices) on table saws is worth the havoc that it will create in the power tool industry. It will not stop with table saws. There is no way to make power tools 100% safe for people that will not read the manual, will not follow safe use practices, and will not use those tools properly and for their intended uses.

By the way, the $2 billion figure on injury costs, is merely the high cost estimate, as no real study has ever been performed. So, its nothing more than a guess.

Seth Dolcourt

10-09-2011, 11:02 PM

Well said Seth. I sure hope those reading the letter don't notice that the examples of safety regulation you give are to prevent death.

Or mitigate injury, as not every automobile or crib accident results in death to the unwilling participant.

I also hope those reading the letter are fooled into thinking a table saw is "inherently dangerous". It's not of course, as millions of users successful have used it for a lifetime without injury.

I err on the side that any one who reads my words is smarter than me, permitting his or her reply to confirm any suspicions to the contrary.

But why stop at table saws? I demand expensive flesh detecting technology for all power tools such as drill presses and chop saws.

Absolutely. The continued proliferation of detection technology will drive the price downward, making its addition to a tool an incremental cost. Even hot melt glue guns will have detection technology. Scrap bookers: you're welcome.

It's almost certain that once our heavy handed laws are put in place, those running businesses will be forced to replace existing machinery for legal and insurance reasons. This will help keep the public even safer, as there will be less people woodworking. Eventually, we may succeed in banning woodworking altogether, so no one can get hurt.

No doubt there soon be nefarious organizations, perhaps the North Bennett Street Gang, who control the flow of illegal wood via the Canadian border into US cities, and woodworkers will have to know where the "shop-easies" are located so they can make sawdust in secret. It hurts me to know that respected Norm Abram will become a tree boss, but in tough times, there are opportunities available to those who dare.

Greg Peterson

10-10-2011, 12:22 AM

I can tell you who's gonna lose that lawsuit, the manufacturer. The guy in this case buys or uses a table saw bought knowing that it didnt possess a "flesh detecting device", the fool not only doesn't use the guard, but doesn't even use the fence while attempting to rip a board, injures himself, and wins a lawsuit.

A bit presumptuous. I think you are channeling the Ryobi case, including the over simplification of the case.

Kevin W Johnson

10-10-2011, 12:50 AM

A bit presumptuous. I think you are channeling the Ryobi case, including the over simplification of the case.

Well, you have that freedom to think so, just as i have the freedom to buy a table saw with or without "flesh detecting technology", well at least till some bureaucratic agency sticks it's nose into our lives once again.

Glen Butler

10-10-2011, 6:00 AM

This whole thing is ridiculous. The guy knowingly used a saw without flesh sensing technology. Saw's with flesh sensing are available, so he assumed the risk. If the Ryobi had such techology it would surely cost more.

While performing some subcontracting work it was unforseen that I would need a table saw. The guy who hired me had a Ryobi. I turned it on, then turned it right back off and walked away, fearing for my safety. With this lawsuit, if the saw failed in some way during use thereby injuring the guy then reconciliation is obvious, but to say that Ryobi should have the same features as SS is moronic. Just go buy a SS.

I think its a bunch of shenanigans. Of course Steve Gass supports the decision; flesh sensing is his baby, and he probably has enough patents in place to make out handsomely from the verdict.

I am upset with the courts for giving such lawsuits credence. People shouldn't be using their idiocy as a get rich quick scheme.

Brian D Anderson

10-10-2011, 8:18 AM

I think the notion of there being some other effective flesh detection out there may be wishful thinking. Steven Gass is a trained physicist and a patent attorney. I've read that he wrote a heck of a patent.

Uhhh . . . http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=7UfTAAAAEBAJ&dq=table+saw

I told you all about this a long time ago. My best friend worked for a small design firm in California that got contracted by the PTI to develop their own blade stopping system. It's out there . . . the other manufacturers have a base design. They'll be ready should they need to implement a technology. It won't be SawStop's. I love how people assume that because Steve was a patent attorney, he must have had everything covered. There are always loopholes, and usually pre-existing patents using similar technology.

-Brian

Henry Ambrose

10-10-2011, 9:18 AM

snipped a bunch.....

Like it or not, we live in a civilized society and one role of collective governance is the protection of the innocent and the ignorant.

-kg

You're crossing a line there. Persons lacking full capacity to care for themselves may well need to be protected by someone else, perhaps even government. Otherwise, how about we let grown-ups be grown-ups? The last thing we need now is more government intervention in our lives. To up and claim that a very mature design (the table saw) has suddenly become 'dangerous' and that it must be regulated because of the negligence of some operators is simply bizarre.

Anyone for a 'safety knife' - blunt and smooth on all edges and rounded point? And surely axes must be outlawed entirely!

Greg Peterson

10-10-2011, 10:01 AM

Glen - The legal under pinnings of the Ryobi case have been grossly over simplified. The employee cut his fingers on the employers table saw. The employers Worker's comp insurance company hired the plaintiffs legal team and joined the claim as a third party. Ryobi signed a license agreement with Gass in 2002, however, Ryobi's representative were unable to explain or offer a reasonable explanation as to why they failed to implement the braking technology.

The insurance companies are a major force behind this. With current technology, 3,500 amputations a year represents a preventable loss.

You're crossing a line there. Persons lacking full capacity to care for themselves may well need to be protected by someone else, perhaps even government. Otherwise, how about we let grown-ups be grown-ups? The last thing we need now is more government intervention in our lives. To up and claim that a very mature design (the table saw) has suddenly become 'dangerous' and that it must be regulated because of the negligence of some operators is simply bizarre.

Anyone for a 'safety knife' - blunt and smooth on all edges and rounded point? And surely axes must be outlawed entirely!

The table saw is not a mature design, it's an old design. Their is no good reason why the table saw should be considered an inherently dangerous tool.

Ben Hatcher

10-10-2011, 11:43 AM

Peter Aeschliman

10-10-2011, 12:11 PM

There is nothing in the proposed rules that forces you to buy a saw that meets the proposed safety standards. If you don't want a safer saw, you are free to purchase any of the 8 million existing table saws. The rules apply to the manufacturers who want to sell new saws in the US. Is it really that bad to ask that products be made reasonably safe? It certainly seems more efficient to do that than to expect 300 million people to be informed of all of the safer options for every product they buy.

I own a sawstop and love it. I'm a believer in the technology and chose to "vote" for it via my purchase decision. I don't think the argument here is about whether manufacturers should make safer table saws. I think the question is whether the government should require it, or whether consumers should have the choice.

In my (admittedly idealistic) world, people are generally intelligent. There are plenty of edge cases of idiots, sure. There are also lots of cases where intelligent people make dumb mistakes... and it's human nature to dwell on those outliers and blow them out of proportion. But on average, human beings are intelligent and are inherently motivated by self-preservation. As such, if intelligent human beings begin to purchase flesh-sensing table saws at a high rate, the government doesn't need to change the industry... because the consumers change the industry. Competing manufacturers will be forced to come up with their own version of a "safer" tablesaw, or they will die.

If any regulation should be passed, it should be that all people who purchase table saws should be required to take a certified safety course. Retailers should only be able to sell a TS to a consumer who has a certificate demonstrating they completed the course. It's not much different than requiring new drivers to take driving courses and tests. This obviously doesn't cover people who buy a second hand table saw, but I think in general, some of that safety training would be passed down and around.

It's true that people who injure themselves on table saws drive medical insurance costs up for all of us. So I do believe that something should be done by regulators. I just don't think this is it.

Mike Henderson

10-10-2011, 12:16 PM

You're crossing a line there. Persons lacking full capacity to care for themselves may well need to be protected by someone else, perhaps even government. Otherwise, how about we let grown-ups be grown-ups? The last thing we need now is more government intervention in our lives. To up and claim that a very mature design (the table saw) has suddenly become 'dangerous' and that it must be regulated because of the negligence of some operators is simply bizarre.

Anyone for a 'safety knife' - blunt and smooth on all edges and rounded point? And surely axes must be outlawed entirely!
Actually, the table saw has been legally classified as "inherently dangerous" for many years. That doctrine has prevented people from suing the manufacturers because, since the saw is classified as "inherently dangerous", the law assumed that the user accepted the dangers when s/he used the saw. That's one reason why the saw manufacturers did not want to add safety equipment to the saws - because they could lose the "inherently dangerous" classification and could become liable for injuries.

Since the invention of the SS safety feature, it appears that juries are no longer accepting the "inherently dangerous" doctrine since it is possible for saw manufacturers to build saws that are not "inherently dangerous".

That doctrine has been a disincentive for companies to add any safety devices to table saws.

Mike

Mike Henderson

10-10-2011, 12:24 PM

If any regulation should be passed, it should be that all people who purchase table saws should be required to take a certified safety course. Retailers should only be able to sell a TS to a consumer who has a certificate demonstrating they completed the course. It's not much different than requiring new drivers to take driving courses and tests. This obviously doesn't cover people who buy a second hand table saw, but I think in general, some of that safety training would be passed down and around.

It's true that people who injure themselves on table saws drive medical insurance costs up for all of us. So I do believe that something should be done by regulators. I just don't think this is it.
Training will help but lots of people who have received training get injured. The justification for adding additional safety features to a product is economic - will the cost of the safety device be significantly less than the cost of the harm without it. The cost is the societal cost, not the individual's cost. So the CPSC looks at the overall cost of injuries and the overall cost of the safety device and estimates how much the safety device will reduce the overall cost of injuries. It the balance is strongly to the side of the safety device (the overall cost of the safety device, on all products sold, is significantly less than the reduction in cost of injuries) the device is likely to get approved (and required).

Leo Graywacz

10-10-2011, 12:29 PM

One of the main problems I see with this is the The SS only has a few products, A couple of shop saws and a contractors saw. The other manufactures have a whole line of equipment. Now, after the TS get mandated what about all the other products? SS only has the few and it is easy to implement the safeties on this small line of equipment. But the other manufactures who have been around for year, decades or centuries are now at the disadvantage because they need to cover so much more.

Henry Ambrose

10-10-2011, 2:39 PM

Actually, the table saw has been legally classified as "inherently dangerous" for many years. That doctrine has prevented people from suing the manufacturers because, since the saw is classified as "inherently dangerous", the law assumed that the user accepted the dangers when s/he used the saw. That's one reason why the saw manufacturers did not want to add safety equipment to the saws - because they could lose the "inherently dangerous" classification and could become liable for injuries.

Since the invention of the SS safety feature, it appears that juries are no longer accepting the "inherently dangerous" doctrine since it is possible for saw manufacturers to build saws that are not "inherently dangerous".

That doctrine has been a disincentive for companies to add any safety devices to table saws.

Mike

A user of a table saw is generally expected to exercise the judgment of a reasonable, prudent and careful person. Sticking one's hand in a fire would not qualify as "reasonable" nor would putting one's hand into a spinning saw blade. That is what is almost universally held regarding possible negligence or liability on the part of the user.

Currently, anyone who wants a "safe" saw can buy one. Sawstop makes them everyday. By all means, go buy one if you feel its the right thing to do for yourself. Others choose not to pay more for that feature.

Many tools are dangerous and users should exercise reasonable care when using them. That's "users" - not the nanny state. The state can't think for you.

P.S. Don't play with rattlesnakes, they are dangerous!

Kevin W Johnson

10-10-2011, 2:42 PM

Kevin W Johnson

10-10-2011, 2:43 PM

A user of a table saw is generally expected to exercise the judgment of a reasonable, prudent and careful person. Sticking one's hand in a fire would not be qualify as "reasonable" nor would putting one's hand into a spinning saw blade. That is what is almost universally held regarding possible negligence or liability on the part of the user.

Currently, anyone who wants a "safe" saw can buy one. Sawstop makes them everyday. By all means, go buy one if you feel its the right thing to do for yourself. Others choose not to pay more for that feature.

Many tools are dangerous and users should exercise reasonable care when using them. That's "users" - not the nanny state. The state can't think for you.

P.S. Don't play with rattlesnakes, they are dangerous!

Well said.

Frank Drew

10-10-2011, 2:51 PM

This fairly jumped off the page at me: "...a disproportionate number of the injured appear to be Americans 65 and older..."

So, it's not necessarily employees of millworks and cabinet shops (i.e. those with the most experience) who are getting hurt, it's klutzy retirees who maybe have no business near power tools. :cool:

I'm of two (or more) minds about this issue; I'd hate to think that because a new safety technology is out there that puts at risk of legal liability manufacturers of otherwise perfectly fine machinery that doesn't incorporate that latest technology.

On the other hand, on the issue of safety mandates in general, is anyone here going to argue that seat belts and other improvements in auto safety haven't made an enormous difference in automobile accident injuries? Seriously? And does anyone really think that your injury might not, eventually, become my burden or expense? Don't want to wear a helmet while riding your motorcycle? Fine, but bear in mind that nobody -- NOBODY -- has enough insurance to pay for the lifetime of care that might be necessary after a traumatic brain injury, so eventually your care could fall on the rest of us. And if you think that you pays your money you takes your chances, who here is willing to tell the ambulance crew to ignore their own child lying injured on the side of the road because "he made his own choice not to wear a helmet or buy insurance"? Anyone?

So, I guess I'd probably buy an Oliver or Tannewitz or Euro style slider myself, but I understand the point of safety standards.

Ben Hatcher

10-10-2011, 3:29 PM

Saying that people are free to buy the safer saw is bogus. The cheapest SawStop is $1700 or roughly 17 times more expensive than the cheapest Ryobi.

Peter Aeschliman

10-10-2011, 3:36 PM

I had a conversation with a Powermatic rep, in which he told me that they were ready to implement it years ago. However, they pulled the deal because they were informed by their insurance that Powermatic (WMH) would be liable in the event of injuries as they would not cover them in the event of a consumer accident. And that carries back to the legal system, because if a company installs a safety system or device, and if it fails (and it will, as nearly all mechanical and electrical devices do eventually) then the manufacturer gets held liable.

You're so right. The real shame in all of this is the way our legal system causes disincentives for manufacturers to make the safety improvements. Mike Henderson's comment about the whole "inherently dangerous" classification makes me sick. What it all boils down to is that manufacturers are not willing to assume the liability risk... and who can blame them?

The root cause here is not unsafe tablesaws. Unsafe table saws are a symptom of the root cause, which is a legal system that shifts too much responsibility on the manufacturers.

I assume the CPSC has no jurisdiction over determining where the lines are drawn on the "inherently dangerous" spectrum (I'm not sure of this though). If adding safety features will cause table saws to lose that designation, then I can understand the solution the CPSC is seeking. They're trying to do SOMETHING with the power they have. Not saying I agree with it though.

Mike Henderson

10-10-2011, 3:40 PM

A user of a table saw is generally expected to exercise the judgment of a reasonable, prudent and careful person. Sticking one's hand in a fire would not qualify as "reasonable" nor would putting one's hand into a spinning saw blade. That is what is almost universally held regarding possible negligence or liability on the part of the user.

Currently, anyone who wants a "safe" saw can buy one. Sawstop makes them everyday. By all means, go buy one if you feel its the right thing to do for yourself. Others choose not to pay more for that feature.

Many tools are dangerous and users should exercise reasonable care when using them. That's "users" - not the nanny state. The state can't think for you.

P.S. Don't play with rattlesnakes, they are dangerous!
My posting was simply informational and not an advocacy. Table saw manufacturers were able to avoid liability because they convinced the regulators that additional safety features were not possible and the saw was "inherently dangerous".

However, many other tools have safety requirements and we're better off for them. Example: When I was a kid, a worker in my neighborhood was killed while laying on his back under a house, on wet ground, and drilling upward. I don't know if the drill shorted out or he hit a hot wire. If that happened today, it's unlikely he would be killed because drills are required to be double insulated. I'm sure the double insulation adds something to the cost of the drill but the cost, overall, is less than the cost of dead and injured workers (perhaps injured by falling from a work location because of the shock).

What's happening with table saws is exactly the same thing. It's possible to build a safer table saw.

Mike

Anthony Whitesell

10-10-2011, 3:43 PM

My problem with the situation is the expectations. Without a retrofittable solution the accident rate WILL NOT drop (IMHO) for 20-40 YEARS!

Here's my reasoning: How long do tablesaws last? Mine is 60 years old, so let's say on average they last half that; ~30 years. Enough tablesaws with the technology need to be purchased anew or purchased to replace existing tablesaws. Thus ~30 years before there are enough table saws to make a difference in the injury rate.

The second "softer" aspect is when the ~65 year old starts wood working. If they start today (30-35 years old) and buy a decent saw, then they will be 65+ without the flesh detection and assuming the saw lasts the 30-35 years, they become eligible to add to the statistic if they don't spend the money to replace a saw they (presumably) like. If the saw lasts 60 years, then it is likely to be passed on to a second generation who will turn 65+ and again become eligible.

I think it is wonderful to have the techonology available. I wish I had the money to buy a sawstop (or the space, I'd like a 220V saw but it's much larger than the 120V). IMHO, the law needs to be written to ensure the technology has a place in a competitive market, but should not require every saw to be increased in price because of it. They cannot protect us from ourselves.

Another aspect will be what requirements will be placed on the professional shops whom have tablesaws. Will they be required to dispose of saws no containing detection techonology? Now they have to buy a new saw, which comes out of a budget which is from sales which to make enough money to buy saws means the prices will creep up. Additionally, what happens to those presumably perfectly good saws? They will probably be yard saled and purchsed by some 30-40 year old who will still have it when the turn 65, 30 years from now.

I just don't think they are looking at what will actually happen after the law is enacted. I have formulated a comment, but cannot figure out how to submit it electronically. regaultions.gov does not list this ANPR.

Mike Henderson

10-10-2011, 3:43 PM

How about the people that think "flesh detecting technology" should be mandatory, lets make it mandatory that you guys pay the additional cost on those saws. That $55 dollar figure tossed by SS is baloney too. Every table saw out there currently in production will have to be redesigned to make it possible. The light weight aluminum top table saws will in no way be able to handle it as they are. The castings would simply explode.

As for the other manufacturers not implementing SS on their saws. I had a conversation with a Powermatic rep, in which he told me that they were ready to implement it years ago. However, they pulled the deal because they were informed by their insurance that Powermatic (WMH) would be liable in the event of injuries as they would not cover them in the event of a consumer accident. And that carries back to the legal system, because if a company installs a safety system or device, and if it fails (and it will, as nearly all mechanical and electrical devices do eventually) then the manufacturer gets held liable.
There are all kind of safety devices on tools and they've been there for years - and the companies have lived with the liability and not been driven out of business. Why should that all be different for a safety device on a table saw?

Mike

[My guess is that the "genie is out of the bottle" in any case. Remember the Pinto gas tank case? Ford was crucified because they chose not to add $5 to the cost of the Pinto to make the gas tank safer. Now, pretend you're a table saw manufacturer and you're in court being sued by someone who was injured by your saw. You are testifying and the defense attorney says to you, "Mr (or Ms) Table Saw Manufacturer - is it true that there's a technology that would have saved my client and it would have only added $55 to the cost of your saw?" You reply, "Yes, that's true". Then the attorney follows up with , "And why did you not implement that technology? Is it because you value profits over the safety of your customers?" You wouldn't have a chance.]

Anthony Whitesell

10-10-2011, 3:45 PM

WOW, what a neat way to increase the cost of tablesaws by $1000.

Is that the price difference between a Unisaw and a SawStop?

Mike Henderson

10-10-2011, 4:12 PM

glenn bradley

10-10-2011, 4:16 PM

I totally OK with this as long as they apply the same standards to circular saws, jig saws, band saws, hand drills, spoke shaves, cars, planes, household doors weighing more than 12 ounces, tweezers, steak knives, etc. I also think the increased cost until the end of time should be born by the jury that awarded an unskilled laborer who hurt himself by doing something something you should never do with a tablesaw a bunch of money. Sorry, I didn't mean to hold back. Don't forget to wear your seat belt and have your '57 Bel Air retrofitted with air bags. ;-) I've got to run out and drive my car into an embankment so I can sue Detroit.

Sorry for the sarcasm. This is a serious issue but, whenever it comes up we get more posts than a woodworking project can pull in. Says something about our focus here, doesn't it?

David Kumm

10-10-2011, 4:31 PM

Doug Morgan

10-10-2011, 4:33 PM

Is that the price difference between a Unisaw and a SawStop?

Comparing apples to apples.

3 HP Unisaw $2,899.00 36 inch fence
3 HP Sawstop $2,899.00 36 inch fence

Jacob Reverb

10-10-2011, 4:33 PM

I wonder whose brother-in-law made a "run" on shares of SawStop last Thursday...

David Kumm

10-10-2011, 4:52 PM

Comparing apples to apples.

3 HP Unisaw $2,899.00 36 inch fence
3 HP Sawstop $2,899.00 36 inch fence

Not really fair to compare prices unless you look at the entire machine. The unisaw price includes the upcharge for leaving at least a few jobs in the US. SS is entirely Asian. Dave

Mike Henderson

10-10-2011, 5:28 PM

I totally OK with this as long as they apply the same standards to circular saws, jig saws, band saws, hand drills, spoke shaves, cars, planes, household doors weighing more than 12 ounces, tweezers, steak knives, etc. I also think the increased cost until the end of time should be born by the jury that awarded someone who did something stupid a bunch of money. Sorry, I didn't mean to hold back. Don't forget to wear your seat belt and have your '57 Bel Aire retrofitted with air bags. ;-)
That argument is specious. It's not necessary to solve all the problems of the world to address one problem. If you feel that those devices should have better safety devices, you should petition the CPSC to have additional safety devices added to them. It would be good if you could specify the cost of injuries due to the use of those tools and the cost of the safety device you recommend.

That "fix the world and then come talk to me about this problem" is an old argument and has no more validity now than it did earlier.

Mike

Mike Henderson

10-10-2011, 5:32 PM

I wonder whose brother-in-law made a "run" on shares of SawStop last Thursday...
I don't think Sawstop is public. I'm pretty sure it's a private company.

Mike

Peter Aeschliman

10-10-2011, 5:46 PM

If it were public, you bet your patootie I'd own some shares!

David Kumm

10-10-2011, 7:03 PM

Peter, Even if you could invest be careful. Intellectual property is very seldom owned by the manufacturing company. As an accountant I would be surprised if Mr. Gass didn't retain the patents personally or at least in a different entity. While a gov mandate might increase the value of the patents it may well erode the value of the actual SS saws themselves. Larger, better funded companies forced to implement the technology might take the base market away. Schools and employers are buying the saw for the technology. SS will need to distance itself quality wise to a greater extent when buyers can choose among any saw on the market. Dave

Anthony Whitesell

10-10-2011, 7:24 PM

I think we should expect some change and regulation to occur. I hope the regs are written broadly enough to allow for different types of protection rather than limiting saws to "flesh detection" technology that can't be retrofitted. I don't believe the majority of new saws sold today will be around in 30 years but do believe that 60 year old saws still in use today will be. If they have lasted that long they are now in the hands of caring people who appreciate and maintain them. It would be unfortunate if there was no way to have them remain marketable to our children and grandchildren because the SS technology was so ingrained. Hopefully some version of the whilwind type guarding or something else helps the great old stuff survive. We are all ready pretty accepting of mediocre quality and with no basis of comparison our heirs will someday talk of those "great old chinese machines". Hopefully there will be a middle ground. Dave

Ha Ha Ha. I also agree that most low end saws sold today won't see a 30th birthday (probably not even a 10th), but I think Powermatic, Unisaws, and other well made saws sold today have a chance of making it to 30. I also doubt if many currently 60 year old saws will make it to 90 without a serious refurbishment and only if the parts are still available.

I would like to see the stats on those under 65 using the higher end saw versus the low end saw. This curiousity is based on a stereotyping that most serious WWers would not be using a contractors saw, but something better and more accurate. Now with that said, I'm one of those using a contractor's saw. I'd also like to see the difference between injuries at home, versus manufacturing building, versus jobsite.

I learned 20 years ago in a stats class, rule #1 "Statistics can be used to prove almost anything".

David Kumm

10-10-2011, 8:10 PM

Ha Ha Ha. I also agree that most low end saws sold today won't see a 30th birthday (probably not even a 10th), but I think Powermatic, Unisaws, and other well made saws sold today have a chance of making it to 30. I also doubt if many currently 60 year old saws will make it to 90 without a serious refurbishment and only if the parts are still available.

I would like to see the stats on those under 65 using the higher end saw versus the low end saw. This curiosity is based on a stereotyping that most serious WWers would not be using a contractors saw, but something better and more accurate. Now with that said, I'm one of those using a contractor's saw. I'd also like to see the difference between injuries at home, versus manufacturing building, versus jobsite.

I learned 20 years ago in a stats class, rule #1 "Statistics can be used to prove almost anything".

I agree, Anthony, that the better stuff will survive. I don't know the percentage of higher end saws sold. I would worry more about parts for those than the 60 year old saws though. Those castings are so big there isn't much to break. The biggest risk of failure comes from getting it off the truck. Parts availability is more a result of how many survive than whether the company- if it lives 30 years- still stocks them. Even Felder parts get iffy after 15 years. Old WW machines only survive if people think they are superior to current offerings of equal price. Not much call for Pintos and Pacers but then auto manufacturing has improved. That might happen with WW machinery too. I can dream. Dave

Kevin W Johnson

10-10-2011, 8:37 PM

There are all kind of safety devices on tools and they've been there for years - and the companies have lived with the liability and not been driven out of business. Why should that all be different for a safety device on a table saw?

Mike

[My guess is that the "genie is out of the bottle" in any case. Remember the Pinto gas tank case? Ford was crucified because they chose not to add $5 to the cost of the Pinto to make the gas tank safer. Now, pretend you're a table saw manufacturer and you're in court being sued by someone who was injured by your saw. You are testifying and the defense attorney says to you, "Mr (or Ms) Table Saw Manufacturer - is it true that there's a technology that would have saved my client and it would have only added $55 to the cost of your saw?" You reply, "Yes, that's true". Then the attorney follows up with , "And why did you not implement that technology? Is it because you value profits over the safety of your customers?" You wouldn't have a chance.]

You're comparing apples to oranges. Pennies, if that to double insulate a drill or other typical power tool. Hundreds to add the current SS technology to a table saw. Yes hundreds, as every table saw currently in production will have to be redesigned to handle the forces generated when it activates. The typical jobsite saw that Gass claims would cost $55 to add would simply explode from the force of activation. If you haven't looked at the pitiful, rock bottom grade of cast aluminum these things are made of, maybe you should take a peek.

Your also not looking at the difference in the type of safety devices either. Name another power tool that will prevent the blade from cutting off you finger, prevent you from drill a hole through your hand or worse, or prevent you from shooting nails in flesh, etc. Safety switches, double insulation, guards, lock-outs, etc., are a whole different game. They cost nearly nothing to implement, only a simple manufacturing change. Furthermore, most of these types of safety enhancements are technically simple and as such are not likely to fail, and if they do, you'll know before hand allowing you to replace it or the tool itself. The failure of a flesh detecting device while in operation is likely to be catastrophic, which is exactly what the manufacturers (and their insurance companies) fear most. They also know that a certain percentage of people will come to rely on such a feature as a save all, which can increase the likelyhood that a failure will result in injury.

At the end of the day its still a much-a-do about nothing. The rate of injury on table saws is nearly immeasurable, and the cost to peoples health insurance that some on here have brought up? Boils down to a couple dollars a years or so. Compare that to the more than $500 a year we (people with insurance) pay for smokers expenses, I know which issue is more important.

Mike Henderson

10-10-2011, 9:15 PM

You're comparing apples to oranges. Pennies, if that to double insulate a drill or other typical power tool. Hundreds to add the current SS technology to a table saw. Yes hundreds, as every table saw currently in production will have to be redesigned to handle the forces generated when it activates. The typical jobsite saw that Gass claims would cost $55 to add would simply explode from the force of activation. If you haven't looked at the pitiful, rock bottom grade of cast aluminum these things are made of, maybe you should take a peek.

Your also not looking at the difference in the type of safety devices either. Name another power tool that will prevent the blade from cutting off you finger, prevent you from drill a hole through your hand or worse, or prevent you from shooting nails in flesh, etc. Safety switches, double insulation, guards, lock-outs, etc., are a whole different game. They cost nearly nothing to implement, only a simple manufacturing change. Furthermore, most of these types of safety enhancements are technically simple and as such are not likely to fail, and if they do, you'll know before hand allowing you to replace it or the tool itself. The failure of a flesh detecting device while in operation is likely to be catastrophic, which is exactly what the manufacturers (and their insurance companies) fear most. They also know that a certain percentage of people will come to rely on such a feature as a save all, which can increase the likelyhood that a failure will result in injury.

At the end of the day its still a much-a-do about nothing. The rate of injury on table saws is nearly immeasurable, and the cost to peoples health insurance that some on here have brought up? Boils down to a couple dollars a years or so. Compare that to the more than $500 a year we (people with insurance) pay for smokers expenses, I know which issue is more important.
Perhaps it is you who are comparing apples to oranges. There are lots of tools with safety devices. Take a look at the simple lawn mower. There are all kind of safety devices on those now and the severity of injury if one of those devices fail can be quite serious - easily equal to an injury on a table saw. The makers of lawn mowers seem to operate quite profitably and offer a product at a reasonable price.

Also, the $55 to add a CPSC safety device was not an estimate by Gass but by a representative of an association of the other table saw manufacturers (I forgot the name of that organization). If you read the FWW interview, you'll see that Gass is simply quoting what the representative said - and I believe he gives a reference to a written submission by that organization to the CPSC.

The rate of table saw injuries is certainly measurable. Sawstop, while not a unbiased source, claims that there's a table saw injury every nine minutes and a ten table saw amputations per day. I'm not sure but I believe that data comes from the CPSC data base. That's a very significant accident rate, certainly not "immeasurable". Additionally, the CPSC has given an estimated annual cost of those injuries. I don't remember the number, but I do remember that the cost was in the billions (with an s).

Mike

Greg Peterson

10-10-2011, 9:25 PM

Kevin W Johnson

10-10-2011, 9:51 PM

Perhaps it is you who are comparing apples to oranges. There are lots of tools with safety devices. Take a look at the simple lawn mower. There are all kind of safety devices on those now and the severity of injury if one of those devices fail can be quite serious - easily equal to an injury on a table saw. The makers of lawn mowers seem to operate quite profitably and offer a product at a reasonable price.

Also, the $55 to add a CPSC safety device was not an estimate by Gass but by a representative of an association of the other table saw manufacturers (I forgot the name of that organization). If you read the FWW interview, you'll see that Gass is simply quoting what the representative said - and I believe he gives a reference to a written submission by that organization to the CPSC.

The rate of table saw injuries is certainly measurable. Sawstop, while not a unbiased source, claims that there's a table saw injury every nine minutes and a ten table saw amputations per day. I'm not sure but I believe that data comes from the CPSC data base. That's a very significant accident rate, certainly not "immeasurable". Additionally, the CPSC has given an estimated annual cost of those injuries. I don't remember the number, but I do remember that the cost was in the billions (with an s).

Mike

You still don't seem to that the type of safety device that we're talking about here is nothing like anything else.

Your lawnmower example? Really? The safety devices are switches that shutdown down the (riding) mower if you get off the seat with the blades engaged. Or kill the motor if you release the handle on a push mower. A failure in such a device of this type is totally different, since the operation of a mower doesnt require your hands to be within inches of the blade.

SS's numbers would be 58400 injuries a year, every article i've read puts the number of injuries at 30,000-32,000. The number of injuries that happens is not the rate. The rate would be the number of injuries per cuts made on a table saw. As i pointed out earlier, with a estimated 8 million table saws, if they were powered on and one cut made per year, the injury rate would be less than a .4 chance of being injured. When you take that to the likely hundreds of millions of cuts made anually, yes, the RATE is nearly immeasurable. Estimate even 250 million cuts per year (31.25 cuts per saw, and still extremely low), and it drops to a .013% chance that you'll be injured on a table saw. So yeah, we can put a number to it if you wish, but its so low, why bother? It just depends on how many zero's you want to see after the period.

The CPSC's estimate is $2billion. Which is just that, it has no basis for this number, no studies, nothing. Just a guess. Even if it's close, it amounts to about $11 per year, per insured person in the US.

Peter Quinn

10-10-2011, 9:53 PM

but one misfire on a job between the downtime, cartridge and the cost of a new commercial blade would mean I lost money. Thats not why I am in business.

Larry

Lets face it Larry, one misstep on the TS as an owner operator that severs a digit, puts you in the emergency room, raises your insurance premiums, puts you out of work for two or more months...you have a lot more to lose than $75 and a new blade. Keep a spare brake in the drawer next to the spare blade, because a spare finger is hard to come by. And if you have legal employees to cover, well if they cut something off its likely to cost a whole lot more than an afternoons progress. I appreciate your sentiment and position, but the argument is not sound IMO. I got to tell you, I make my living with my hands using another mans TS (not a SS), and if I ever cut off a finger at work I'm going to march into that office, call my lawyer, than beat that cheap #$$**&% boss of mine over his head with the nearest piece of wood I can find and get my $75 dollars worth out of him! Hopefully I have one good hand left to do that with. Its just not that much money in light of the risk involved as a professional.

Kevin W Johnson

10-10-2011, 10:06 PM

I don't recall seeing anywhere near this amount of concern when the riving knife mandate was implemented. Not a major redesign or the arbor, but definitely required a rework.

Kevin - Any mandate would not be retroactive, so any saws currently in production would be exempt from a mandate. The way the riving knife mandate was rolled out was manufacturers had several years before their saws were required to be equipped with a riving knife. Any new models introduced in the interim period would be required to have a riving knife.

It's a shame that without a mandate manufacturers have little to no incentive to introduce blade braking technology. Some legal protection for manufacturers should be included if the mandate is adapted. Give 'em a carrot, cause right now they are not budging.

And that's exactly why they are reluctant, because there is no legal protection. And I'm fully aware its not retroactive. What I'm saying is, manufacturers wouldn't be able to simply add sawstop to their current models. They are not built to withstand the forces generated at activation. They would have to design new models to handle it, that costs money. They would also have to make many of the parts in the saw much stronger, that also costs money. If they have some other method in their book of secrets, we'll just have to wait and see what it is.

As for the riving knife, the tables had to be reworked mainly, requiring a longer throat opening, and a method to hold the knife. I don't believe the costs compare to this issue. Manufacturers also don't really have to worry about a riving knife failing either. The electronics to stop a blade are a different matter.

Kevin W Johnson

10-10-2011, 10:09 PM

Lets face it Larry, one misstep on the TS as an owner operator that severs a digit, puts you in the emergency room, raises your insurance premiums, puts you out of work for two or more months...you have a lot more to lose than $75 and a new blade. Keep a spare brake in the drawer next to the spare blade, because a spare finger is hard to come by. And if you have legal employees to cover, well if they cut something off its likely to cost a whole lot more than an afternoons progress. I appreciate your sentiment and position, but the argument is not sound IMO. I got to tell you, I make my living with my hands using another mans TS (not a SS), and if I ever cut off a finger at work I'm going to march into that office, call my lawyer, than beat that cheap #$$**&% boss of mine over his head with the nearest piece of wood I can find and get my $75 dollars worth out of him! Hopefully I have one good hand left to do that with. Its just not that much money in light of the risk involved as a professional.

And you ahve the choice NOT to use that table saw. If you can't keep your fingers out of the blade, it's not his fault.

Mike Henderson

10-10-2011, 10:27 PM

You still don't seem to that the type of safety device that we're talking about here is nothing like anything else.

Your lawnmower example? Really? The safety devices are switches that shutdown down the (riding) mower if you get off the seat with the blades engaged. Or kill the motor if you release the handle on a push mower. A failure in such a device of this type is totally different, since the operation of a mower doesnt require your hands to be within inches of the blade.

SS's numbers would be 58400 injuries a year, every article i've read puts the number of injuries at 30,000-32,000. The number of injuries that happens is not the rate. The rate would be the number of injuries per cuts made on a table saw. As i pointed out earlier, with a estimated 8 million table saws, if they were powered on and one cut made per year, the injury rate would be less than a .4 chance of being injured. When you take that to the likely hundreds of millions of cuts made anually, yes, the RATE is nearly immeasurable. Estimate even 250 million cuts per year (31.25 cuts per saw, and still extremely low), and it drops to a .013% chance that you'll be injured on a table saw. So yeah, we can put a number to it if you wish, but its so low, why bother? It just depends on how many zero's you want to see after the period.

The CPSC's estimate is $2billion. Which is just that, it has no basis for this number, no studies, nothing. Just a guess. Even if it's close, it amounts to about $11 per year, per insured person in the US.
Looking at accidents as a percent of the number of cuts made is meaningless. The only thing that counts is the annual cost of the injuries, the total annual cost of the safety device on all saws sold, and the amount that the cost of injuries will decrease if the safety device is implemented. If the mathematics is overwhelmingly in favor of the safety device, I would assume the CPSC will require the safety device, whatever it is.

We'll see what comes out of the comment period.

Mike

Mike Henderson

10-10-2011, 10:30 PM

And you ahve the choice NOT to use that table saw. If you can't keep your fingers out of the blade, it's not his fault.
An owner of a business has a legal obligation to provide a safe work place. Since a safety device is available for table saws, if the employer does not offer it, they would certainly be liable for damages in case of an accident. The only thing that might prevent it is workers compensation laws but the employer's insurance could go up significantly.

Mike

Kevin W Johnson

10-10-2011, 10:51 PM

An owner of a business has a legal obligation to provide a safe work place. Since a safety device is available for table saws, if the employer does not offer it, they would certainly be liable for damages in case of an accident. The only thing that might prevent it is workers compensation laws but the employer's insurance could go up significantly.

Mike

And a safe work place includes the saw he already has, so long as it has all the safety devices (blade guard, riving knife) that it originally came with. All this non-sense is still about blaming a manufacturer, employer, or someone else because someone couldn't keep their finger(s) out of the blade. PERIOD.

Greg Peterson

10-10-2011, 10:55 PM

What I'm saying is, manufacturers wouldn't be able to simply add sawstop to their current models. They are not built to withstand the forces generated at activation. They would have to design new models to handle it, that costs money. They would also have to make many of the parts in the saw much stronger, that also costs money. If they have some other method in their book of secrets, we'll just have to wait and see what it is.

Reinforcing a table saw top isn't rocket science. The forces are known and cast iron strength is known. I'm guessing here, but redesigning the unit to handle the stresses is a academic matter. Of course that is assuming the technology they have under wraps is similar to SS. Perhaps they have a system that simply stops the blade without dropping it. Perhaps in addition to stopping the blade it reverses the rotation several degree? Hard to say. The blade dropping always seemed like overkill to me.

Mike Henderson

10-10-2011, 10:56 PM

And a safe work place includes the saw he already has, so long as it has all the safety devices (blade guard, riving knife) that it originally came with. All this non-sense is still about blaming a manufacturer, employer, or someone else because someone couldn't keep their finger(s) out of the blade. PERIOD.
That's not correct. If better safety technology becomes available, the employer ignores it at his own risk. A safe workplace is an evolving requirement. Just because your equipment was considered "safe" in the past doesn't mean that it will continue to be acceptable for a "safe work environment."

How could you justify yourself in court? You'd be asked if you knew of the safer technology and what it would have cost you. Then you'd be asked why you were unwilling to provide that safety equipment for your employees. It would be very difficult to justify why you were not willing to spend that modest amount of money to protect your employees.

Mike

mreza Salav

10-10-2011, 11:14 PM

Will Rowland

10-10-2011, 11:40 PM

Just wanted to say many +++ to all you have been saying all along.Agreed. I am a partner in a mid-size manufacturing company, and my company has been the defendant in frivolous yet ultimately costly lawsuits more than once. Given my experience in our legal system, I think Mike H has done a great job articulating a very logical and sound viewpoint in this thread.

Kevin W Johnson

10-10-2011, 11:43 PM

That's not correct. If better safety technology becomes available, the employer ignores it at his own risk. A safe workplace is an evolving requirement. Just because your equipment was considered "safe" in the past doesn't mean that it will continue to be acceptable for a "safe work environment."

How could you justify yourself in court? You'd be asked if you knew of the safer technology and what it would have cost you. Then you'd be asked why you were unwilling to provide that safety equipment for your employees. It would be very difficult to justify why you were not willing to spend that modest amount of money to protect your employees.

Mike

And such an arguement is flawed. Theres always going to be some new something that can be agued as being safer and that an employer should have bought it. A modern table saw is safe, so long as the user uses its provided safety equipment, and uses the accepted safe use practices in its operation. Your employer didnt put your fingers in the blade, you did, and claiming your employer should have bought XYZ machine is still passing the blame to someone else for something you did.

How many employees do you think would be willing to cough up $200 for a new blade and cartridge everytime they fired a SS if their employer bought it? Because you not only have to think about it firing if someone gets a finger in it, but also if they neglect to test the material they're cutting.

Should your employer also buy you a house beside your place of employment so you can walk to work because you might be in a car wreck on the way to work? Then what if you fall while walking to work?

Mike Henderson

10-10-2011, 11:58 PM

And such an arguement is flawed. Theres always going to be some new something that can be agued as being safer and that an employer should have bought it. A modern table saw is safe, so long as the user uses its provided safety equipment, and uses the accepted safe use practices in its operation. Your employer didnt put your fingers in the blade, you did, and claiming your employer should have bought XYZ machine is still passing the blame to someone else for something you did.

How many employees do you think would be willing to cough up $200 for a new blade and cartridge everytime they fired a SS if their employer bought it? Because you not only have to think about it firing if someone gets a finger in it, but also if they neglect to test the material they're cutting.

Should your employer also buy you a house beside your place of employment so you can walk to work because you might be in a car wreck on the way to work? Then what if you fall while walking to work?
The fact that you don't agree with the way the law works doesn't change the law. If you think you could win a case where your employee was injured and you didn't provide reasonable safety devices you're going to be quite shocked when the verdict is read.

And you can't, by law, charge your employee for the new blade and cartridge if the cartridge fires because of a mistake by the employee. You can fire the employee for incompetence but you can't charge them for mistakes.

The employer is responsible for providing a safe work environment, but there is a standard of reasonableness. Providing a safety device (like theSawStop) for employees who work on a table saw would almost certainly be considered reasonable by a jury.

As I said earlier, a safe work environment is an evolving standard, and what that consists of will be decided by someone other than you if a serious accident occurs. It's up to the employer to stay in the forefront of safety for employees.

Mike

Kevin W Johnson

10-11-2011, 12:14 AM

The fact that you don't agree with the way the law works doesn't change the law. If you think you could win a case where your employee was injured and you didn't provide reasonable safety devices you're going to be quite shocked when the verdict is read.

And you can't, by law, charge your employee for the new blade and cartridge if the cartridge fires because of a mistake by the employee. You can fire the employee for incompetence but you can't charge them for mistakes.

The employer is responsible for providing a safe work environment, but there is a standard of reasonableness. Providing a safety device (like theSawStop) for employees who work on a table saw would almost certainly be considered reasonable by a jury.

As I said earlier, a safe work environment is an evolving standard, and what that consists of will be decided by someone other than you if a serious accident occurs. It's up to the employer to stay in the forefront of safety for employees.

Mike

As well as its also reasonable to expect an employee to keep his fingers out of the blade. Your ignoring the primary cause of the injury, regardless of the saw in use. As for juries, yeah, its a losing case (but shouldn't be), because its always played as the evil rich tool maker, or evil rich business owner vs. the poor downtrodden employee working paycheck to paycheck taking care of his 6 kids.

Getting you a new house built yet?

David Kumm

10-11-2011, 12:20 AM

It is agreed that employers should provide a safe work environment and most likely that will entail some sort of braking technology in the future. We might be better served to figure out how to convince the Chinese- and others- to adopt the same standards. Until that happens employers will raise prices and consumers will respond by purchasing things sawed in Asia. The housing industry will be hurting for years so no help from construction which has more local competition and a more level playing field. Absent any success in converting the rest of the world to our safety standards we need to convince ourselves to pay more for stuff made more expensively under our standards. Health insurance and workers comp rates will not go down fast enough to help businesses without some support from consumers. Wish it were different. Dave

Mike Henderson

10-11-2011, 12:23 AM

As well as its also reasonable to expect an employee to keep his fingers out of the blade. You're ignoring the primary cause of the injury, regardless of the saw in use. As for juries, yeah, its a losing case (but shouldn't be), because its always played as the evil rich tool maker, or evil rich business owner vs. the poor downtrodden employee working paycheck to paycheck taking care of his 6 kids.

Getting you a new house built yet?
The employee expects to keep his fingers out of the blade.

Not one injured person stuck his/her hand in the blade on purpose - that's why they're called "accidents". Many things can happen - the employee can be working long hours trying to get an important job out and makes a fatigue mistake. The employee can be pushed to get the job done faster, or to use unsafe practices to do things faster. Any number of things can happen in the workplace that contribute to the accident. It doesn't matter. The employee has been punished enough because he/she now has a missing finger (for example). Blaming the employee for the accident is heartless and ignores the reality of the workplace.

The law rightfully requires the employer to maintain a safe working environment because the employer has the power in the relationship and the employee suffers the result of the accident.

Mike

Paul Wunder

10-11-2011, 6:32 AM

Bas Pluim

10-11-2011, 9:43 AM

Mike,

A huge thank you for taking this issue on and staying with it. Your logic is sound, your temperament is even and your hysteria and myth factor is nil. I hope that we all take a deep breath and really read and carefully consider your arguments. Yes, I think that I am careful, but I may not always be that way. Such is life.

+1. People get so caught up in "don't tell me how to live my life", "lawyers/ Gass/ tool manufacturers are evil", "you're so stupid" etc. that we rarely get to have a practical discussion. There are lots of forces at work here - safety, affordability, liability, productivity. The powers that be (consumers, manufacturers, legal system, CPSC) push and pull until we come up with what's hopefully a reasonable solution. It takes a lot of debate, arguments, statistics, and ideas. It's messy, it's time consuming, but that's how the system is supposed to work.

Matt Kestenbaum

10-11-2011, 9:56 AM

Yes, the statistical case has been made (read the testimony in the Osorio case)...the number of reported "SS saves" is amazing. The mean rate of serious accident resulting in disfigurement or amputation for other systems is just staggering. Remember the accident rate on table saws is an astounding hundreds per day, not the rare occasional accident.

Has there been any discussion on how safe the SS technology REALLY is? Sure, I've seen the hot dog slowly feed into the spining blade, and I've even seen the owner of the company touch the spinning blade, But what if I'm forcefully feeding a board because the blade is dull, and I slip and jamb my hand into the spinning blade? Is the SS technology still as effective? How about slapping that hot dog down on the spinning blade at the speed of a slipping hand and see what happens? Seems like a waste of my favorite food, but I wonder what the result would be.

Matt Kestenbaum

10-11-2011, 10:08 AM

Gass did not SEEK this!!! CPSC has been struggling with the high accident rate and the billions it is costing for decades!! Bosch and the PTI have as much said so themselves!!

Part of the problem is Gass politicized the issue by seeking legal and regulatory remedy to his vision of the world. I have a SS but it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. How do you separate the issues when they've become so intimately intertwined. I'll say this. My SS contractor saw is far and away the best contractor saw I've ever had the pleasure of using. The saws themselves are world class, and it's a shame that they couldn't just leave well enough alone.

Matt Kestenbaum

10-11-2011, 10:17 AM

REALLY!! WHO bought Delta last month??? Where are their profits going??? Check you facts carefully on this. SS may be manufactured in Taiwan, but it is designed, engineered, supported and fully owned by US owners.

Not really fair to compare prices unless you look at the entire machine. The unisaw price includes the upcharge for leaving at least a few jobs in the US. SS is entirely Asian. Dave

Erik France

10-11-2011, 10:21 AM

Gass did not SEEK this!!! Actually, Gass did petition the CPSC in 2003. http://www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/foia06/brief/tablesaw.pdf

There's a bunch of info from the CSPC on this page: http://www.cpsc.gov/volstd/tablesaws/tablesaws.html

I agree that the CPSC has been struggling with the issue of the high accident rate. I also think that the tablesaw manufacturers have seriously been dragging their feet on blade stopping tech or similar. The thing I like least about the whole issue is Gass and his patents.

Mike Henderson

10-11-2011, 10:52 AM

Actually, Gass did petition the CPSC in 2003. http://www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/foia06/brief/tablesaw.pdf

There's a bunch of info from the CSPC on this page: http://www.cpsc.gov/volstd/tablesaws/tablesaws.html

I agree that the CPSC has been struggling with the issue of the high accident rate. I also think that the tablesaw manufacturers have seriously been dragging their feet on blade stopping tech or similar. The thing I like least about the whole issue is Gass and his patents.
I understand your issue with the patents. But there are ways to deal with it. In my productive life, one of my jobs was to attend standards meetings for communications, especially modem standards. In those meetings, representatives from companies who held patents would attempt to get their technology included in the standard. Once it was included in the standard, anyone who built a product that met the standard would have to license the patents. The standards bodies required each company to sign a statement that they would license "freely and reasonably", meaning they would license all comers, and at a rate that would be considered "reasonable"

The major players, however, dealt with patents differently. Each had a large number of patents so it was likely that each would have one of their patents included in the standard, because standards included backward compatibility as well as the new technology. So they would do cross license deals with each other.

The problem with table saws is that the majority of the manufacturers have not done anything to advance the technology and thus have no patents to cross license with SawStop. If Delta, for example, had developed some new technology that was really appealing to customers - it wouldn't have to be safety technology, it could be anything - they could cross license with SS and both could offer a better product, and neither would have to pay license fees.

Perhaps this situation will spur the "older" table saw manufacturers to do some work to advance tool technology, and obtain patents on it. While the effort may be defensive for them, we, the consumer, will benefit.

Mike

Matt Kestenbaum

10-11-2011, 11:06 AM

I must admit the thread is...well...its never dull.

I am amazed at the way many of us woodworkers have approached the issue. There is so much emotion over governmental politics, consumer obligations vs. freedoms, choices vs. standards. Since woodworkers are innovators that should be the first perspective...at least its mine. For full disclosure I am a SS owner and happily so. And i own lots of other stuff too...some old, some new, some tiny makers and some mass produced for the borgs. Across the board what I really want and seek are tools that: #1 really work well right out of the box, #2 with care and respect will provide safe, efficient and accurate operation for a long time, #3, lastly allow me to focus on the wood. I think that these qualities are evident in both great power tools/machinery and hand tools. And i think most woodworkers have similar inclinations. So it amazes me that for decades there was zero innovation in this critical tool and many others too. And what innovation there has been, has been in other areas of the craft...routers with soft starts, plunge mechanisms, lifts, above table adjustment, magnetic featherboards, etc. Table saws -- the most ubiquitous tool in the shop has little innovation and what there is has largely been driven by the Euro market--under tighter safety and environmental standards to boot! Delta and Powermatic: they can stick to their resistance of seat belts and head-rests (guards, riving knives, flesh sensing, etc.) at their own peril.

And yet where the woodworkers' outrage at Delta or Powermatic for letting innovation become someone else's business? They had the chance to include riving knives and option the brake years ago!! THEY LET THE WOODWORKING WORLD DOWN! Powermatic instead is giving us black paint. They have chosen what marketers call the death spiral...pursuing lower costs to the degree that they have nothing left but enough margin to fund operations for the next quarter. Want to know how they could've funded the innovation? STOP making every possible product you can and focus!! If Delta spent less time and money trying to blend the Porter Cable business with Delta (remember the Delta line of rechargeable drills?) there would have been cash to spare. Bad investment of resources and the race to bottom has actually been catching up for years. Small aftermarket providers have been stepping up to do the big guy's work for them for years..fences (Biesemeyer), blades and cutters too (Byrd). The tool makers seems to have learned nothing by watching other adjacent industries (autos?). And for those who think that the change in safety standards or patent protections is something SS invented...ever wonder why bandsaws have wheel covering doors now?

Alan Schaffter

10-11-2011, 11:07 AM

Do I get a bonus for starting this thread and having it run so long???

One point that really fits better a few pages but will stick it in here- A few years ago Robin Lee, president of Lee Valley Tools, replaced all the tablesaws in the Lee Valley plant with Sawstops- he said he saw the writing on the wall and just could justify "not" doing it.

Erik France

10-11-2011, 11:48 AM

The problem with table saws is that the majority of the manufacturers have not done anything to advance the technology and thus have no patents to cross license with SawStop. If Delta, for example, had developed some new technology that was really appealing to customers - it wouldn't have to be safety technology, it could be anything - they could cross license with SS and both could offer a better product, and neither would have to pay license fees.

Perhaps this situation will spur the "older" table saw manufacturers to do some work to advance tool technology, and obtain patents on it. While the effort may be defensive for them, we, the consumer, will benefit.

MikeI agree that most manufacturers haven't done much to advance their designs for quite some time, with patents or not. My tablesaw has a riving knife. The saw is very closely based on a design that was brought to market in 1992 (by Ryobi none-the-less). There weren't very many models in the US with riving knives at the time. It took many years and a reworking of the tool standards for manufacturers to finally incorporate them on a large scale.

Rod Sheridan

10-11-2011, 11:50 AM

[QUOTE=Matt Kestenbaum;1788292]I must admit the thread is...well...its never dull.

Table saws -- the most ubiquitous tool in the shop has little innovation and what there is has largely been driven by the Euro market--under tighter safety and environmental standards to boot!QUOTE]

Hi Matt, I agree with your post except for the above sentence.

It wasn't in spite of EU safety regulations that innovation occurred in the EU, it was because of the regulations.

In the same manner the CPSC request for solutions from saw manufacturers will drive innovation in the US market.

There are occasions where the only practical solution is government intervention, and safety/standards are a prime example.

We should be outraged that the North American manufacturers/importers have produced nothing of substance for the last 40 or 50 years, aside from SawStop. We should also be embarrassed to admit that we enabled this through our continued purchases of their woefully obsolete products.

The CPSC deserves a big thanks from Americans and Canadians, who in the next decade or more will benefit greatly from their innitiative.

Regards, Rod.

David Kumm

10-11-2011, 11:51 AM

REALLY!! WHO bought Delta last month??? Where are their profits going??? Check you facts carefully on this. SS may be manufactured in Taiwan, but it is designed, engineered, supported and fully owned by US owners.

Matt, I understand where the profit is going. I was referring to manufacturing cost differences. The profit margins are probably close to the same, but the cost of labor will vary. My point was that the price of different machines can't be used to judge the cost of the technology. Dave

Rod Sheridan

10-11-2011, 11:52 AM

Alan, yes you should receive a bonus.

It has been an interesting and mostly polite thread, and as always I learn from the people who don't share my personal opinion................Regards, Rod.

ben searight

10-11-2011, 1:39 PM

I will agree that this is a very interesting thread....it's amazing how worked up people can get when their freedoms are threatened.

I am a big proponent of freedom to chose your own path in life, and accept the consequences of your choices whether they are good or bad.

That being said......I can't see how requiring a braking mechanisim will not benefit everyone. Right now if I want one I have no choice....I have to buy a Sawstop. I would much rather have a broad range of choices from many manufacturers in many configurations than be forced to buy from one company. And for those who assume that these changes will add a thousand dollars to the price of all tablesaws, I believe you are sadly mistaken. Why do you think the Sawstop currently costs so much? It's because they have absolutely no competition. Sawstop will lose most if not all of it's competitive edge if Delta, Powermatic, etc. offer similar technologies. Maybe....just maybe, they'll come up with something better than the SS, maybe something that doesn't destroy the blade or require you to replace a cartridge after it fires. I'm fairly certain Gass is not the smartest person on the planet, the engineers at the other manufacturers will surely develop their own systems.

I'm 35 years old, and I've been using a tablesaw since I was 12. To be honest with you it still occasionally scares the hell out of me. Anyone who says it is not inherently dangerous is fooling themselves. We get complacent and comfortable with many dangers in our lives and think it will never happen to me, because "I'm careful, I'm a professional, I know what I'm doing" etc. We assume we are in control, but we're not. I work in the heavy construction industry. The same attitude exists....."I don't need to tie off, it's only a 12 inch gap, there's no way I'll fall through that." I can tell you from personal experience, that attitude does little to comfort a mans wife and children when his dead body is retrieved from the water below.

I guess what I'm saying is anything that keeps mine, yours, or our children's fingers firmly attached to their hands is OK with me........Quit worrying, it won't be as bad as you think.

David Kumm

10-11-2011, 1:57 PM

I second the compliment regarding the overall tone of the thread. I have learned along the way. At the end of the day life won't change all that much and hopefully the costs and benefits of any changes will be shared by employers, employees, manufacturers and consumers alike. Dave

Matt Kestenbaum

10-11-2011, 2:47 PM

Rod, no quarrel with that--in writing "under tighter regulations" i simply call to reference the environment. I suspect you are right that the tougher standards spurred creativity and innovation. We all respond to tough challenges with our "a" game, very few of us run our fastest race when we run alone, without a clock and zero pride on the line. Of course, I'd like to see North American woodworkers (and consumers in general) demand higher quality and, fairly, be willing to pay for it. I have read your posts for a while now and know that we agree that tool purchases are not taken to be taken lightly. I want the manufacturers to start to respect us and start running their race like there is some real pride on line.

Tom Rossman

10-11-2011, 4:39 PM

If it wasn't for the Federal Government, automobiles wouldn't even have seat belts, let alone air bags. Industry will nearly always oppose safety, because there is no money in it.

David Hostetler

10-11-2011, 4:50 PM

Kent A Bathurst

10-11-2011, 5:39 PM

Okay, explain the appeal of the Volvo then...

Some people are attracted to utilitarian, boring vehicles is the only reason I could ever think of..........:D :D

George Gyulatyan

10-11-2011, 10:54 PM

Someone else mentioned smoking....

It still boils down to the fact that the governments wish to make one "safe" ends where it collects money in the form of taxes. $2-3 billion in healthcare costs related to table saws? Whats the cost of smoking related healthcare? From a USA Today article in 2009.... "figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that smokers cost the country $96 billion a year in direct health care costs, and an additional $97 billion a year in lost productivity." For those slow in math, thats $193 billion. So, their first concern is table saws? Really? Now, don't get me wrong, I personally tripped a sawstop table saw at a demo at Woodcraft today. I think its a great safety addition. Can i currently afford one? NO. However, it should remain a choice if one chooses to spend the extra for a SS (or similar) equipped machine.

Now, if the arguement for mandating SS (or similar tech) on table saws because the yearly cost is $2-3 billion in injuries, then lets all request that our insurance buy us a SS and tell them just how much money we're saving them if they do.

Since we're doing numbers....

in 2009, 315,000,000,000 cigarettes were sold, which works out to 15.75 billion packs, which at average cost of $5 comes to around $78.75 billion in sales. I am most likely estimating this low ($5 is probably too low for national average) as in 2006 the industry sold $83.6 billion worth of cigarettets.

Even at my lowish estimate of $78.75 billion in sales, the ratio of medical expenditures vs product sold is much lower than that of table saws.

Tablesaw injury figures: 65:1 ($2.6 billion / $400 million)
Tobacco injury figures: 2.45:1 ($193 billion / $78.75 billion)

Point being, on percentage basis, tablesaw accidents cost more in healthcare costs to the general public than cigarette caused healthcare issues.

Anthony Whitesell

10-12-2011, 5:38 AM

Missing here is the fact that you (not you, personally, but the "royal" you) can turn off the flesh sensing technology on a Saw Stop, each and every cut, as Saw Stop provides a manufacturer approved method to cut wood that bypasses the brake. http://www.sawstop.com/documents/Contractor Saw Quick Start Guide (Aug 08).pdf Your rebellion against government mandated safety can be effected, each time you power on the saw.

Royal You can drive without a seatbelt fastened, any time. Yes, you don't have to wear your seat belt. Though a sharp-eyed cop might suddenly take interest in any other violations you might be committing for an excuse to pull you over. Many thanks, because if the cop is engaged with you, the cop is not engaged with me. Oh, remember to argue with the cop...that keeps the officer off patrol for a little longer, further helping the rest of society to be free of the jack-booted tyranny of government.

Try this approach:

Dear CPSC,

Thank you for mandating that baby cribs meet certain specifications so that our children and grandchildren are not inconveniently made dead by falling out the of the crib if the drop-down gate unexpected drops, or by naughtily trapping their heads in between the slats and choking them, that the babies may grow up to adulthood, and one day protest against too much safety regulation.

Further, I'd like you to promote safety in woodworking machinery, so that woodworkers might use all 10 of their fingers (or however many are not otherwise engaged with their nose, ear, arm pit, etc.) to type emails to you protesting against too much safety regulation.

If disappointment is the greatest weapon a parent might use against their children, it's necessary that the government execute an action of irony against its citizens.

Thank You,

John Q. Public

Edit: http://www.cpsc.gov/cgibin/sect15.aspx

I see/hear your point. Unfortunately the effect is lost with some additional insight on the drop-side crib regulation , because you are comparing an accidental (contact) with a material failure (crib side stops failing). There were to other approaches available to the drop side crib issue. Option A) mandate materials to be used in the drop side hardware (ie., ban plastics and require metal) or B) mandate a design which prohibited the use of the C-clip and I-beam (as I call them, look at a photo from the recall for further info) and mandate a mechanism that avoided the potential failure mechanism (such as a solid metal rod running through the rail, EvenFlo utilized this design).

So we have personal and recent experience that the CPSC can go overboard with their good intentions. Let us all read the ANPR and provided our comments.

Rich Engelhardt

10-12-2011, 9:18 AM

Point being, on percentage basis, tablesaw accidents cost more in healthcare costs to the general public than cigarette caused healthcare issues.
Cigarettes are an extremely poor example to use.

The sales figures don't take into account the 5000% tax on cigarettes. (yes - 5000% - that's not a mistype).

Neil Brooks

10-12-2011, 9:27 AM

Cigarettes are an extremely poor example to use.

The sales figures don't take into account the 5000% tax on cigarettes. (yes - 5000% - that's not a mistype).

True, but the underlying economic principle is sound.

It's called externalities.

If table saws/power tools are extracting an unwitting costs from everybody, then ... economics does say that it's optimal to put those costs back where they belong -- to be borne by the voluntary participants in that activity.

Economically, things like seat belts, cigs, booze, motorcycle helmets, et al, are good examples.

Because stats are NOT perfect, will some of us have to pay for something that we'll never ever get the benefit of ? Sure.

But ... how many people who were rushed to the ER because of things like TS injuries ever thought they WOULD be in that position.

An inherent problem with a purely libertarian ideology is that ... the actions of one often do have consequences that inure to the detriment of others. The larger our population, and the more complex our society, the more tightly coupled it gets.

And .... add me to the list of those who are HUGELY pleasantly surprised at how well we're all playing together, on this one. Sincerely :)

Alan Schaffter

10-12-2011, 11:09 AM

As I was composing my response to the ANPRM, I realized something- "We" asked for this. I'm not saying you or I personally asked for a specific CPSC action, but by virtue of supporting the government and governmental actions (or at least not fighting against them), "we", the citizens of the US, have asked the government to grow much bigger and to do more things than our founding forefathers ever dreamed. The greater "we" have asked the government to take better care of us and protect us from harm. The CPSC is just responding to "our" mandate.

I would like the government (more than just the CPSC) make the standards stricter and take a broader approach to the issue. I want to see:

A device that is always installed and armed when the saw is in use. (A safety device is not safe if the operator can remove it or turn it off.)

A device that works REALLY fast. (I would like to see what happens with the SS when you move the hotdog very fast into the blade)

A device that does not destroy or damage the blade or saw and that can be reset without the use of special, one-time-use parts like a brake cartridge.

CPSC and OSHA use the same standards. (It doesn't matter where the injury occurs. Also, a lot of industry equipment ends up in hobby shops.)

The government, legal system, and insurance industry hold owners and sellers of "old technology" saws not liable for injuries incurred on them. (otherwise the cost to replace legacy systems would be astronomical- a lot of boat anchors out there! Have any of you thought about your liability if you sell a "legacy" saw to someone who injures himself? Are you any less liable than Ryobi?)

A reasonably-priced, aftermarket, add-on device/modification that provides the same level of protection, as described above. (Sorry, the Whirlwind doesn't hack it. It is a guard that must be removed during a number of operations. With the end of the Shuttle program, we have a lot of out-of-work rocket scientists out there. Surely they can design such a device. )

Until ALL of the above are satisfied the CPSC should hold off revising TS standards and let industry and the market place handle the issue.

Bill Maietta

10-12-2011, 1:07 PM

True, but the underlying economic principle is sound.

...the underlying economic principle is sound.

It's called externalities.

If table saws/power tools are extracting an unwitting costs from everybody, then ... economics does say that it's optimal to put those costs back where they belong -- to be borne by the voluntary participants in that activity.

Excellent point, Neil. This is a classic example of market failure (externalities being a type of failure). Any economist would agree that a perfectly free market only works on a chalkboard. In the complexity of the real world unintended costs are put upon unwitting payers. In my first Econ. course (thirty something years ago) my extremely anti-government prof. used externalities as the example for when government should intervene.

Also, intervention might be the best thing for machine manufacturers. By setting standards now (or whenever all the process is processed, so to speak), liability can be limited in the future. Rules can be set to protect manufacturers while they innovate. So, consumers benefit as well. Bear in mind here that business is as involved in this process as are government types.

It's far from perfect, but that's the problem at the outset. I want as little government intervention as possible, but this is where it is needed.

And no, that doesn't mean we are not each responsible for our own safety. We are. However, accidents will continue to happen and put costs to society at large. And companies will continue to avoid risk and innovation if liability is too high.

Contact CPSC with your input. Link (http://www.regulations.gov/#%21submitComment;D=CPSC-2011-0074-0001) The more who do so, the closer to perfect the system becomes.

John Coloccia

10-12-2011, 1:28 PM

My biggest problem is:

What about machines that we have no solution for? Jointers, bandsaws, radial arm saws, shapers, routers, etc. How long will it be until we simply start banning machines? It's not far fetched at all. European table saws can not be designed to accept a dado blade. What if there's an alternative to the SS that doesn't work with dado blades? Will those saws be mandated to not accept a dado blade? I run custom blades in my table saw for guitar making. If those blades don't work with the SS (and they've told me that my particular blades might well not be stopped effectively by the brake) does that mean that those blades can no longer be manufactured, or that they must be modified to not fit a table saw arbor....or that I have to sign an affidavit saying that I will not use that blade in a table saw?

I don't think anyone would argue that as a society we have a right to regulate ourselves, but it is an extremely slippery slope and one that I care to go down only with extreme caution. Flesh sensing technology doesn't appear to me to be a case where something is crying out for regulation, any more than I think we should mandate Volvo's automatic braking technology. I thought the riving knife was a good idea. I can't explain at the moment why I think that's different, but I do. Maybe because it doesn't add any level of inconvenience over a splitter, in most cases adds quite a bit of convenience, and it makes the saw FAR safer. That didn't seem like a slippery slope to me. I'm not an anarchist. I just feel as though we are seriously rushing this issues, and frankly I feel as though it will be rammed down our throats whether we like it or not. That leaves a very bad taste in my mouth and is kind of scary, actually.

Mike Henderson

10-12-2011, 1:37 PM

As I was composing my response to the ANPRM, I realized something- "We" asked for this. I'm not saying you or I personally asked for a specific CPSC action, but by virtue of supporting the government and governmental actions (or at least not fighting against them), "we", the citizens of the US, have asked the government to grow much bigger and to do more things than our founding forefathers ever dreamed. The greater "we" have asked the government to take better care of us and protect us from harm. The CPSC is just responding to "our" mandate.

I would like the government (more than just the CPSC) make the standards stricter and take a broader approach to the issue. I want to see:

A device that is always installed and armed when the saw is in use. (A safety device is not safe if the operator can remove it or turn it off.)

A device that works REALLY fast. (I would like to see what happens with the SS when you move the hotdog very fast into the blade)

A device that does not destroy or damage the blade or saw and that can be reset without the use of special, one-time-use parts like a brake cartridge.

CPSC and OSHA use the same standards. (It doesn't matter where the injury occurs. Also, a lot of industry equipment ends up in hobby shops.)

The government, legal system, and insurance industry hold owners and sellers of "old technology" saws not liable for injuries incurred on them. (otherwise the cost to replace legacy systems would be astronomical- a lot of boat anchors out there! Have any of you thought about your liability if you sell a "legacy" saw to someone who injures himself? Are you any less liable than Ryobi?)

A reasonably-priced, aftermarket, add-on device/modification that provides the same level of protection, as described above. (Sorry, the Whirlwind doesn't hack it. It is a guard that must be removed during a number of operations. With the end of the Shuttle program, we have a lot of out-of-work rocket scientists out there. Surely they can design such a device. )
Until ALL of the above are satisfied the CPSC should hold off revising TS standards and let industry and the market place handle the issue.
You make some good points and I'll use some of them when I submit my comment. But I disagree with your conclusion. "Perfect is the enemy of good" meaning that sometime a good solution now is better then waiting for a perfect solution in the future. And the perfect solution may never appear. The history of innovation is that we start with a product and improve it incrementally. Cars are much better today than they were in the 1920's or the 1940's or the 1970's. We take what we can get today and we move forward, making it better each year.

For example, I'll take a system that destroys the blade and requires a new brake when the system activates because it may have just saved my hand. This is similar to an air bag that must be replaced at a fairly high cost but may have saved your life.

Mike

Steve Griffin

10-12-2011, 1:49 PM

Excellent point, Neil. This is a classic example of market failure (externalities being a type of failure). Any economist would agree that a perfectly free market only works on a chalkboard. In the complexity of the real world unintended costs are put upon unwitting payers. In my first Econ. course (thirty something years ago) my extremely anti-government prof. used externalities as the example for when government should intervene.

Also, intervention might be the best thing for machine manufacturers. By setting standards now (or whenever all the process is processed, so to speak), liability can be limited in the future. Rules can be set to protect manufacturers while they innovate. So, consumers benefit as well. Bear in mind here that business is as involved in this process as are government types.

It's far from perfect, but that's the problem at the outset. I want as little government intervention as possible, but this is where it is needed.

And no, that doesn't mean we are not each responsible for our own safety. We are. However, accidents will continue to happen and put costs to society at large. And companies will continue to avoid risk and innovation if liability is too high.

Contact CPSC with your input. Link (http://www.regulations.gov/#!submitComment;D=CPSC-2011-0074-0001) The more who do so, the closer to perfect the system becomes.

Oh you bet I'm writing to oppose this heavy handed intervention by collectivists and social planners like you.

As is, this is a case of free markets working perfectly. There is money to be made with safer T-Saws, and Sawstop seeking profits filled this need wonderfully. Insurance companies are free to adjust premiums if they think there is a financial benefit, which would also provide feedback to market choices. Legal liability will further drive the market choices. All's working fine without big brother stepping in.

There are also many like myself who applaud this technology, but are in no rush to replace my 3 saws with it. But those wearing "I'm smarter than you" hats are convinced I don't deserve that freedom. They are working with the state to take that freedom away from both me and my tool manufacturers.

If the only goal is low health care costs to "society", then you need to work to ban private woodworking altogether.

I'm not at all opposed to safety regulations for products, and we all should be thankful for oversight of areas like transportation and child products which have saved countless lives. But table saws are not killing hundreds per year and don't justify expensive mandates. If you like Sawstop, buy it. But don't force me to.

David Kumm

10-12-2011, 1:52 PM

Mike and Alan, The key here is to write the rules in a way that allows enough flexibility to allow for alternative ways to save fingers. The genie is out of the bottle. Any system that protects the operator sensibly should be mandated rather than
a specific type of system. The market should be allowed some choices between competing technologies - if they develop. My fear is not so much some mandate as I think that will happen anyway, but that the rules will be written in a way that stifles alternative ideas. Similar injury numbers for Euro sliders with 5 second injection brakes should be compared to see if there might be more than one option available to the consumer. If you are going to force technology at least give it room
to evolve. Dave

Jerome Hanby

10-12-2011, 2:01 PM

All the various "recognized" political parties have some baggage that I can't go along with so I usually ID myself as libertarian with a lowercase "l". Lately I think of myself as a "lister". Make a big list of every problem you can think of, put them in the order of most important one first, then work on them in that order. From that view point, this problem would be so far down the list that the table saw would be obsolete before it ever saw the light of day.

Kevin W Johnson

10-12-2011, 2:36 PM

And you can't, by law, charge your employee for the new blade and cartridge if the cartridge fires because of a mistake by the employee. You can fire the employee for incompetence but you can't charge them for mistakes.

Mike

I specifically said WILLING, i didn't say anything about making the employee pay for it. What if an employer said/could say to his employees, "I'll buy the SS, provided the person that fires it off pays for the cartridge, and blade." How many people do you think would actually do that? Such a deal would help the employer by having the employee financially conscious and thus reducing mis-fires on certain materials as well as an another incentive to keep his fingers out of the blade, while saving his fingers in the event of a moment of inattention, or outright stupidity. As well as helping the employer manage the cost on something that could easily break the bank. I don't know the answer myself, but i ask this based on peoples tendency to buy the minimum required insurance in other areas, as well as the number of people we have in this country that choose to not buy health insurance because doing so would mean they'd have to give up "niceties" in order to do so. As well as peoples tendency to go the cheap route when its coming out of their own pocket.

I was going to just let this die, but that sidestep of my question has been bugging me.

I also have a question or two for those who have commented about manufacturers having to be "made" to add safety devices to products, specifically table saws. Have any of you written, or contacted in any other way, any of the other table saw manufacturers and requested that they add a blade breaking safety device to their saws? How many have instead written the CPSC asking that they mandate such a system? You guys seem to forget that manufacturers are in business to make money, and making money requires customers. And manufacturers WILL make what the customer wants, but they have to know what you want. Unless people tell them, they have to base the customers wants on sales numbers. If their sales drop, and they see a rise in sales on a competitors product that has a particular feature, they will follow suit, but that takes much longer to happen.

Mike, i get where your thoughts lie on this issue, and i feel like at the heart of it, you feel its cheap to implement, so why not. I don't think (and i may be wrong) its as cheap as it seems on the surface, and its already expensive as crap to do business in this country as it is, and it just keeps getting piled on. But my main objection has more to do with creating more and more regulations. There are far too many examples of such action doing more harm than good. John touches base on this in his comment about blades. This is an issue where market forces can and will work, but people have to let the manufacturers know what they want.

Kevin W Johnson

10-12-2011, 2:41 PM

Mike Henderson

10-12-2011, 2:59 PM

Ben Hatcher

10-12-2011, 3:01 PM

...big snip.....If you like Sawstop, buy it. But don't force me to.

Nobody is forcing you to buy anything. They're preventing other people from selling something they deem to be unreasonably dangerous.

Alan Schaffter

10-12-2011, 3:14 PM

I specifically said WILLING, i didn't say anything about making the employee pay for it. What if an employer said/could say to his employees, "I'll buy the SS, provided the person that fires it off pays for the cartridge, and blade." How many people do you think would actually do that? Such a deal would help the employer by having the employee financially conscious and thus reducing mis-fires on certain materials as well as an another incentive to keep his fingers out of the blade, while saving his fingers in the event of a moment of inattention, or outright stupidity. As well as helping the employer manage the cost on something that could easily break the bank. I don't know the answer myself, but i ask this based on peoples tendency to buy the minimum required insurance in other areas, as well as the number of people we have in this country that choose to not buy health insurance because doing so would mean they'd have to give up "niceties" in order to do so. As well as peoples tendency to go the cheap route when its coming out of their own pocket.

Kevin, I haven't been following your discussion, but, found one problem with the above, at least in context of current SS system. To avoid having to pay for replacement brake cartridges for any reason- contact with a body part, metal, wet wood, etc., some (many?) employees might just turn the system off (Bypass mode?). That is why in my recent post I said turning it off should not be an option, at least when the saw is running.

If I were Sawstop, I would redesign the system so it is always in the test mode (to test for wet wood, etc.), BUT AUTOMATICALLY, arms when the motor is turned on. Wet wood, metal, anything that triggers the system etc. would need to be cut with another tool. A safety device is only good when it is installed AND turned on. Obviously, at least one jury agreed that the manufacturer is still at fault when the user does not install the proper safety devices and injures himself through his own negligence.

Gee, maybe if someone gets hurt by a Sawstop in the bypass mode, they can win a judgement by claiming Sawstop, failed to incorporate a "known" feature (my idea) that would have prevented that injury. I better send Sawstop a certified letter so the lawyers can prove they "knew" about this feature- after I patent it. I can be an expert witness for the plaintiff's lawyers. Oh, what a slippery slope!

ben searight

10-12-2011, 3:22 PM

Oh you bet I'm writing to oppose this heavy handed intervention by collectivists and social planners like you.

As is, this is a case of free markets working perfectly. There is money to be made with safer T-Saws, and Sawstop seeking profits filled this need wonderfully. Insurance companies are free to adjust premiums if they think there is a financial benefit, which would also provide feedback to market choices. Legal liability will further drive the market choices. All's working fine without big brother stepping in.

There are also many like myself who applaud this technology, but are in no rush to replace my 3 saws with it. But those wearing "I'm smarter than you" hats are convinced I don't deserve that freedom. They are working with the state to take that freedom away from both me and my tool manufacturers.

If the only goal is low health care costs to "society", then you need to work to ban private woodworking altogether.

I'm not at all opposed to safety regulations for products, and we all should be thankful for oversight of areas like transportation and child products which have saved countless lives. But table saws are not killing hundreds per year and don't justify expensive mandates. If you like Sawstop, buy it. But don't force me to.

You say that legal liability will drive more market choices but in fact just the opposite is what's occurring presently. Threat of lawsuit is preventing the larger manufacturers from developing systems similar to the SS. Do you really believe Delta, Powermatic, Grizzly, etc. don't have a brake available for their saws because they don't think it's a good idea? No, they don't offer them for fear of costly legal litigation. Immunity from these lawsuits would allow other manufacturers to produce similar systems for their saws, and they would do it in a heartbeat because at present SS is selling a regular old cabinet saw with $100 worth of extra parts at a huge premium. But, at present, the risk of lawsuit outweighs the rewards of higher profits. Competition would shrink the margin on safe saws dramatically and give us all a choice. Tort reform is what is necessary but that's a tough nut to crack.

Nobody's going to force you to do anything, you won't have to replace your current saws if you don't want to. It is interesting to me that you are willing to accept seatbelts, vehicle stability control, antilock brakes, airbags etc. offered at a HUGE cost but not a safer tablesaw. I suspect if you were missing some digits you might feel such mandates are warranted.

Mike Cruz

10-12-2011, 3:34 PM

I, for one, do NOT think that ANY safety equipment should be MANDATORY on table saws. Meaning, I don't think ALL table saws should have blade stopping technology, or unremoveable gaurds, or any other kind of equipment that is forced on the consumer. I DO, however, think it would be an AWESOME idea for manufacturers to have these technologies and safty equipment as OPTIONS for consumers A) When they purchase the saw, and B) As aftermarket add-ons.

Forcing the manufacturers to add things to the machines raises prices. (Heck, there are plastic pieces on them now that are there for one reason...cutting costs.) Even if they equipped EVERY saw with blade stopping technology (of one sort or another) FREE to the consumer, what might slam the consumer in the wallet is replacement costs involved with accidental triggering of said device...even when it went off when a saw without that device wouldn't have hurt the user (case in point...all the accounts of SS users that set off the lock by having it hit their crosscut miter).

Someone that buys a $300 table saw probably can't afford to replace the mechanisms that discharge in non-health risk accidents. Someone that shells out $4000 for a TS probably can...he might groan about it, but he can do it.

All I am saying is that the technologies are not bad in and of themselves. Forcing ALL manufacturers to equip ALL table saws with ANY type of safety feature is limiting on so many levels. However, offering multiple forms of safety devices (locking on/off switches, unremoveable guards and dust hoods, blade stopping technology, idiot proofing) on both new and for retrofitting used machines would help those who want it.

Anthony Whitesell

10-12-2011, 3:41 PM

Nobody's going to force you to do anything, you won't have to replace your current saws if you don't want to. It is interesting to me that you are willing to accept seatbelts, vehicle stability control, antilock brakes, airbags etc. offered at a HUGE cost but not a safer tablesaw. I suspect if you were missing some digits you might feel such mandates are warranted.

I'm willing to accept seatbelts and airbags but don't want (or need) ABS and stability control. I voiced my opinion on those, but my voice must not have been persuave enough. I was lucky enough to find a car where they were optional. I left the option at the dealership. Ie., no ABS for me...it was a secondary cause of my last car accident. The primary cause was the truck that ran the stop sign, had I not had ABS I'm sure the car would have stopped in time. Long story, but I know more than most about the inner working of ABS. I'm afraid to buy a new car for all the stuff in it that I don't want and don't need (TPMS, stability control, ABS, and probably an automatic transmission). I have a bare bones '04 Nissan Altima with 198k that purrs like a kitten.

I believe that I would accept the required technology more easily if it was being presented to the SPSC by a more impartial petitioneer. I think the same of others I have spoke with in person. Secondly, I would not mind having a sawstop if there was a second source for the brake mechanism. I've built far too many systems in my professional career where the parts had multiple sources to start with, only to have them stop production for one reason or another within a few years. Forcing me to persue an expensive redesign to replace an out-of-production part. In this economy, in these times, I'm scared to by a SawStop due to its once-and-done braking system. If SawStop goes belly up where are you to get a replacement brake mechanism?

Bill Maietta

10-12-2011, 3:43 PM

Oh you bet I'm writing to oppose this heavy handed intervention by collectivists and social planners like you.

As is, this is a case of free markets working perfectly. There is money to be made with safer T-Saws, and Sawstop seeking profits filled this need wonderfully. Insurance companies are free to adjust premiums if they think there is a financial benefit, which would also provide feedback to market choices. Legal liability will further drive the market choices. All's working fine without big brother stepping in...

Steve,

Maybe what I wrote was unclear, but it truly is the opposite of collectivism and far from what I understand as social planning. And I am very much against the idea that Sawstop should be the solution. I'm not even convinced that it has to be flesh sensing exactly... but it has to be much safer than it currently is.

First, the costs of table saw accidents are collectivized now. That's what I think hope gets addressed. We cannot fix this individually, and I oppose the current collective system of paying for these accidents. So, business and government sit down and find a solution.

Second, this is really a case for creating an environment in which business can innovate and succeed... and hopefully make a lot of money. Profits rock! See Ben's response above, he does a better job explaining the same point than I did.

Third, I hope we come up with something better than slamming a wad of aluminum into a perfectly good blade. Just not fair to the blade. Sorry, accidents are serious. Still, I really hope Sawstop isn't mandated. I doubt it will be. Usually these things don't wind up so definitive, more likely a set of guidelines. Hard to say since we don't know specifics of conversations at CPSC.

I been called a lot of things in my days, but collectivist and social planner. Dang that's harsh dude. No worries. All in good exposition of ideas, no?

Peter Aeschliman

10-12-2011, 3:48 PM

...snip...
There is money to be made with safer T-Saws, and Sawstop seeking profits filled this need wonderfully. Insurance companies are free to adjust premiums if they think there is a financial benefit, which would also provide feedback to market choices. Legal liability will further drive the market choices. All's working fine without big brother stepping in.

...snip...

...snip...
You say that legal liability will drive more market choices but in fact just the opposite is what's occurring presently. Threat of lawsuit is preventing the larger manufacturers from developing systems similar to the SS. Do you really believe Delta, Powermatic, Grizzly, etc. don't have a brake available for their saws because they don't think it's a good idea? No, they don't offer them for fear of costly legal litigation.
...snip...

These are two excellent points, and I believe they clearly articulate the two sides of this argument. Well done!

If I might add to this logic. I think the problem is that the liability issues in place are stifling innovation and tablesaw safety. I made this point somewhere in this massive thread. I believe that a free market can, and often does, naturally creates incentives for people to do the right thing. Obviously there are plenty of cases where it's the opposite. I think the picture you two have painted is one where the tablesaw market has most of the pieces in place to create the natural incentives for manufacturers to create safer tablesaws while consumers retain their right to choose.

The problem is the way liability is disproportionately (IMHO) placed on manufacturers. Fix that, and tablesaws will be safer and consumers will retain their freedom of choice in the new tablesaw market. Period. Both sides of this argument would be fully satisfied.

Btw, I own a sawstop.

Steve Griffin

10-12-2011, 4:00 PM

Thanks for your clarification Bill. Reading your posts again makes it clear you are more moderate on the issue than some of the others on this thread. -Steve

Alan Schaffter

10-12-2011, 4:00 PM

If SawStop goes belly up where are you to get a replacement brake mechanism?

You don't need one put in a spacer bar and run it in bypass mode, leave or strip out the electronics. Then you have a regular cabinet saw.

Mike Henderson

10-12-2011, 4:09 PM

I specifically said WILLING, i didn't say anything about making the employee pay for it. What if an employer said/could say to his employees, "I'll buy the SS, provided the person that fires it off pays for the cartridge, and blade." How many people do you think would actually do that? Such a deal would help the employer by having the employee financially conscious and thus reducing mis-fires on certain materials as well as an another incentive to keep his fingers out of the blade, while saving his fingers in the event of a moment of inattention, or outright stupidity. As well as helping the employer manage the cost on something that could easily break the bank. I don't know the answer myself, but i ask this based on peoples tendency to buy the minimum required insurance in other areas, as well as the number of people we have in this country that choose to not buy health insurance because doing so would mean they'd have to give up "niceties" in order to do so. As well as peoples tendency to go the cheap route when its coming out of their own pocket.
You'd have to check with an employment lawyer to be sure but I don't believe that what you suggest would pass legal muster. The reason is that it's very hard to separate "voluntary" from "required". Think about this scenario: the boss comes in and makes your suggestion to the employees and tells them to think it over. Later,the boss calls in one person and confides that anyone who doesn't agree to your proposal will be laid off. So when s/he goes back and asks for the employees decision, they all agree to it. The boss just accomplished what is prohibited in the law. I'm pretty sure the employees cannot voluntarily agree to something that's prohibited.

Mike

Anthony Whitesell

10-12-2011, 4:09 PM

True, true. You got me. I didn't think in that direction.

I wonder if they looked at the motor brakes that are available. I know several industrial robots that use them. But then again, stopping the motor and arbor shaft would cause the blade to unwind the arbor nut, unless the "nut" was redesigned as well.

Mike Henderson

10-12-2011, 4:13 PM

You say that legal liability will drive more market choices but in fact just the opposite is what's occurring presently. Threat of lawsuit is preventing the larger manufacturers from developing systems similar to the SS. Do you really believe Delta, Powermatic, Grizzly, etc. don't have a brake available for their saws because they don't think it's a good idea? No, they don't offer them for fear of costly legal litigation. Immunity from these lawsuits would allow other manufacturers to produce similar systems for their saws, and they would do it in a heartbeat because at present SS is selling a regular old cabinet saw with $100 worth of extra parts at a huge premium. But, at present, the risk of lawsuit outweighs the rewards of higher profits. Competition would shrink the margin on safe saws dramatically and give us all a choice. Tort reform is what is necessary but that's a tough nut to crack.

Nobody's going to force you to do anything, you won't have to replace your current saws if you don't want to. It is interesting to me that you are willing to accept seatbelts, vehicle stability control, antilock brakes, airbags etc. offered at a HUGE cost but not a safer tablesaw. I suspect if you were missing some digits you might feel such mandates are warranted.
I don't think that by failing to offer a safety system the manufacturers are making themselves immune to litigation. Quite the opposite is probably true as demonstrated by the Ryobi decision recently. If a safety system is available and the manufacturer fails to implement it, they'll be held negligent. They'd be much better off as far as liability to offer the safety system.

Mike

Bill Maietta

10-12-2011, 4:58 PM

I don't think that by failing to offer a safety system the manufacturers are making themselves immune to litigation. Quite the opposite is probably true as demonstrated by the Ryobi decision recently. If a safety system is available and the manufacturer fails to implement it, they'll be held negligent. They'd be much better off as far as liability to offer the safety system.

Mike

Mike, Ben,

I think you're both right. If another case were brought with some of the details changed a manufacturer could be held liable for making an improvement. Maybe, it opens them to not doing it soon enough. Just hypothetical there. Lots of variations. Many of which end in potential for liability... who has the best lawyer and all that.

The critical thing that I hope comes from CPSC/Business collaboration on new rules would be clarity. A set of guidelines to limit liability for companies that follow them. In a sense, it is tort reform for this one product. Businesses should not expect certainty. Risk is always present, but reasonable limits are needed.

And hopefully it opens the door to big innovations. I bet there are designs out there that are held up right now. I was wondering like Anthony mentioned above about motors with brakes, used in a lot of industries. Right now they're pretty darn expensive, but maybe adapted to TSs? Accounting for arbor nut issue; not tearing up a good blade (it really gets my cheap side up the blade being destroyed).

two cents or so there, I hope,
Bill

ben searight

10-12-2011, 6:31 PM

"I don't think that by failing to offer a safety system the manufacturers are making themselves immune to litigation. Quite the opposite is probably true as demonstrated by the Ryobi decision recently. If a safety system is available and the manufacturer fails to implement it, they'll be held negligent. They'd be much better off as far as liability to offer the safety system.

Mike "

I agree whole heartedly. I think recently is the key word in that post. Had that verdict been handed down 8 years ago we'd probably have several to choose from by now. Up until that verdict manufacturers thought they were protecting their legal interests by not producing a brake. Obviously they were mistaken. It probably doesn't matter what the CPSC says the trend toward this technology is now probably inevitable.

"And hopefully it opens the door to big innovations. I bet there are designs out there that are held up right now. I was wondering like Anthony mentioned above about motors with brakes, used in a lot of industries. Right now they're pretty darn expensive, but maybe adapted to TSs? Accounting for arbor nut issue; not tearing up a good blade (it really gets my cheap side up the blade being destroyed).

two cents or so there, I hope,
Bill "

I think we'll eventually end up with something better than SS. The arbor nut is easily addressed with pinned blades (Felder and others with motor brakes do this already). I hope we end up with the braking mechanism on the arbor not the blade, maybe a sacraficial gear or roller clutch of some sort. Something that would require you to spin the blade back a quarter turn to unlock it, push the reset button, and go back to work.

thomas prusak

10-13-2011, 3:31 AM

This should be a no brainer and should be on every TS

Tom Rossman

10-13-2011, 6:45 AM

Last I checked, Volvo has a miniscule market share that is consistent with the percentage of the population that is willing to pay extra for safety.

Rich Engelhardt

10-13-2011, 7:48 AM

This should be a no brainer and should be on every TS

LOL!

My greedy little mercenary heart is so much in agreement w/that.

The price of my "pre ban" Ridgid TS3660 would just soar!

Leo Graywacz

10-13-2011, 7:55 AM

Nah..They will just make it illegal and it will only be worth the scrap metal price.

Anthony Whitesell

10-13-2011, 8:04 AM

For my newer Craftsman, that wouldn't be much...it's mostly plastic!

Scott Vigder

10-13-2011, 8:18 AM

Someone that buys a $300 table saw probably can't afford to replace the mechanisms that discharge in non-health risk accidents. Someone that shells out $4000 for a TS probably can...he might groan about it, but he can do it.

Therein lies the rub: economics would prevent the person who cannot afford the new technology saw from entering the market; yet the gung-ho anti-government let-me-choose voices complain bitterly when government has to raise their taxes to pay for the expensive injuries incurred.

Heartless as it sounds, it is the same argument as helmetless motorcycle riders. I'm ok with a rider not wearing a helmet as long as I don't have to pay for the EMS team that scrapes him off the pavement; the ER team that sews him back together; the Physical Therapists and ancillary team members that rehab him; or the extended care facility that may have to spoon feed him the rest of his life.

I've seen many references here linking seat belts and air bags to this discussion and I think they are misguided. Yes the gov legislated safety. Yes the industry bitched and moaned and finally gave in. But the cost of adding these devices was fractional...less than 1% of the selling price.....so the economic impact was minimal, did not drive potential customers from the market, and has saved billions of dollars and countless lives.

Let's face it: the costs here are the result of accidents. No one wants to lop off a digit while making a rocker for the spouse. The insurance industry is designed to handle this. Can't the insurance industry offer a policy specifically for the risks we as woodworkers take? Premiums can be based on the level of safety technology you have in your shop. No gov interference. Just the free market.

And lastly, I'll stir up the pot by asking: if I hurt myself doing my hobby, and I can't afford care, why is the government responsible for fixing me up?

Rich Engelhardt

10-13-2011, 8:36 AM

Nah..They will just make it illegal and it will only be worth the scrap metal price.
I'm thinking more along the lines that they only be illegal in CA.
The rest of us will be able to grandfather in :D

dave toney

10-13-2011, 8:36 AM

If it wasn't for the Federal Government, automobiles wouldn't even have seat belts, let alone air bags. Industry will nearly always oppose safety, because there is no money in it.

This is just not so, seat belts were put in cars before they were mandated, so were air bags.
Industry will provide what customers demand, because that is precisely where the money is.
The Saw Stop is available without any mandates, the market will decide whether or not people prefer this technology.
Dave

Anthony Whitesell

10-13-2011, 8:45 AM

This is just not so, seat belts were put in cars before they were mandated, so were air bags.
Industry will provide what customers demand, because that is precisely where the money is.
The Saw Stop is available without any mandates, the market will decide whether or not people prefer this technology.
Dave

And I'm sure the others are watching Sawstop and the sales very carefully. I'd be fairly certain atleast one of them has someone in a back room looking for a safety system as effective (and I say that loosely, please) as the SawStop system while not infringing on any patents.

And if someone is in the market for a tablesaw and the price has risen due to the requirement of the safety system, what will they do? Buy a used saw and mostly one without the safety system and if they are really unlucky, one without the proper old school guards as well. So our "newcomer" is no better of than we are today.

George Jungerman

10-13-2011, 9:59 AM

That argument is specious. It's not necessary to solve all the problems of the world to address one problem. If you feel that those devices should have better safety devices, you should petition the CPSC to have additional safety devices added to them. It would be good if you could specify the cost of injuries due to the use of those tools and the cost of the safety device you recommend.

That "fix the world and then come talk to me about this problem" is an old argument and has no more validity now than it did earlier.

Mike

However, it's not up to the Federal government to solve any of our problems, if they stem from personal activities. In addition, mandating SS tech on all tablesaws will end the benchtop saw. There is no room to put the tech in a saw that small, and they are light enough that the cartridge firing might just flip the saw off the bench.

ben searight

10-13-2011, 10:21 AM

And I'm sure the others are watching Sawstop and the sales very carefully. I'd be fairly certain atleast one of them has someone in a back room looking for a safety system as effective (and I say that loosely, please) as the SawStop system while not infringing on any patents.

And if someone is in the market for a tablesaw and the price has risen due to the requirement of the safety system, what will they do? Buy a used saw and mostly one without the safety system and if they are really unlucky, one without the proper old school guards as well. So our "newcomer" is no better of than we are today.

SS is available without any mandates because SS has never produced a saw without the brake mechanism. Delta, Powermatic, Grizzly, etc. have, up until the Ryobi verdict, not been pursuing the technology because of the fear of lawsuit. Manufacturing WW tools is a very low margin business and they determined the probability of a lawsuit erasing all of the profit earned from this technology was too high to justify it. It happens all the time in my line of work, there are numerous types of projects we won't pursue because the threat of lawsuit is too high to justify the profit earned. Consequently, we don't chase that type of work. The Ryobi verdict probably changed that, and I would suspect that the larger manufacturers are now developing technology to prevent being sued for producing an "unsafe" saw. Also, if I was in their shoes, once I developed a braking system, it would be on EVERY saw that went out the door to prevent injured operators of my "unsafe" saws from suing me.

The arguement that a newcomer can buy a saw without the safety system doesn't hold water. You can still buy a used Pinto, Pacer, or Corvair, and die a fiery death, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't produce safer cars.

In the end we all desire the freedom to choose. The reality of the world in which we live is, we are not unconditionaly free to choose. I am forced to pay for the heath care of the injured, and the living expenses of the disabled, one of which I am neither. So unless we're willing to let the injured who don't have insurance bleed to death, or let the disabled starve to death, we should provide a reasonably safe saw if the technology is available.

Rodger Kanis

10-13-2011, 10:31 AM

"Someone that buys a $300 table saw probably can't afford to replace the mechanisms that discharge in non-health risk accidents. Someone that shells out $4000 for a TS probably can...he might groan about it, but he can do it."

Ironically, it is the person who cannot afford to replace the mechanisms on a $300 table saw that probably needs the protection the most. They will probably be the person least able to afford the ramifications of a nasty injury, loss of income (or loss of job completely), loss of use of whatever appendage is damaged, possibly not have insurance, etc. In fact, having this person being "forced" to use this protection probably reduces the cost to the rest of us, as the burden of the costs and injuries to this person are more likely to fall upon society rather than their limited pocketbook and resources. You may not like to think of it this way, but it is realistic.

Keep the big picture in mind: This isn't being required to force people to pay more up front, it's being done to lower the overall costs to people and society as a whole. In looking at the statistics, it should (in theory) do exactly that.

I feel Mike Henderson summed it up best on the first page of this thread. We bear the costs of all of these injuries and costs collectively, whether you like to think so or not. All of those costs (including lost productivity) is passed along the chain to consumers and taxpayers somehow. And the costs are significant. (I'm talking about table saws here, but it also applies to smoking, alcohol/drug abuse, motor cycle riding/injuries, overeating/obesity, etc.)

And to those going on and on about "freedom"... c'mon. We live in a free country, can vote, say what we want, move freely, etc. Having regulations or required equipment on tools is not a detriment to "freedom". It can certainly be expensive and inconvenient, but it's not an infringement on freedom. This is especially true when your "freedom" to choose poorly impacts those around you either directly (injury) or financially (higher costs passed along). Who's the one that is reducing freedom then? You are. You have now become the very thing you purport to rail against. Ironic, isn't it? Don't let bravado and machismo override common sense and simple observation that this is a very big problem with real costs and consequences of these injuries. I think we have now really bastardized what the word "freedom" means, very much like how the word "hero" is way too often over-used and misapplied.

Back to the meat of the subject, just look at the overall numbers of injuries... whoa! Some of those are pros, some are amateurs/hobbyists. The blades do not care, nor do they discriminate. It can happen to anyone, anytime. I think of some of the threads on this forum, posted by long-time woodworkers, about their injuries (some with pictures [[shudder]]). It only takes a moment to hit the blade, to wedge the wood for kickback, etc. It could happen to any of us, today, whenever, no matter how long you've been using a table saw in your life, whether through poor safety practices or a random incident or momentary lapse in concentration. We are all only human, and we make mistakes.

(For the record, the original court judgement and non-overturing I find absolutely absurd and really burns my tail. I don't know if I just don't have all the facts or something, but this seems to me like it should have been a no-brainer in the other direction.)

dave toney

10-13-2011, 11:32 AM

Oh, the wonders of what collectivism breeds.
The problem of "paying for someone else's health care" is really the root of the problem.
This reasoning will lead to more and more "protective" laws, perhaps fat people should be sent to reeducation camps, or maybe we should all be forced to be vegans, skydiving and mountain climbing should be banned, the possibilities are endless.
We can either be free individuals, or we can be part of a collective, where the common good outweighs any precept of freedom.
Maybe the answer should be licensing of woodworking equipment and government inspections of all home shops, or the banning of private woodworking all together.
To hell with personal responsibility and the ability to choose, this is entirely too dangerous in the land of the free and home of the brave.
I promise, if I am injured I will not pass the cost on to anyone else, even though I am uninsured.
Dave

"Someone that buys a $300 table saw probably can't afford to replace the mechanisms that discharge in non-health risk accidents. Someone that shells out $4000 for a TS probably can...he might groan about it, but he can do it."

Ironically, it is the person who cannot afford to replace the mechanisms on a $300 table saw that probably needs the protection the most. They will probably be the person least able to afford the ramifications of a nasty injury, loss of income (or loss of job completely), loss of use of whatever appendage is damaged, possibly not have insurance, etc. In fact, having this person being "forced" to use this protection probably reduces the cost to the rest of us, as the burden of the costs and injuries to this person are more likely to fall upon society rather than their limited pocketbook and resources. You may not like to think of it this way, but it is realistic.

Keep the big picture in mind: This isn't being required to force people to pay more up front, it's being done to lower the overall costs to people and society as a whole. In looking at the statistics, it should (in theory) do exactly that.

I feel Mike Henderson summed it up best on the first page of this thread. We bear the costs of all of these injuries and costs collectively, whether you like to think so or not. All of those costs (including lost productivity) is passed along the chain to consumers and taxpayers somehow. And the costs are significant. (I'm talking about table saws here, but it also applies to smoking, alcohol/drug abuse, motor cycle riding/injuries, overeating/obesity, etc.)

And to those going on and on about "freedom"... c'mon. We live in a free country, can vote, say what we want, move freely, etc. Having regulations or required equipment on tools is not a detriment to "freedom". It can certainly be expensive and inconvenient, but it's not an infringement on freedom. This is especially true when your "freedom" to choose poorly impacts those around you either directly (injury) or financially (higher costs passed along). Who's the one that is reducing freedom then? You are. You have now become the very thing you purport to rail against. Ironic, isn't it? Don't let bravado and machismo override common sense and simple observation that this is a very big problem with real costs and consequences of these injuries. I think we have now really bastardized what the word "freedom" means, very much like how the word "hero" is way too often over-used and misapplied.

Back to the meat of the subject, just look at the overall numbers of injuries... whoa! Some of those are pros, some are amateurs/hobbyists. The blades do not care, nor do they discriminate. It can happen to anyone, anytime. I think of some of the threads on this forum, posted by long-time woodworkers, about their injuries (some with pictures [[shudder]]). It only takes a moment to hit the blade, to wedge the wood for kickback, etc. It could happen to any of us, today, whenever, no matter how long you've been using a table saw in your life, whether through poor safety practices or a random incident or momentary lapse in concentration. We are all only human, and we make mistakes.

(For the record, the original court judgement and non-overturing I find absolutely absurd and really burns my tail. I don't know if I just don't have all the facts or something, but this seems to me like it should have been a no-brainer in the other direction.)

ben searight

10-13-2011, 11:46 AM

ben searight

10-13-2011, 11:58 AM

mreza Salav

10-13-2011, 11:59 AM

Excellent post......well said.

+1,

(filler words to make the message long enough).

Mike Cruz

10-13-2011, 12:04 PM

Rodger, initial cost IS a huge problem. If increasing initial cost for "safety" is the goal, get rid of all the junk tools! Many of them (with or without safety features) are dangerous in and of themselves. I've seen fences on cheap TSs that do not line up parallel to the blade everytime. On others, they wobble, or on table top versions, they slide/move.

I am NOT advocating ridding the world of inexpensive tools. If that were done, we would lose a large number of us right here on theis forum! Not everyone can afford (monetarily) tools that have what most of us would call bare minimum safety. You use what you can buy. Likewise, you drive what you can afford. I drive a 3/4 ton pick up. Many of you drive Mercedes, Audi, BMW, and other brands that are innovative, current, and cutting edge with their safety features. Many of you drive compact economy cars. I would NOT and do NOT feel safe in small economy cars. But just because I don't, doesn't mean you shouldn't. A Cavalier or Corolla may have frontal air bags and seat belts, but has nothing on the antilock break systems, multi air bags, crumple zones, driving falling asleep alarms, traction control, all wheel drive, anti sway suspension, wheels larger than donuts, etc, etc, etc that the high dollar vehicles offer. Should ALL cars have these features? If they did, many would not have cars.

Again, what I would like to see are retrofit or add on options for safety features for ALL TSs. That way, you would have a choice.

Mike Cruz

10-13-2011, 12:06 PM

He said he was uninsured, not broke. He can go the hospital, get attention, and pay for it...kinda like going to Walmart...but not as bloody.

dave toney

10-13-2011, 12:08 PM

Freedom and being a member of society are not mutually exclusive.

I find it hard to believe you will not seek medical attention if seriously injured.

I did not say that freedom and being a member of society were mutually exclusive, just that being a member of society does not entitle anyone to free health care, health care is important, but free health care is not a right.
I also did not say that I would not seek medical attention, I just said that I would not expect anyone other than myself to pay for it.
This thread should prove that socialism leads to authoritarian laws, after all the only arguments for mandating Saw Stop technology is the mandate of free health care and the costs to "society".
Dave

Bruce Page

10-13-2011, 12:39 PM

Folks, this thread is NOT about the health care system, mandated or not. It is also not about politics.
Please stay on topic.

ben searight

10-13-2011, 12:41 PM

I did not say that freedom and being a member of society were mutually exclusive, just that being a member of society does not entitle anyone to free health care, health care is important, but free health care is not a right.
I also did not say that I would not seek medical attention, I just said that I would not expect anyone other than myself to pay for it.

And if you couldn't pay? What if the bill was $100 K and the hospital excercised it's "freedom" to refuse treatment without cash up front. Or God forbid it was your child or wife who needed treatment, would you refuse it if you hadn't the means to pay for it. It's very easy to say what one will do in any situation but no one KNOWS what they'll do until they find themselves in that situation.

Like it or not all of us pay for costs of the "collective" and also recieve benefits as part of that "collective". Unless you grow all of your own food, generate your own electricity, don't drive on the highway, watch TV, talk on the phone, or seek medical care you are already benefitting from what "society" has paid for.

This thread should prove that socialism leads to authoritarian laws, after all the only arguments for mandating Saw Stop technology is the mandate of free health care and the costs to "society".
Dave

I wouldn't say that's the only arguement, matter of fact the best argument is it keeps you or I from cutting our fingers off.

dave toney

10-13-2011, 1:05 PM

I respectfully disagree.
I pay for my electricity, buy and grow my food, pay fuel taxes, TV? (I don't get that), pay for my phone, and my medical care.

BTW, I am not against Saw Stop technology, but I will not replace my Powermatic 66 any time soon.
Dave

And if you couldn't pay? What if the bill was $100 K and the hospital excercised it's "freedom" to refuse treatment without cash up front. Or God forbid it was your child or wife who needed treatment, would you refuse it if you hadn't the means to pay for it. It's very easy to say what one will do in any situation but no one KNOWS what they'll do until they find themselves in that situation.

Like it or not all of us pay for costs of the "collective" and also recieve benefits as part of that "collective". Unless you grow all of your own food, generate your own electricity, don't drive on the highway, watch TV, talk on the phone, or seek medical care you are already benefitting from what "society" has paid for.

I wouldn't say that's the only arguement, matter of fact the best argument is it keeps you or I from cutting our fingers off.

Ben Hatcher

10-13-2011, 1:24 PM

I propose the following solution that will satisfy both the advocates of doing what's best for society and those who want to protect their personal choice/responsibility. Allow manufacturers to make two versions! Both should be the same price. In the event of a blade strike, one version should prevent injury. The other version will continue to mangle as usual but will also be required to notify the local institutions of society (911-dispatcher, hospital, etc.) that someone with a strong sense of personal responsibility has just injured himself. They would then be further instructed that in order to respect the patient's wishes they are to resist any socialistic tendencies and/or human compassion and provide only the medical attention he can afford to pay for up front.

ben searight

10-13-2011, 1:26 PM

I respectfully disagree.
I pay for my electricity, buy and grow my food, pay fuel taxes, TV? (I don't get that), pay for my phone, and my medical care.
I guess I am just an antique fossil who still believes in freedom, but don't worry, we will all die off soon and we will leave the world to those who don't remember or care what freedom was.
BTW, I am not against Saw Stop technology, but I will not replace my Powermatic 66 any time soon.
Dave

Your electricity costs are subsidized by the fact power companies are given free access to public rights-of-way (your bill would be $1000 a month if they had to buy their own) same for phone companies, cable TV and all other utilities. You food purchases are regulated for safety by the FDA. Depending on what state you live in your gas tax money may or may not cover the costs of constructing/maintaining the highway system. The education of the doctors that treat you is subsidized in the form or grants, scholarships, and very low interest loans.

I'm going to get off the politics now, we've already been warned (Sorry Bruce)

I do not own one but i think the SawStop is a great idea. I'm not sold on the particular technology (I don't like the damage to the blade, the expense of the cartridges, and the down time). I think in the end consumers will get something much better than SS at a much lower cost.

Anthony Whitesell

10-13-2011, 2:44 PM

I do not own one but i think the SawStop is a great idea. I'm not sold on the particular technology (I don't like the damage to the blade, the expense of the cartridges, and the down time).

I was just thinking the same thing. I went over to the whirlwind tool website to see what infomation they provided on how their system works and intergrates to the machine, but they just have a bunch of videos and no substance. After watching them, I'm curious on two things. 1) How does he get the bandsaw to stop so quickly without any electrical modifications (quoted from the website)? 2) How does he stop the blade on the table saw without the arbor spinning free? If you recall the nut tights in the opposite direction the motor spins. With both the blade and motor free this causes the nut to tighten. If the motor stop suddenly, the momentum of the blade could brake the arbor nut loose, especially when using a dado blade. (I believe this is one reason the SawStop went with a blade brake design instead of a motor or arbor break.

Kevin W Johnson

10-13-2011, 3:32 PM

You'd have to check with an employment lawyer to be sure but I don't believe that what you suggest would pass legal muster. The reason is that it's very hard to separate "voluntary" from "required". Think about this scenario: the boss comes in and makes your suggestion to the employees and tells them to think it over. Later,the boss calls in one person and confides that anyone who doesn't agree to your proposal will be laid off. So when s/he goes back and asks for the employees decision, they all agree to it. The boss just accomplished what is prohibited in the law. I'm pretty sure the employees cannot voluntarily agree to something that's prohibited.

Mike

Mike, can you answer the question for what it is? Forget what the employer can and cannot do legally.

dave toney

10-13-2011, 3:32 PM

I don't get your point, you seem to be arguing against something I never said or intimated.
I am not against all cooperative arrangements at all, I never said a man is an island unto himself.
I DID say that collectivism leads to authoritarianism, such as "I have to pay when so and so does so and so".
I believe every person is responsible for himself, his needs, and his own safety and those things are not up to a vote by the majority.
The Saw Stop is a fine idea, but it would be a bad idea to mandate it on all saws, the market can decide that.
Freedom does carry some risks, but I think it is well worth it.
I don't personally think politics should be off limit, as long as no name calling, insults, or ad-hominem attacks are made.
Discussion brings enlightenment.
Dave

Kevin W Johnson

10-13-2011, 3:34 PM

Mike Henderson

10-13-2011, 3:50 PM

And this simply shouldnt be the case when the consumer is free to buy a competitors product that offers the device and chooses not too.
As a society, we have always believed that manufacturers should not be able to sell unsafe products. The definition of "unsafe" is an evolving standard. At one time, a certain type of crib was acceptable to sell, but as we learned more about the dangers inherent in it, that particular design of crib was deemed unsafe and banned from the market. You can't buy one of those cribs new.

Table saws are in a similar situation now. In the past, it was not possible to build a safer table saw. Now it is. Based on the advance of technology, we may decide, as a society, that the older design, which in light of the new technology is now considered unsafe, should no longer be sold. If we decide that the older design is "inherently unsafe" I don't see why we should allow it to continue to be sold as a new product.

Mike

Mike Henderson

10-13-2011, 3:51 PM

Mike, can you answer the question for what it is? Forget what the employer can and cannot do legally.
Since what you propose is not legal, your question is moot. There's no reason to hypothesize about things which are not possible.

mike

ben searight

10-13-2011, 4:01 PM

ben searight

10-13-2011, 4:26 PM

As a society, we have always believed that manufacturers should not be able to sell unsafe products. The definition of "unsafe" is an evolving standard. At one time, a certain type of crib was acceptable to sell, but as we learned more about the dangers inherent in it, that particular design of crib was deemed unsafe and banned from the market. You can't buy one of those cribs new.

Table saws are in a similar situation now. In the past, it was not possible to build a safer table saw. Now it is. Based on the advance of technology, we may decide, as a society, that the older design, which in light of the new technology is now considered unsafe, should no longer be sold. If we decide that the older design is "inherently unsafe" I don't see why we should allow it to continue to be sold as a new product.

Mike

I'm not sure this is the same as the faulty cribs, closer to lawn darts in my estimation. You couldn't look at the crib sitting in your childs room and determine it was dangerous and could kill your baby. Lawn darts were clearly dangerous from the outset. Anyone, (at least anyone on this forum) can tell you that a TS can hurt you therefore, don't put you fingers in the blade. I think that's where the peoples resistance comes from. You know it's dangerous, use it at your own risk.

That being said, I'm with you, if you can build a better TS please do so.

Leo Graywacz

10-13-2011, 4:52 PM

ben searight

10-13-2011, 6:01 PM

Kevin W Johnson

10-13-2011, 8:15 PM

Since what you propose is not legal, your question is moot. There's no reason to hypothesize about things which are not possible.

mike

My point is show that the general populace simply wants to put the full responsiblility of their safety on someone else, and when they have to share that burden (financially), they make different descisions. If you're unwilling to admit that, so be it.

Mike Henderson

10-13-2011, 8:20 PM

My point is show that the general populace simply wants to put the full responsiblility of their safety on someone else, and when they have to share that burden (financially), they make different descisions. If you're unwilling to admit that, so be it.
Well, given that the person who has the accident suffers the consequences, I think they have a pretty strong interest in their own safety. Sort of like the story of ham and eggs. The chicken is involved, but the pig is committed.

Mike

Kevin W Johnson

10-13-2011, 8:23 PM

It comes down to

You can't fix stupid.

Even with the SS safety equipment someone is bound to get severely hurt on it. Maybe fall and knock a chunk off their skull on the corner of the cast iron table.

You got that right. All those little warnings and labels you see on products, and you think "who in the world is that stupid", is there simply because someone was in fact, that stupid.

Kevin W Johnson

10-13-2011, 8:24 PM

Well, given that the person who has the accident suffers the consequences, I think they have a pretty strong interest in their own safety. Sort of like the story of ham and eggs. The chicken is involved, but the pig is committed.

Mike

Obviously not strong enough, or more people would be willing to pony up for their own safety.

Mike Henderson

10-13-2011, 8:37 PM

Obviously not strong enough, or more people would be willing to pony up for their own safety.
On the job, the person who provides the tools is the employer (the chicken). The employee (the pig) uses the tools provided. Since the chicken is only involved, and not committed like the pig, someone else (OSHA) has to come along and force the chicken to provide a safe working environment. Pretty straight forward.

Mike

Doug Morgan

10-13-2011, 8:49 PM

On the job, the person who provides the tools is the employer (the chicken). The employee (the pig) uses the tools provided. Since the chicken is only involved, and not committed like the pig, someone else (OSHA) has to come along and force the chicken to provide a safe working environment. Pretty straight forward.

Mike

Love the analogy.

Ok so I have a Saw Stop so which am I the Pig or the Chicken?

dave toney

10-13-2011, 8:52 PM

On the job, the person who provides the tools is the employer (the chicken). The employee (the pig) uses the tools provided. Since the chicken is only involved, and not committed like the pig, someone else (OSHA) has to come along and force the chicken to provide a safe working environment. Pretty straight forward.

Mike

Reminds me of George Orwell's Animal Farm, in more ways than one.
dave

Mike Cruz

10-13-2011, 8:54 PM

You are the (Guinnea) pig...

Mike Henderson

10-13-2011, 8:54 PM

Reminds me of George Orwell's Animal Farm, in more ways than one.
dave
Except there, the pigs had the power. "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others." Great story. Has some relevance to things in the news today, doesn't it.

Mike

dave toney

10-13-2011, 9:12 PM

Except there, the pigs had the power. "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others." Great story. Has some relevance to things in the news today, doesn't it.

Mike
Yes, and so does "1984", unfortunately, as well as Huxley's Brave New World.

Rod Sheridan

10-14-2011, 8:46 AM

I went and posted my comments. The net of my thinking is that the table saw, as is, is inherently dangerous. We tolerated this situation up to now because we didn't have any alternative. But technology has advanced to the point where we can make a saw that is significantly safer, and at a reasonable cost. We should not permit inherently dangerous tools to be sold if there's a reasonable alternative.

And that's what I told the CPSC.

Mike

Mike, I also posted my comments on the proposed safety standard, and am in full support of developing a new standard based upon an active safety system. There simply isn't a good reason to not adopt better safety systems as they become available.

regards, Rod.

Rod Sheridan

10-14-2011, 9:10 AM

My biggest problem is:

What about machines that we have no solution for? Jointers, bandsaws, radial arm saws, shapers, routers, etc. How long will it be until we simply start banning machines? It's not far fetched at all. European table saws can not be designed to accept a dado blade. What if there's an alternative to the SS that doesn't work with dado blades? Will those saws be mandated to not accept a dado blade?

Hi John, actually European saws can be used with dado cutters, they cannot however take standard dado blades without modification.

My Euro saw is available with the dado option, and I purchased it with that option. The Euro dado cutters look like a shaper cutter rather than a saw blade with chippers. The issue is blade braking, the saw blades and cutters have pins that prevent them from slipping on the arbour, so the dado cutters have to be bored to accept these pins. I purchased a Canadian made dado set and had the manufacturer bore it for my saw.

Forrest offer a stocked dado set with the same bore configuration for Felder saws.

The other issue is guarding of the dado cutter, the EU requires an overarm guard when using a dado cutter.

Since the EU has a blade braking time requirement, a saw has to be designed to brake a dado cutter in the same time period as a single saw blade. (Increased stored energy).

John, I have no idea what the form the legislation will take, however it will be a solution provided by the manufacturers, to comply with a standard, just like everywhere else in the world. My saw complies with the EU guidelines, just like all the other EU saws. The EU saws have higher safety standards than NA saws, and generally have more features and capabilities, as well as having higher safety.

Safety and functionality aren't mutually exclusive, a couple of days ago I was cutting some triangular 2" X 2" X whatever corner blocks out of 3/4" plywood on my tablesaw. With a sliding saw and the eccentric clamp mounted on the slider I was able to safely cut those blocks with my fingers a couple of feet away from the blade, with all the guards in place. Safety and increased functionality in one package, from the manufacturer.

Regards, Rod.

P.S. My Euro shaper also has blade braking, another EU safety requirement..........Maybe it is a slope John.