All table saws are unsafe

[David A Anderson]

This may not be the right place to post. If not, moderator please remove it, but I just saw a tv commercial from a law firm searching for anyone who has been cut or injured by a table saw to give them a call. They claim they can be proven in court that because of the blade stopping technology, any saw without it is defective and therefore any injury should be compensated by the maker of the saw. They even showed a picture of the hotdog saving its life at a table saw.:rolleyes:

This is as stupid as the McDonald's coffee suit. I can't help but wonder if anyone who has an interest in forcing the technology and its expensive price on us the consumer somehow solicited the situation to make such scenarios happen.:confused: Just an opinion on my part. Seems the world is going completely bonkers, and any responsibility for our actions rest on someone else.

[Lee Schierer]

Its just an ambulance chaser trying another way to make a fast buck and make things cost more for the rest of us.

[Mark Burnette]

Maybe lawmakers need to take a moment from their busy schedule of piling new laws on old against guns & drugs and write one that will stop lawfirms from soliciting class action suits. Just sayin...

[John Donofrio]

Maybe lawmakers need to take a moment from their busy schedule of piling new laws on old against guns & drugs and write one that will stop lawfirms from soliciting class action suits. Just sayin...

What Mark said!

[mike holden]

This is as stupid as the McDonald's coffee suit.

Keep in mind that the "McDonald's coffee suit" was NOT about the coffee! It was about NOT being willing to either provide first aid or to call for professional help, i.e. 911

Check with the Wall Street Journal, they made this an ongoing issue throughout the trial. Everyone else latched onto the "hot coffee" issue and made it seem that that was the basis of the lawsuit, it was not. The lack of concern for an injured customer was the basis of the suit.

Mike

[David Nelson1]

:mad: Here we go again!

[Prashun Patel]

This might be a good hi-jack, given the history of how these threads devolve...



This is as stupid as the McDonald's coffee suit.

On the face of it, the McDonald's lawsuit did appear frivolous. But this documentary made me think otherwise...

http://www.npr.org/blogs/monkeysee/2011/06/27/137448069/a-new-documentary-looks-back-at-a-famous-cup-of-mcdonalds-hot-coffee

[Rod Sheridan]

I'm certainly not a lawyer, however I could see where a case could be made regarding not incorporating the SS technology into your saw could increase your liability for blade contact injuries.

It's not that all saws are unsafe, it's that some are more unsafe that others, and that manufacturers chose to make them not as safe as others. (They didn't license SS technology when available).

What if the manufacturer of your car didn't include a readily available safety feature that has a proven track record for preventing, or reducing the severity of injuries in an accident?

I think the table saw issue is similar, the cat's now out of the bag and won't go back into it.

Regardless of what I think of the political issues of the SS campaign, I consider it the most effective saw safety system yet invented for blade contact events, and like seat belts in automobiles, I think it will only be a matter of time before systems that are SS, or equally effective will be required for all new machines.

As for old saws, like other safety codes, there isn't a backwards enforcement provision so if you have a 1975 saw, I can't see any liability on the saw manufacturer as SS didn't exist at that time. Now, if you have a 2012 saw................

Regards, Rod.

[johnny means]

Maybe we should regulate what services lawyers are allowed to offer/advertise:rolleyes: Seems to me if suing tablesaw manufacturers takes off, that would be the free market at work. But then the free market would be infringing on itself:confused: Argh, its all so confounding.

[Doug Richardson]

I'm certainly not a lawyer either, but unless someone sold you a saw and told you it had that technology and it didn't, or you were forced at gunpoint to purchase it instead of the SS, as a judge I would tell you to go home and "put your big boy pants on". That is, assuming you still have fingers to grip your "big boy pants" :D

[Andrew Fleck]

[QUOTE=

What if the manufacturer of your car didn't include a readily available safety feature that has a proven track record for preventing, or reducing the severity of injuries in an accident?


Regards, Rod.[/QUOTE]

That was the persons choice to purchase that car without that safety feature. You either buy the one with the latest safety features or accept the risk involved with others. Nobody is forcing anyone to work somewhere that doesn't use SS products. If you put your hand in the blade that is your fault not the saw manufacturer or your employer.

[Ralph Boumenot]

The last ten words of your post says it all.

[Andrew Joiner]

[QUOTE=Rod Sheridan;2081019


Regardless of what I think of the political issues of the SS campaign, I consider it the most effective saw safety system yet invented for blade contact events, and like seat belts in automobiles, I think it will only be a matter of time before systems that are SS, or equally effective will be required for all new machines.

.[/QUOTE]

What if every time you put on a seat belt and it touched a staple or damp clothes it caused $200 in parts to be replaced? I think the SS technology has a ways to go.

[John TenEyck]

Just wait until someone does something really stupid and looses some digits on a SS saw. It's only a matter of time.

John

[Rod Sheridan]

What if every time you put on a seat belt and it touched a staple or damp clothes it caused $200 in parts to be replaced? I think the SS technology has a ways to go.

Hi Andrew, I think the relevant issue is that there hasn't been an incident where the SS technology hasn't prevented a more serious injury, so they have a perfect record of injury prevention/reduction.

I'm sure there have been inadvertant air bag deployments as well, however the safety record is well established.

Same for SS, yes if you have a mis-fire it costs money, however that's just the operating cost of the safety system, which isn't what this thread is about.

regards, Rod.

[John McClanahan]

Maybe I should sell my Powermatic 66 while it still has some value! :rolleyes:

John

[Rod Sheridan]

That was the persons choice to purchase that car without that safety feature. You either buy the one with the latest safety features or accept the risk involved with others. Nobody is forcing anyone to work somewhere that doesn't use SS products. If you put your hand in the blade that is your fault not the saw manufacturer or your employer.

Yes it was your choice, however the manufacturer made a poor decision by not incorporating the safety system into the machine, when they knew that it would have prevented the accident, so they have some liability in such an accident.

Remember the Pinto gas tanks? There was a cost saving decision that balanced the cost versus the possible outcome, and the manufacturer did have to pay money to people for that decision.

Regards, Rod.

[Rod Sheridan]

Maybe I should sell my Powermatic 66 while it still has some value! :rolleyes:

John

LOL John, I think it will retain the value for what it is.

I can only think of workplace legislation that was backwards compliant, nothing for consumers, however I'm not American.

Can you think of anything similar for consumers in the USA?

Regards, Rod.

[Peter Kelly]

Just wait until someone does something really stupid and looses some digits on a SS saw. It's only a matter of time.

JohnOr gets a kickback from said saw....

[Kevin Bourque]

Of course all power saws are dangerous.
Pretty much anything you own or use can be potentially harmful.

If someone threw a Nerf football at you hard enough it could lodge in your throat and suffocate you!!!!

[John Coloccia]

Yes it was your choice, however the manufacturer made a poor decision by not incorporating the safety system into the machine, when they knew that it would have prevented the accident, so they have some liability in such an accident.

Remember the Pinto gas tanks? There was a cost saving decision that balanced the cost versus the possible outcome, and the manufacturer did have to pay money to people for that decision.

Regards, Rod.

You may as well sue because manufacturers allow cars to go over 65MPH. Or sue because you didn't buy a backup camera and you run over a kid. Or sue because the car didn't include all wheel drive and 4 wheel steering and you ran into a light pole. Or sue because your oven didn't lock the door and allowed you to stick your hand in to retrieve dinner before it was fully cooled and you burned yourself. Give me a break. There's a difference between a tank that explodes when you tap it, or an oven that catches fire and burns down your house, and sticking your hand into a table saw blade.

[Brad Adams]

I think the typing I'm doing right now is causing carpal tunnel, maybe we should all sue Sawmill Creek:)!

[Andrew Fleck]

Yes it was your choice, however the manufacturer made a poor decision by not incorporating the safety system into the machine, when they knew that it would have prevented the accident, so they have some liability in such an accident.

Remember the Pinto gas tanks? There was a cost saving decision that balanced the cost versus the possible outcome, and the manufacturer did have to pay money to people for that decision.

Regards, Rod.

That's like saying a home builder has some liabilty for not installing a sprinkler system in a home that has burnt down because of the homeowners mistake. (Not to be confused with something the builder did wrong) A home builder knows that a sprinkler system more than likely would extinguish a fire before a total loss, but sprinkler systems are expensive. If a customer wants one I'm sure most contractors would be happy to install one. You can't hold the builder responsible because you didn't purchase the safety feature.

[Brad Cambell]

I found it very ironic that David's post count was 911. The same number you would call if you cut your finger(s) off in a table saw accident.

[David Weaver]

You may as well sue because manufacturers allow cars to go over 65MPH. Or sue because you didn't buy a backup camera and you run over a kid. Or sue because the car didn't include all wheel drive and 4 wheel steering and you ran into a light pole. Or sue because your oven didn't lock the door and allowed you to stick your hand in to retrieve dinner before it was fully cooled and you burned yourself. Give me a break. There's a difference between a tank that explodes when you tap it, or an oven that catches fire and burns down your house, and sticking your hand into a table saw blade.

Ditto this. Readily available is a ridiculous argument. It makes no reference to cost, ability of a rational consumer to use discretion and it basically implies that every safety improvement, no matter how costly, should mandatorily be added as soon as it's invented.

I saw the same filthy commercial yesterday.

[Mike Henderson]

I'll just point out that those solicitations are not new. In one media or the other they've been running for quite a while. To my memory, they started shortly after the decision on the Ryobi (I think it was Ryobi) case in the NE.

Mike

[thomas eaves]

I’m sure this law firm is tied to Sawstop. One has only to look at how much time is left on their patents. It’s a time and money game and Sawstop is losing for now. Yes they are selling some machinery but the money is in the forced licensing. Now some would say Sawstop is being greedy but consider as their patents start to expire the other saw mfg. will get on the band wagon and use their technology for free. Tom

[Wade Lippman]

Keep in mind that the "McDonald's coffee suit" was NOT about the coffee! It was about NOT being willing to either provide first aid or to call for professional help, i.e. 911


I read that thought it amazing that I had read so much about it, but never anything about being unwilling to help. I couldn't understand how I could have missed that.

I checked, and I didn't miss anything. It was about the coffee; they were negligent because it was too hot. Nothing at all about not being willing to help. Geez.

[John Donofrio]

It's my understanding a Saw Stop has the ability to disable the flesh sensing technology for certain situations (eg, a board with a high MC). If one were to cut off a digit with it disabled, does this make SS liable since they knowingly allowed the technology to be disabled?

It amazes me where society is heading.

[Jim Andrew]

I doubt we will get much in the way of lawsuit reform, as long as most of the lawmakers are lawyers. There was once a constitutional amendment passed that said that lawyers could not hold public office. Somehow it just went away. ( forgotten amendment)

[Peter Aeschliman]

I’m sure this law firm is tied to Sawstop.

Tom, that's a really big leap my friend. Is it possible that sawstop went out and hired ambulance chasers to run ads? Yes, I suppose it's possible. Does Sawstop have a motive? Maybe, although the bad press behind that would be massive so that's a bit iffy. But is that fact pattern enough to say you're "sure" the law firms are tied to Sawstop?

Come on man...

I'm in the "I love the sawstop technology, and I own a sawstop saw, but it should be a choice for consumers" camp. The airbag in the car argument is one I've used, but I think the key difference is that airbags save lives, and nearly everybody of driving age drives a car. Risk likelihood multiplied by impact = total risk. Likelihood and impact are both dangerously high for head injuries for car drivers.

It's in a whole other league than table saw amputations.

But for me, I don't want to lose my fingers because I did something careless. So I bought a SS because it was worth it to me. To others, let them take the risk. It's a personal choice and should always be.

[John Donofrio]

It's a personal choice and should always be.

Perfectly said.

[johnny means]

It's a personal choice and should always be.

No, it's not. We're not talking about your or my freedom to what we want. We talking about manufacturers liability for what they choose to sell to the public. As far as I can tell, regulating commerce is as intrisic in our national identity as the Stars and Stripes. I can't sell crack, I need a license to sell liquor or tobacco, taxes have to be paid, prmits need to be filed, zoning laws, noise ordinances, drugs must go through clinical trials, as a society we decide what needs to be regulated. The only real question is "what do we regulate?" In no way am I saying thatI think companies should beheld liable in these cases, but that in a society like ours certain less important "freedoms" are routinely curtailed for the "betterment" of society.Now just because a bunch of old codgers shambling around their work shops dont like it, doesn't put it up their with Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, Right to Bare Arms, etc.

[John Donofrio]

No, it's not. We're not talking about your or my freedom to what we want. We talking about manufacturers liability for what they choose to sell to the public. As far as I can tell, regulating commerce is as intrisic in our national identity as the Stars and Stripes. I can't sell crack, I need a license to sell liquor or tobacco, taxes have to be paid, prmits need to be filed, zoning laws, noise ordinances, drugs must go through clinical trials, as a society we decide what needs to be regulated. The only real question is "what do we regulate?" In no way am I saying thatI think companies should beheld liable in these cases, but that in a society like ours certain less important "freedoms" are routinely curtailed for the "betterment" of society.Now just because a bunch of old codgers shambling around their work shops dont like it, doesn't put it up their with Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, Right to Bare Arms, etc.

So where does it stop? What about kitchen knives, razor blades, edge trimmers, or anything John Coloccia so eloquently mentions above? Are we trying to regulate/legislate stupidity and carelessness out of society? Is that the end game?

[Rod Sheridan]

So where does it stop? What about kitchen knives, razor blades, edge trimmers, or anything John Coloccia so eloquently mentions above? Are we trying to regulate/legislate stupidity and carelessness out of society? Is that the end game?

John, that's the "Reducto Ad Absurdum" argument.

A tablesaw isn't the same sort of device as a kitchen knife.

There probably were similar arguments made about passive guards on saws, which are now accepted as a standard device..........Rod.

[Peter Aeschliman]

No, it's not. We're not talking about your or my freedom to what we want. We talking about manufacturers liability for what they choose to sell to the public. As far as I can tell, regulating commerce is as intrisic in our national identity as the Stars and Stripes. I can't sell crack, I need a license to sell liquor or tobacco, taxes have to be paid, prmits need to be filed, zoning laws, noise ordinances, drugs must go through clinical trials, as a society we decide what needs to be regulated. The only real question is "what do we regulate?" In no way am I saying thatI think companies should beheld liable in these cases, but that in a society like ours certain less important "freedoms" are routinely curtailed for the "betterment" of society.Now just because a bunch of old codgers shambling around their work shops dont like it, doesn't put it up their with Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, Right to Bare Arms, etc.

This is exactly the point I'm raising by comparing the airbag to the sawstop.

Somewhere, a line in the sand is drawn and some consumer products are required to have certain safety features (or precedent from civil suits create so much liability for manufacturers that they have to adopt such safety features) and other potentially dangerous products do not. So it's a spectrum. Where do we draw the line?

To Rod's point on the reducto ad absurdum argument, it goes both ways. A kitchen knife is not the same as a table saw, just like a car is not the same as a table saw (regarding the airbag). Where do we draw that line? I'm certainly not against laws that protect the public.

[David Kumm]

I'm not an over regulation guy, but if the government determines the technology should be mandated, it should then become public domain. If the public good is important enough, personal profit should be sacrificed. See how slippery a slope it becomes? Dave

[Erik Loza]

I've been in commercial shops and seen people do things like remove the factory-provided sawguards, work a shaper that has just the spindle and tool sticking up, with no hood or anything, jointers with no guards, and stuff like that. Some of these shops have been my customers for years and have no job-related injuries. On the other hand, my dad was an industrial arts teacher for many years and has told me about some gruesome injuries he witnessed in his classroom, a supervised envirnonment. Guess what I take from all that is that people are going to do what they are going to do and you can still get hurt by a "safe" machine when you aren't paying attention. I don't know how you make a saw that absolutely, positively is incapable of injuring someone? Just my thoughts,

Erik Loza
Minimax USA

[Erik Christensen]

yah a tablesaw isn't the same sort of device as a kitchen knife... but do you really think that if successful (success to a mass tort attorney = big $$ from some deep pockets) in forcing every tablesaw manufacturer to pony up settlement money and adopt some type of flesh sensing technology that they would just stop there?? hey we got 450 million from the table saw guys - lets all retire OR what is the second most common WW tool - jointer - lets do those guys next? Anybody want to put money on the quit & retire option - I'll give you 2 to 1 odds and take all you want to bet. then where do you draw the line - bandsaws? shapers? Radial arm saws? Drill press? hand tools?

look around your shop and tell me how much of a hobby you would have if every power tool you own cost twice a much as it does today. don't think lawyers can't kiil an entire industry even there are lots of willing customers just look at the US aircraft industry over the last 30 years.

[Huck Schwee]

There was a case we talked about in school several years ago that was very similar in some regards to the SawStop technology. Here is a short summary of it: http://ww2.roanoke.com//news/roanoke%5c12487.html

Basically, a kid got ran over by a riding lawnmower and the parents sued the lawnmower manufacturer. There were a type of safeguard technology available for the mower (shut-off blades in reverse) but this particular model didn't have that feature.

Interesting to think about.

[John TenEyck]

It stops when people accept responsibility for their own actions instead of hiring lawyers to sue. Frivolous lawsuits would never happen, and lawyers would have nothing to prosecute, if not for a public trying to be compensated for the consequences of their own misuse, abuse, and stupidity related to power tools, and a lot more.

John

[Rod Sheridan]

Peter I agree with you, however lets look at this example of a machine almost all of us have in our home.

This machine has a safety guard, with an electrical interlock that prevents you from running the machine with the guard not in place.

I bet you have never complained about the safety interlock, or wanted it defeated so you could run the machine without the guard in place, and if I suggested that I wanted to be able to run the machine without the guard in place you would think me stupid.

Do you know what the guard is?

It's a metal plate with small holes in it that you look through. It's installed in the door of your microwave oven, and the holes are large enough that you can see through, yet small enough that they prevent the radio frequency waves from passing through the guard and leaving the oven.

What about my right to stir my soup while the oven is running? They don't need these guards and interlocks because I'm smart enough to stay far enough away form that magnetron..................Or saw blade.

See, to a lot of people, including people who make the laws in our countries, that's what the anti tablesaw safety legislation people sound like.

I don't see a lot of talk about how the interlock on the oven raised the price of the oven ( which it did), or how I need to be able to choose one without a safety interlock.

Yet bring up SS and that's exactly where the discussion goes.

I do understand the cost issue, my saw at home was about $10K in total so a couple of hundred for SS technology isn't an issue, yet it can be an issue for the $200 portable saw.

So for the $200 saw you add an electrical interlock that won't allow the saw to be operated with the guard removed. Is it as good as SS? No it's not, however it's much better than no guard on the saw.

We're at the SS discussion stage because we as consumers, often removed the guards from our saws, and then had blade contact injuries. If we weren't having blade contact injuries Mr. Gass wouldn't have devoted that much time and money into solving the problem through an active system.

We will unfortunately get a solution forced upon us if we can't produce a substantial reduction in injuries through the use of guards and safe operating methods.

regards, Rod.

[Peter Aeschliman]

I don't know how you make a saw that absolutely, positively is incapable of injuring someone?

Erik, trust me. I might be one of the best examples of this- I have a huge scar on my forehead from a kickback injury I experienced while using my sawstop! Why? Because I'm an idiot and I did something I shouldn't have.

But is the goal here to make a saw "that absolutely, positively is incapable of injuring someone?" I don't think so. I think the goal here is to reduce injuries. It's not a black or white thing. Some saws are less dangerous than others, but none of them are (or ever will be) completely danger-free. Doesn't mean we should give up on trying to make them safer.

[Jim Matthews]

There's a proven technology, readily available that makes kickback impossible.
It's both inexpensive, reliable and easily adopted.

It's known as a bandsaw.

[Peter Aeschliman]

I hear you completely, Rod. I don't agree with the arguments that paint this as a black and white, "either I have 100% freedom or no freedom at all" arguments. They miss the point, and that's where these threads devolve into gorilla-like chest thumping of two groups on extreme ends of the spectrum who show no willingness to think through the real complexities of the issue.

The point is not whether consumer safety regulation should exist in general. It's really a question of when or where such regulations should be applied. It's tough to come to an answer to that, and I think that's often why this important and nuanced discussion doesn't happen.

Here are the factors I consider:



The question of risk, measured in terms of likelihood of an adverse event and the impact of that event. I think this is one factor.
I think another factor is the cost to the public.

Medical Bills... Obviously the system is different in Canada, but when an uninsured construction worker cuts his finger off, we don't tell him to spit on in and rub some mud on it. We rush him in an ambulance to the emergency room, doctors fix him up, and the hospital eats the cost. To make money, the hospitals raise their "prices" on those who are able to pay their bills.
There's also disability insurance, which raises premiums on business owners to cover the costs of these injuries.


Cost to consumers via higher prices.
Whether the inherent danger of the product itself is obvious enough to a reasonable consumer at the time of purchase to rationalize that they accept some degree of liability by purchasing it.


It takes smart and reasonable people (typically, legislators and judges) to go through these factors and make the best decisions they can with the greater good in mind.

For me, in the absence of any regulations, I chose to buy a sawstop. Without the above data, who knows what the right decision is, and what point is there in arguing either way?

[Rod Sheridan]

Peter, I agree, and in both countries, we all pay for the medical costs, no difference whatsoever there.

I've seen some figures that put tablesaw accidents at around 30,000 per year in the USA?

That seems to be a lot to me, as I would presume that table saw ownership is low in general. I live in a townhouse complex of 86 units and there are only 2 saws in those 86 houses.

I don't like the legislated approach, however we seem to be a poor job of self policing.

As you can tell from my avatar I ride a motorcycle, same discussion on helmet legislation......LOL........................Maybe if I was a golfer there would be some safety fracas as well, perhaps it's human nature..........Rod.

[Peter Aeschliman]

Peter, trust me, I am 100% onboard with making machinery as safe as possible. Not sure if you were aware of this but every EU manufacturer of woodworking machinery has to conform to all sorts of safety criteria far more stringent than just one primary safety feature. These might interest you.

In this link, please pay particular attention to the part about "licensing and royalties"...
http://www.protoolreviews.com/news/bosch-tools-sawstop-lawsuit/3806

Then, read this link, which I cannot think of a more ironic and graphic illustration of how to hurt yourself on a table saw...
http://www.woodworkingnetwork.com/wood-blogs/rich-christianson/Table-Saw-Operators-What-Not-to-Wear-163170166.html

And then, read this, especially the part about the political contributions, to the gentleman in the previous link...
http://www.woodworkingnetwork.com/wood-blogs/rich-christianson/Table-Saw-Safety-Rule-Drops-from-California-Back-to-CPSCs-Court-170679966.html

Just some food for thought.

Erik Loza
Minimax USA

There's definitely some dirty stuff in there. No doubt. I don't condone Gass's approach. I love the technology he created and the ambition he showed in getting his own machine to market. From what I can tell, he's been extremely successful. But the lobbying/etc seems pretty dirty.

But let's set that aside for the sake of argument... I'm a financial analyst working at a tech company. When I see the cost of including the sawstop technology, I don't see why it's considered extortion by some. I made up some quick numbers to show the potential impact on consumer prices. I made some guesses about the retail-to-wholesale mark up (assumed 50%), but that might be too high:




With
Sawstop
Without
Sawstop


Base Wholesale Price
1,750
1,750


Sawstop "hardware" Cost
200
-


Gass royalty (8% of wholesale)

140

-



Adjusted Wholesale Price
2,090
1,750







Typical Mark-up (?)
50%
50%


Retail Markup

1,045

875



Price to Consumers
3,135
2,625



If my numbers are anywhere near the ballpark, a SS-equipped cabinet saw would cost somewhere around $500 (or~19%) more to consumers, assuming all of the incremental cost is passed on to consumers.

The market has shown considerable demand for the safety feature, judging by how well the SS machines are selling. So if the 19% price increase is really that much of a concern, a manufacturer could always just pass half of that cost on to consumers and make up for the lower margin rate through increased volumes.

So the whole "crying poor" defense of the manufacturers seems like a dog and pony show to me.

[Peter Quinn]

That was the persons choice to purchase that car without that safety feature. You either buy the one with the latest safety features or accept the risk involved with others. Nobody is forcing anyone to work somewhere that doesn't use SS products. If you put your hand in the blade that is your fault not the saw manufacturer or your employer.

Actually, when it comes to paying labor, the employer is responsible to provide all the neccessary and current safety devices as required by OSHA to keep employees as safe as reasonably possible. Ever been through an OSHA inspection? True, nobody is holding me to my job at gun point, but there is some serious inventive to feed ones family that makes only working for shops with a SS difficult in the present economy. When OSHA decides saw stop is required, the insurance companies will be right behind them, it will reach the point where you can't get insurance for a shop with a traditional TS. I think they are headed this way. Europe is a decade ahead of the USA at least in terms of wood shop safety requirements, look at their requirements, it costs a few more bucks short run to work safely, but long term it's actually cheaper. We have one guy who's hands went into a shaper at work, cost the boss over $200k, plus raised insurance premiums for years, plus loss of production, plus plus plus. Live like a cowboy, die like a cowboy.

In short, at this point what level of safety you choose to employ in your own endeavors is your own business, but the level of safety you are required to provide ose who work for you is not optional. You may not trade few bucks for an employees safety, and it's not great business either. I have refused assignments I felt were unsafe with the full confidence that if I were fired I would be able to collect because it is within my right to determine what is safe, small conciliation trying to live on that, thankfully never has come to it. Do you remember sweat shops? Triangle shirt fire? We've come a long way.

[glenn bradley]

This may not be the right place to post. If not, moderator please remove it, but I just saw a tv commercial from a law firm searching for anyone who has been cut or injured by a table saw to give them a call.

And the miracle of American Evolution; the bottom-feeding-shark, moves to a new feeding ground. If one jury of idiots can be assembled, why not another. If they get enough folks to sign on, they don't even have to make a case. They'll settle just to get the parasite to go away! ;-)

[Peter Quinn]

I've read it costs about $120 to add the saw stop technology to a saw. On a cabinet saw, that's a joke, only reason it isn't ubiquitous is a CYA legal defense, that providing it now would be an admission of guilt on all previous machines and open the flood gate for law suits. Really, a device that costs less than a good miter gauge that can save you from a life changing accident of high probability, whati s the down side again? I'd like to see a decision that sets a date after which the technology is required on new models, and disallows any suits on the basis of " you should have done is earlier". Draw a line, step over the line, move forward. Tough to march into the future when you are looking over your shoulder constantly. So this would be a deal breaker for the cheap table top garbage out there (I own of these), a bummer for the lower end contractor models, and a non ever IMO for any saw over $600. Ever been to the ER? My co-pay is way more than $120 on ER visits. Supprised my insurance company hasn't bought me a saw stop yet frankly.

[Mike Henderson]

I'm not an over regulation guy, but if the government determines the technology should be mandated, it should then become public domain. If the public good is important enough, personal profit should be sacrificed. See how slippery a slope it becomes? Dave
I've posted this before, but for years I was involved in setting international standards for communications (it's done through a body that's part of the United Nations). Any new communications standard has multiple patents involved in order to implement it. The standards setting group was composed of engineers who were employed by companies who made communications equipment. In order to participate, each company had to sign an agreement that if any of their patents were included in a standard, they would license that patent "freely and reasonably," which means to all comers, and for a rate that was generally considered reasonable and equal for equal terms.

The companies who spent money to develop new technology got paid for it through patent royalties and the world got better methods of communications.

The same thing can be done with table saws, except that it appears that very few companies have spent any money to develop new technology, either safety or anything else. So, no, I wouldn't begrudge SawStop their royalties for licensing their technology. They came up with the idea, developed a working product, and after no one would license it, started making the product itself.

If there is legislation to require a safety product similar to SawStop on table saws and other companies have to license from SawStop, I say, "Good for them." They deserve it for developing the technology.

Mike

[Peter Aeschliman]

I've read it costs about $120 to add the saw stop technology to a saw. On a cabinet saw, that's a joke...

Agreed- if you follow one of Erik's links, it cites a $150-$200 hardware cost plus an 8% royalty on the wholesale price. These are the figures I included in my math above.

It's definitely a big issue for inexpensive jobsite saws. But for cabinet saws or higher-quality contractor saws, it's really not that much more money given the cost of an injury.

For ryobi, who mostly makes those cheap saws, it could've ruined their business.. I admit. But for Grizzly, Jet/PM, Felder, MM, etc, they don't make those tiny plastic jobsite saws. So I have to believe in hindsight, they wished they had partnered with Gass. Who knows though.

[Erik Loza]

...So if the 19% price increase is really that much of a concern, a manufacturer could always just pass half of that cost on to consumers and make up for the lower margin rate through increased volumes....

Oh, if it were so easy, Peter. If a company could just "increase volume" to make up for a greater cost/a slow month/whatever, don't you think they would already have done it? If there is some magic trick for increasing sales while raising prices, someone please tell me! Also, what about that 19% price increase on a table saw which cost $8-$12K? Not all of us sell contractor saws but that proposed legislation would affect me, too. Just food for thought.

Erik loza
Minimax USA

[Peter Aeschliman]

Oh, if it were so easy, Peter. If a company could just "increase volume" to make up for a greater cost/a slow month/whatever, don't you think they would already have done it? If there is some magic trick for increasing sales while raising prices, someone please tell me! Also, what about that 19% price increase on a table saw which cost $8-$12K? Not all of us sell contractor saws but that proposed legislation would affect me, too. Just food for thought.

Erik loza
Minimax USA

Erik, I don't claim to know your business in particular. But my experience is that if you make a superior product, people will buy it. I don't know what impact SS has had on your business, but for the cabinet saw manufacturers, I have to believe it has taken a huge chunk out of their market share. And the price is significantly higher for an otherwise similarly equipped saw. People are paying more because of the brake. This means there is greater demand for saws with the brake... which means that if the OEMs had offered a saw with a brake, they would've seen sales increases DESPITE the price increase... The fact that SS is selling a lot of saws is real-world evidence.

On an $8-12k saw, I can't imagine Gass would stay with an 8% royalty. That would be insane. That said, your customers are probably much less price-sensitive than than those purchasing a ryobi contractor saw, or even a $3k SS...

[Julie Moriarty]

SawStop's inventor, Steve Gass, is an attorney. He's already lobbied the Consumer Product Safety Commission to make his technology mandatory on all saws, including portable saws. So far, the CPSC hasn't granted Gass his wish.

Other manufacturers have tried to create some sort of blade stopping technology but the patent Gass has on his invention is so broad in its scope, the other manufacturers have given up for fear of being sued by Gass. Gass has little motivation to improve his product because his blade stop technology is the only game in town, if that technology is important to you. And there seems to be decent sales on his saw so why pour more money into R&D to make the saw better?

I wouldn't buy a SawStop product simply because Gass has been trying to force it down our collective throats. Let the market demands dictate your sales, not lobby government organizations (I remember reading Gass "donated" $47K to the CPSC) so consumers HAVE to buy your product. I don't think that's the way to do business.

But what I would like to see is Steve Gass run HIS hand, instead of hot dogs, into one of his saws while the blade is spinning. I wonder why he hasn't done that yet? :rolleyes:

[David Kumm]

These arguments never get settled so on a different note, does anyone know if there are size limitations to the technology. Can a 16" blade be stopped the same way or is there a point the mass of the blade gets too much for the pivoting arbor assembly to handle? The big SS looks like it should be using a 12-14" blade and wondering if and when truly commercial version will show up. Any one with info on bigger saws? Dave

[Erik Loza]

Erik, I don't claim to know your business in particular. But my experience is that if you make a superior product, people will buy it. I don't know what impact SS has had on your business, but for the cabinet saw manufacturers, I have to believe it has taken a huge chunk out of their market share. And the price is significantly higher for an otherwise similarly equipped saw. People are paying more because of the brake. This means there is greater demand for saws with the brake... which means that if the OEMs had offered a saw with a brake, they would've seen sales increases DESPITE the price increase... The fact that SS is selling a lot of saws is real-world evidence.

On an $8-12k saw, I can't imagine Gass would stay with an 8% royalty. That would be insane. That said, your customers are probably much less price-sensitive than than those purchasing a ryobi contractor saw, or even a $3k SS...

Peter, I hear you and agree: "Yes", let's make a safer machine for everyone. I can tell you, for example, that both us as well as every other EU mfr. does stringent testing to make the machines are as safe as possible. Dave Kumm and others with Euro machines will know exactly what I am referring to. Dado on a table saw is forbidden in the EU, for example. Riving knives are mandatory as are sawblade guards that minimize human exposure to the blade. Certain cutterheads, for example, are not allowed to be fed by the human hand and must be fed by a stock feeder. We even have to do things like advertise dust particle and decibel emission on each machine. The legislation like is being proposed here, has already been in place for decades in Europe. Just not with regard to one specific, patent-protected technology.


Erik Loza
Minimax USA

[Roger Feeley]

not to put fuel on the fire, but my favorite ambulance chaser sighting was a picture of a billboard in LA. "Have you sued anyone lately? Bring your Rolodex and let's talk."

My daughter is a lawyer and she tells me that folks like that are sort of sneered at by the rest of the legal profession. I take a more nuanced view. Sometimes there are valid lawsuits and they are the only way to bring about beneficial change. There are always bad apples.

[Roger Feeley]

All good points, Rod. But let me add a story told to me by my brother. He worked in Wichita, KS and knew a lot of people from Cessna. One of their executives told him this.

A guy owned a 2 seater made in the '50s or '60s.
The guy modified the plane with an auxiliary fuel tank.
The guy was flying the plane and ran out of gas. Apparently, there is a specific procedure for switching tanks and he failed to follow it. He crashed the plane. He survived but was badly injured.

He sued Cessna. The case was thrown out (duh!) but it cost Cessna over $150K to prepare a defense. The executive said that that was why Cessna had gotten out of making small aircraft. Eventually, Congress passed a 'statute of limitations' on aircraft liability and the companies have started making general aviation aircraft again.

My point is that this lawsuit was about applying present day safety standards to machines made long ago. I agree with you. If you use a Unisaw, you agree to live with the lack of the flesh sensing technology. But that doesn't stop you from filing a lawsuit if you cut your thumb off. If your Unisaw was made after Delta knew about SS technology, you might have a case. I hope not.

[John Lanciani]

But what I would like to see is Steve Gass run HIS hand, instead of hot dogs, into one of his saws while the blade is spinning. I wonder why he hasn't done that yet? :rolleyes:

No dog in this fight but he (Steve Gass) did, on TV, a few years ago. Probably find it on youtube if you look hard enough.

[Keith Christopher]

This is a two edged sword. The idea that companies will make a product due to demand and consumer feedback will make it better. Or regulate something so companies cannot get away with whatever they please.

Make no mistake if left unchecked, ANY for-profit company left would use and abuse the consumers and their employees to save or earn a buck. It is the nature of big business. So there has to be regulations. BUT the laws and regulations allow some people 'in the know' to take advantage of someone's misfortune and profit from it. It is easy money for them.

As for safety devices, they're good for us, for when we 'forget' or are tired....I expect when his patents expire you will see the other mfgs being implementing their own. The most likely stonewalled him as to not pay him royalties for using his tech.

I am indifferent to this topic to be honest.

[Peter Aeschliman]

Ask and you shall receive!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3mzhvMgrLE

[Kevin Groenke]

But what I would like to see is Steve Gass run HIS hand, instead of hot dogs, into one of his saws while the blade is spinning. I wonder why he hasn't done that yet? :rolleyes:

In addition to the instance previously mentioned and linked to, I heard Gass give a talk in which he described the development of the product which included numerous "live subject tests". Gass volunteered to be the subject of the tests rather than asking other employees to stick their fingers into spinning blades.

I understand the beef that some have with the guy's promotion with of the product/technology, but IMO, the guy deserves some credit for: conceiving of the idea, bringing it to market (despite the lack of buy-in from established manufacturers), and standing by the product with exceptional customer service.

Undoubtedly somebody injured while using a SawStop will sue in time. If it goes public, it will be interesting to see how it comes out.

-kg

[Mark W Pugh]

If no one has said it yet, "Tort Reform". Enough said.

[Patrick McCarthy]

Hey, give the lawyer bashing a rest. There are morons and bottom feeders in EVERY walk of life. Hopefully those of you who are so quick to paint everyone in a profession/trade with the same broad brush aren't the idiots in your particular field . . . . but it can't be proven by some of the posts being made here.

I am a LAWYER . . . . and PROUD of it. I help people solve problems in the real world. I represent those suing as well as those being sued. I give advice, and hopefully clarity, to people who find themselves in situations that are overwhelming and confusing to them. Often I don't charge if it is something that can be easily remedied. I have tried more civil cases than most of the other attorneys in town. I have been doing it for 30 years and most of my clients love me; some will never be happy and, like some of you, will always be quick to blame the other guy/gal/idiot/cheat/etc.

Next time you face a important decision/difficulty that could jeopadize the well-being, financial or otherwise, of yourself or your family . . . . where are you going to go? Hopefully NOT to a lawyer, because then I could only conclude you were either a hypocrit or lack any modicum of personal integrity.

On the other hand, if you can accept the fact that maybe there are some professionals out there who are good people, who genuinely care about doing good, helping people, solving problems, etc . . . . then maybe you need to re-think the vicereal remarks that are generated every time there is reference to a lawyer.

We all know that there are, in fact, many idiots out there in every field. Does anyone seriously dispute the existence of at least one bad/incompetent/immoral/dishonest:
banker
priest
electrician
plumber
contractor
doctor
car mechanic
school teacher
architect
accountant
engineer, etc, etc, etc, etc

SO, would that make it appropriate/fair/just for the rest of us to trash your chosen field EVERY time your occupation is mentioned simply because there are jerks in that field along with you??? Hopefully not.

BTW, juries render the verdicts with which you so vehemently disagree. Those 12 jurors are your neighbors, not lawyers. Next time please don't try so hard to avoid jury service . . . . and if you do, then you need to shut up because by doing so you forfeit your right to express your opinion in any meaningful venue.

SAWS: I had a PM 66 but got a SS because of the safety features. I am not planning on having an accident, but I know they happen because I see the results daily. Given the cost of an Emergency Room visit the cost of the saw was a bargain plus, should an accident occur, the likelihood of keeping my fingers increased exponentially. Surprising to me was the fact I think it is better engineered and better made than was my PM. I would love to have a slider like a Martin or Felder, but given my space, my needs, my financial obligations to my family, etc, the SS is the best fit for me.

I am not a big fan of Gass, but the fact he is a lawyer has NOTHING to do with it. OTOH, while not keen on the portrayal of his interactions with the CPSC (and I do not know if the portrayals are accurate or not), it might just be that the guy REALLY BELIEVES that his product is the best and that many injuries can be lessened or reduced if every saw had those attributes. If you really believed in your product, and you thought injuries could be reduced, wouldn't it seem prudent for you to go to the highest mountain and shout it out?? Isn't that what he is being accused of having done???

Temporary end of rant. Give it a rest folks. Not all men are rapists, not all women are prostitutes, not all priests are pedophiles, and - believe it or not - not all lawyers are bottom feeding scum sucking creatures.

[john mcnaughton]

It is my understanding the patent Mr. Gass has is quite broad. However, the scope of patents can be challenged and narrowed. It appears if the tablesaw manufacturers wanted to develop an alternative to the SS technology, they have both the capital and technical capabilities to develop one. In addition, they are also likely to have the capital to invest to determine how to narrow the scope of the existing patent(s), if in fact this turns out to be a real issue, rather than what appears to be conjecture by the masses. Could it be the tablesaw manufacturers don't act because they don't see a business reason to do so; i.e., effective lobbying on this issue may be much less expensive than new product development efforts combined with protracted litigation over patent infringement?

[michael osadchuk]

Actually, when it comes to paying labor, the employer is responsible to provide all the neccessary and current safety devices as required by OSHA to keep employees as safe as reasonably possible. Ever been through an OSHA inspection? True, nobody is holding me to my job at gun point, but there is some serious inventive to feed ones family that makes only working for shops with a SS difficult in the present economy. When OSHA decides saw stop is required, the insurance companies will be right behind them, it will reach the point where you can't get insurance for a shop with a traditional TS. I think they are headed this way. Europe is a decade ahead of the USA at least in terms of wood shop safety requirements, look at their requirements, it costs a few more bucks short run to work safely, but long term it's actually cheaper. We have one guy who's hands went into a shaper at work, cost the boss over $200k, plus raised insurance premiums for years, plus loss of production, plus plus plus. Live like a cowboy, die like a cowboy.

In short, at this point what level of safety you choose to employ in your own endeavors is your own business, but the level of safety you are required to provide ose who work for you is not optional. You may not trade few bucks for an employees safety, and it's not great business either. I have refused assignments I felt were unsafe with the full confidence that if I were fired I would be able to collect because it is within my right to determine what is safe, small conciliation trying to live on that, thankfully never has come to it. Do you remember sweat shops? Triangle shirt fire? We've come a long way.


A couple of comments......

The sales of the venerable domestic General cabinet saw model 350/650 (I have one) in recent years declined from thousands to hundreds per year and was, among other reasons, a cause of the company ceasing production of almost all of its domestically made woodworking machines geared to schools and small workplaces, as well as amateur woodworkers. These sales in this niche largely went to Sawstop. There is a thread on the prime Canadian woodworking forum, with the title along the lines of the disappearance of the domestic General line in, I think, the 'off topic' pages, and in one of those posts in that thread is a link to an interview with a General executive discussing this.
For schools and workplaces, actually replacing a working General 350/650 tablesaw is a no brainer.

I, like I expect many who have a great tablesaw already in their homeshop, with attached side tables, fence jigs, etc., am not going to replace my General 350 with a Sawstop.
But if I was able to re-visit my decision to buy a new General 350, at a time when the effectiveness of Sawstop as any anti-amputation safety device had been established, even though the extra cost may have 25% more, I would have gone Sawstop.
One of the interesting dynamics that I read in numerous personal accounts of how amateur woodworkers looking to upgrade their tablesaw to a cabinet saw arrived at the decision to buy a Sawstop is the influence of their spouses and older children..... it seems that immediate family members, if they are told of the safety issues regarding saws with/without anti-amputation safety technology and are allowed to be part of the decision, given us the encouragement and support for the additional expenditure.

good luck

michael

[John Coloccia]

Hey, Patrick. I think people are talking about the ambulance chasers. I think most of us understand that's implied. That said, it would be easier to give the entire field a pass if it did a better job of regulating it's own ethics. My wife is a psychologist. The ethics are pretty clear and take priority over everything else, including employment, and she's had to put her foot down multiple times and say that she simply will not comply with the "order" because ethics come first. "Whatever you can convince a jury of without breaking the law" is a poor standard, and it would be nice to see all of the GOOD lawyers such as yourself take a stand against the handful that abuse the system.

I happen to like my lawyer, FWIW. I wouldn't pay him his rate if I didn't.

[David Sharp]

No one has said it because it's a worn out "talking point" that resolves nothing.

[johnny means]

I don't see why people get so upset about Gass's lobbying efforts. No doubt most of us work in a field that has lobbyist working to advance our line of business. Name me industry without an army of lobbyist and I'll show you an industry that's been extinct for years. At least Gass's lobbying efforts would be beneficial to the public in some way. Many industries lobby against better, safer, cheaper solutions just to protect their own bottom line.

[John Coloccia]

I don't see why people get so upset about Gass's lobbying efforts. No doubt most of us work in a field that has lobbyist working to advance our line of business. Name me industry without an army of lobbyist and I'll show you an industry that's been extinct for years. At least Gass's lobbying efforts would be beneficial to the public in some way. Many industries lobby against better, safer, cheaper solutions just to protect their own bottom line.

Because he seeks to take away my choice for his own personal gain. The other entities in other industries doing the same are wrong too. If it were altruistic, he would give the technology away. It's about using public institutions for personal gain that people find distasteful, and it's distasteful when any other organization does it too, regardless that other organizations do it.

I don't feel like I should be paying for his marketing efforts. I think the technology is great, and I bought one myself. I wouldn't buy another one today and I've stopped recommending them because it makes me feel dirty, and that's a shame because there was no need for all of the shenanigans. He's still taken over the cabinet saw industry with no help from courts, but he's burned every bridge there is to burn, and any competition that crops up will bury him. Dumb move. Oh well.

[Mike Henderson]

Because he seeks to take away my choice for his own personal gain. The other entities in other industries doing the same are wrong too. If it were altruistic, he would give the technology away. It's about using public institutions for personal gain that people find distasteful, and it's distasteful when any other organization does it too, regardless that other organizations do it.

I don't feel like I should be paying for his marketing efforts. I think the technology is great, and I bought one myself. I wouldn't buy another one today and I've stopped recommending them because it makes me feel dirty, and that's a shame because there was no need for all of the shenanigans. He's still taken over the cabinet saw industry with no help from courts, but he's burned every bridge there is to burn, and any competition that crops up will bury him. Dumb move. Oh well.
While you may not like it, Gass' advocacy is done in every business. You're just not aware of it in other areas - it's just the way business works. Note that nothing has come of his advocacy. That's also the way business works - you can't always get what you want (to quote the Rolling Stones). Business is not altruistic. If some action is legal, the company has a duty to its shareholders to pursue that action (to a very large degree - there are always exceptions).

It's not "dirty" business - it's just business. It's part of our free enterprise system. So if you're going to feel "dirty" and rail against a company, you have a lot of companies to rail against.

Note, also, that Gass cannot take away your choice. If such was to be done, it would be done by the CPSC, Underwriter's Lab, legislation, or some other process or entity. If you want to rail against anyone taking away your choice, you should rail against those organizations. But note that none of them has moved to make such technology a requirement.

Mike

[And whenever you buy a product - any product - you're paying for their marketing efforts. Marketing is also part of business.]

[John Coloccia]

While you may not like it, Gass' advocacy is done in every business. You're just not aware of it in other areas - it's just the way business works. Note that nothing has come of his advocacy. That's also the way business works - you can't always get what you want (to quote the Rolling Stones). Business is not altruistic. If some action is legal, the company has a duty to its shareholders to pursue that action (to a very large degree - there are always exceptions).

It's not "dirty" business - it's just business. It's part of our free enterprise system.

Mike

[And whenever you buy a product - any product - you're paying for their marketing efforts. Marketing is also part of business.]

I'm talking about my tax dollars and abusing the court system, and I am aware of it in other areas and it's just as distasteful. It's a big part of why small airplanes are so expensive. A significant portion of your cost when you buy a plane goes to cover lawsuits. Do you know that I'm seriously considering product liability insurance for my guitars? Isn't that ridiculous? I'll probably grab that sometime this year. One day, some idiot is going to drop one on his foot and sue me because I didn't coat it in rubber.

Anyhow, SawStop isn't publicly traded, so there are no shareholders. It's an LLC, in fact.

[Mike Henderson]

I'm talking about my tax dollars and abusing the court system, and I am aware of it in other areas and it's just as distasteful. It's a big part of why small airplanes are so expensive. A significant portion of your cost when you buy a plane goes to cover lawsuits. Do you know that I'm seriously considering product liability insurance for my guitars? Isn't that ridiculous? I'll probably grab that sometime this year. One day, some idiot is going to drop one on his foot and sue me because I didn't coat it in rubber.

Anyhow, SawStop isn't publicly traded, so there are no shareholders. It's an LLC, in fact.
You can bet that SawStop has investors besides Gass. There's no way he could finance the company on his own. So even if it's a private company the obligation to the investors is the same.

Mike

[While Gass has testified in some of the suits, he is not a party to any of them. Perhaps you should rail against the lawyers who are bringing the suits and not against Gass.]

[Peter Aeschliman]

EDIT- deleted stuff- Mike beat me to it.


John, I do agree with you though. Capitalism and "free" markets create motivations for some dirty behavior.

[Andrew Joiner]

Great reading. I get pretty passionate about this stuff. I took a deep breath and realized the thread title is true---
All table saws are unsafe!!!! Yes it feels good to say it.

[Darius Ferlas]

Sitting here on the fence I have to say I am confused by the "free market" argument, if there even is such a thing as free market. Well, perhaps thousands of years ago before people invented duty taxes and various other mechanism limiting or expanding the movement of goods.

If Gass really believed in free market he wouldn't go to politicians to ask them to make people buy his product. Since he did, he believes in centrally controlled economy - one of the essential aspects of Marxism.

[John Bailey]

All has been said and thread has started to go political.

[Keith Outten]

Way to much has been said in this thread. General comments about groups of people are ignorant statements that have no place here. This subject has been beat to death over and over with almost every thread having to be removed and this is unfortunate for everyone.

I will once again remind everyone here that SawMill Creek is a friendly place if it is nothing else.
We will not tolerate derogatory comments that are irresponsible and inaccurate. Take that stuff somewhere else.
.