Embeded in link is comment that sawstop is going to have a 400 dollar version.

[Bob Coates]

At least that is what I read.
It is a discussion on why it has taken so long to come up with safety requirements for table saws.

http://www.npr.org/2017/08/10/542474093/despite-proven-technology-attempts-to-make-table-saws-safer-drag-on

[Bruce Wrenn]

At least that is what I read.
It is a discussion on why it has taken so long to come up with safety requirements for table saws.

http://www.npr.org/2017/08/10/542474093/despite-proven-technology-attempts-to-make-table-saws-safer-drag-onThe answer for the $400 table saw is his patent will soon run out, and others will flood the market, so he's trying to "head them off at the pass." I like his idea, but not his attempts to run down everybody's throat.

[Jacob Mac]

How soon is the patent over? I want a Sawstop, but if more options are available soon...

[Ryan J Carpenter]

I heard this on the radio yesterday and I agree that it is kind of a dirty way to force everyone to buy or license his technology while coming off as a humanitarian. Looks like his patents seem to be pretty strong and estimated to last for 4-7 more years.

It struck me as interesting that despite the large influx of sawstops to commercial and home shops that the number of injuries per year hasn't changed significantly. I am curious to see the data breakdown (diy self-taught, hobby woodworking, cabinet makers, home construction, etc). People I know with tablesaw (very small sample size) were not following safe tablesaw operating procedures on cheap used job site saws that wern't properly adjusted - a class of injury that would stick around until all those $20-100 used saws stopped being available on Craigslist.

Don't get me wrong - upgrading to a sawstop from my Unisaw would be a no brainer if I was swimming in cash - but until then it is the same risk-benefit calculations as all my other flesh-eating woodworking equipment.

[Nick Decker]

I'm all for the SawStop technology, and I own one of their saws, but I have a problem with the government requiring it.

[eugene thomas]

He sure is worried about saving fingers. Long as he sells the saw.

[Ben Rivel]

Wow, that would be pretty surprising to see a $400 SawStop. It would be good to feed competition in that jobsite saw market.

[Adam Herman]

even with the recent color change to green? I'm not sure I see festool selling a table saw for $400... that price point is crowded for sure.

[Mike Henderson]

Wow, that would be pretty surprising to see a $400 SawStop. It would be good to feed competition in that jobsite saw market.

I don't see how a construction company can have a job site saw without flesh sensing. As soon as someone hurts themselves on the saw, they'll sue and I can hear their attorney now. "Mr. Construction Company, you were aware that there were job site saws that had a flesh sensing feature, and that feature would have saved my client's fingers. That saw would have cost you less than $300 ($400??) more than the saw you bought. Why did you cheap out and buy a saw without that feature?"

Seems the company's insurance provider would force them to use a saw with flesh sensing.

Mike

[Joe Jensen]

I don't see how a construction company can have a job site saw without flesh sensing. As soon as someone hurts themselves on the saw, they'll sue and I can hear their attorney now. "Mr. Construction Company, you were aware that there were job site saws that had a flesh sensing feature, and that feature would have saved my client's fingers. That saw would have cost you less than $300 ($400??) more than the saw you bought. Why did you cheap out and buy a saw without that feature?"

Seems the company's insurance provider would force them to use a saw with flesh sensing.

MikeMike is spot on. I chatted with a large tool dealer, entry level stuff up to real commercial machines. He said the only cabinet saws they sell now to commercial buyers are Sawstops. Most replacing existing cabinet saws at the demand of insurance carriers. The cost of the change to Sawstop is equal or less than the increased insurance premium without.

[keith micinski]

I don't see how a construction company can have a job site saw without flesh sensing. As soon as someone hurts themselves on the saw, they'll sue and I can hear their attorney now. "Mr. Construction Company, you were aware that there were job site saws that had a flesh sensing feature, and that feature would have saved my client's fingers. That saw would have cost you less than $300 ($400??) more than the saw you bought. Why did you cheap out and buy a saw without that feature?"

Seems the company's insurance provider would force them to use a saw with flesh sensing.

Mike


By by this logic no company could exist because every time anything happened they would be sued out of business by not owning a bullet proof s class Mercedes to transport people and materials the safest way possible to a place where a robot does the work for you because again that would be the safest way to do the job.

[Kevin Groenke]

I'm all for the SawStop technology, and I own one of their saws, but I have a problem with the government requiring it.

I am all for the SawStop technology and I'm a signatory to the original CPSC petition. I think it is unfortunate that the technology was not widely licensed by other manufacturers and I'm sure that parties and financial interests on both sides have contributed to SawStop having an effective monopoly on tablesaws that don't amputate, mangle, disfigure, etc and cost billions annually.

I find it a bit bewildering that there is a rider in the federal budget exempting use of monies being used for finalization of any CPSC rule re:SawStop.

"SEC. 502. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be used to finalize any rule by the Consumer Product Safety Commission relating to blade-contact injuries on table saws."

Do you think somebody in congress came up with that themselves or did it come from PTI or other representatives of non-SawStop interests?
IMO this is different from Gass petitioning the CPSC only in that the ultimate result will be more injuries, lawsuits, pain, and suffering rather than less.

[andy bessette]

...I have a problem with the government requiring it.

This. Too many nanny-staters.

[Mike Henderson]

By by this logic no company could exist because every time anything happened they would be sued out of business by not owning a bullet proof s class Mercedes to transport people and materials the safest way possible to a place where a robot does the work for you because again that would be the safest way to do the job.
No, the law only requires reasonable care and takes into account the financial cost. It does not require a bullet proof Mercedes to transport people.

When the situation is something like a $300 upgrade to a job site saw to save a worker's finger or hand, people in the jury tend to look at the company as not caring and cheap and the company usually loses. The company has an obligation to do reasonable things to protect their workers.

To contrast your position, if the company used a truck that had bald tires and bad brakes to transport the workers, is that okay?

The law attempts to be reasonable and the juries who decide these cases (and the appellate courts) usually consider what's reasonable in the situation.

In my opinion, adding a one time charge of $300 to a job site saw, which will be used on many jobs, is not unreasonable. Let's say that the saw will only last for ten jobs - that's $30 extra per job. And the saw will probably last more than ten jobs. That's nothing compared to the loss of a finger.

Mike

[keith micinski]

Your argument somehow has a perfectly functioning table saw with no defects, but not no flesh sensing technology, being compared to bald tires and bad brakes. Interesting.

[Mel Fulks]

I notice that my own aversion and objections to Saw Stop have waned in the wake of the inevitable. And there are other
"flesh sensing" safety products that have been used a long time and rolled out on the reluctant. So the precedent is there.

[keith micinski]

Well if it makes you feel any better I bought a Bosch reaxx mainly because I got a great deal on it but partly because I don't like gass. I'm pretty sure the sawstop is probably a better Jobsite saw but I was relived when I found this reaxx hat I didn't have to buy a sawstop just yet.

[Wade Lippman]

Well if it makes you feel any better I bought a Bosch reaxx mainly because I got a great deal on it but partly because I don't like gass. I'm pretty sure the sawstop is probably a better Jobsite saw but I was relived when I found this reaxx hat I didn't have to buy a sawstop just yet.

So you have an inferior saw, when Gass neither knows nor cares. I am not sure you thought that out adequately.

[Dave Sabo]

Only problem Mike is that it's not a $300 upgrade. It's more like $1000 upgrade.

And, even the $100 el cheapo depot saws without seeing tech can be used safely and without injury if used properly. They have been used as such for over a century and the overwhelming majority of users NEVER have an accident. The numbers aren't even debatable. Pretty much every endeavor has risk. Autos have all kinds of saftey and tech do dads yet thousands are mamed and killed each year yet we still drive "inferior" and "unsafe" cars everyday. And this despite government mandates. Couples still have children despite the fact that childbirth is still risky and a certain percentage of mothers still die during childbirth. Even with high standards of care , machines and tort system losing over everyone's shoulder.

Yes it's unfortunate that people die and get hurt doing everyday pursuits, but you have no god given right to personal saftey best I can tell. Gun laws are stronger than ever now yet people still get shot and killed every week. Cocaine and Meth are illegal yet people still induldge and kill themselves or create serious health issues.

At some point you have to look in the mirror a take responsibility for your own well being. Stop relying on mommy or nanny (state) to do it for you.

[Mike Kreinhop]

So you have an inferior saw, when Gass neither knows nor cares. I am not sure you thought that out adequately.

Wrong.

SawStop vs Bosch Reaxx Lawsuit (https://www.protoolreviews.com/news/sawstop-vs-bosch-reaxx-lawsuit-not-yet/26066/)

[Mike Henderson]

Only problem Mike is that it's not a $300 upgrade. It's more like $1000 upgrade.

And, even the $100 el cheapo depot saws without seeing tech can be used safely and without injury if used properly. They have been used as such for over a century and the overwhelming majority of users NEVER have an accident. The numbers aren't even debatable. Pretty much every endeavor has risk. Autos have all kinds of saftey and tech do dads yet thousands are mamed and killed each year yet we still drive "inferior" and "unsafe" cars everyday. And this despite government mandates. Couples still have children despite the fact that childbirth is still risky and a certain percentage of mothers still die during childbirth. Even with high standards of care , machines and tort system losing over everyone's shoulder.

Yes it's unfortunate that people die and get hurt doing everyday pursuits, but you have no god given right to personal saftey best I can tell. Gun laws are stronger than ever now yet people still get shot and killed every week. Cocaine and Meth are illegal yet people still induldge and kill themselves or create serious health issues.

At some point you have to look in the mirror a take responsibility for your own well being. Stop relying on mommy or nanny (state) to do it for you.

So let's say that it's a $1000 upgrade. The saw is going to last for a while so the cost is spread over a number of jobs. But let's say that it adds $100 to the cost of each job. That's still cheap "job insurance" compared to losing a finger or the use of a hand. In any case, the insurance company is going to charge you more if you have a non-flesh sensing saw so you're going to pay that $1,000 one way or the other. And if one of your workers has a serious accident, you could wind up paying a lot more. Even if you have Workers Comp your rates could go up significantly.

You can argue all you want that SOME people don't have accidents but if one of your workers has a serious accident, it can cost you a lot of money, as well as affecting you emotionally as you ask yourself whether you're somewhat responsible for that accident because you could have provided a tool that would have prevented the accident.

Mike

[And just remember, if you get sued by a worker who cut off his/her finger, the jury sees a person who will have to live with a disability for the rest of their life, and the members of the jury don't have to pay the judgment - you do. They tend to favor the injured party.]

[Mike Henderson]

Your argument somehow has a perfectly functioning table saw with no defects, but not no flesh sensing technology, being compared to bald tires and bad brakes. Interesting.

Both are inherently dangerous. In fact, prior to flesh sensing technology, that's how saw manufacturers used to dodge responsibility for injuries. The successful argument was that saws are inherently dangerous and therefore the user accepted the risk of using the tool. But once flesh sensing technology became available, that argument was voided. A table (or job site) saw was available that was not "inherently dangerous". If a worker was forced to use an inherently dangerous saw because that's what was provided, the company and the saw manufacturer could no longer use the "inherently dangerous" defense because flesh sensing was now available.

You might equate that to a truck with bald tires and bad brakes - it's inherently dangerous and the company can provide a truck that is not inherently dangerous. In fact, has a duty to provide a truck that is not inherently dangerous.

Mike

[The loss of the "inherently dangerous" defense against accidents was one reason the saw manufacturers did not want to license the flesh sensing technology. They recognized that once fleshing sensing was available their defense was lost.]

[Mike Kreinhop]

You might equate that to a truck with bald tires and bad brakes - it's inherently dangerous and the company can provide a truck that is not inherently dangerous. In fact, has a duty to provide a truck that is not inherently dangerous.

I think that is a bit of a stretch. In your example, the company has an obligation to provide a truck that complies with the law and safety regulations. As a former CDL driver, I was never under any obligation to take a truck that did not pass the daily inspection. If I did, then I was liable for anything that happened as a result of the faulty equipment.

Until such time as the SawStop technology becomes law, the lawyers will likely duke it out in court. For what it's worth, over on this side of the ocean among my construction friends, the entire SawStop issue is a source of mild humor. The Bosch Reaxx isn't even sold here because there is no market for it.

In the unfortunate circumstance when a worker is hurt on the job, the Health and Safety folks review the personnel training and equipment inspection reports as a routine part of the investigation. If the worker was properly trained, as evidenced by the personnel files, and the equipment was in good working order at the time of the incident, then the employer is covered. However, it can get ugly if there is no record of training or the equipment was faulty, excluding sudden and unexpected failures.

[Mike Henderson]

I think that is a bit of a stretch. In your example, the company has an obligation to provide a truck that complies with the law and safety regulations. As a former CDL driver, I was never under any obligation to take a truck that did not pass the daily inspection. If I did, then I was liable for anything that happened as a result of the faulty equipment.

Until such time as the SawStop technology becomes law, the lawyers will likely duke it out in court. For what it's worth, over on this side of the ocean among my construction friends, the entire SawStop issue is a source of mild humor. The Bosch Reaxx isn't even sold here because there is no market for it.

In the unfortunate circumstance when a worker is hurt on the job, the Health and Safety folks review the personnel training and equipment inspection reports as a routine part of the investigation. If the worker was properly trained, as evidenced by the personnel files, and the equipment was in good working order at the time of the incident, then the employer is covered. However, it can get ugly if there is no record of training or the equipment was faulty, excluding sudden and unexpected failures.

This thread is not a discussion about truck liability but the laws of the United States appear to be different than in Germany. In the US, the company cannot pass liability to an employee. If the employee took an unsafe truck, the company is still liable.

The employee may be liable in other ways, such as for a version of manslaughter (if someone was killed) because they were aware that the truck was unsafe and still drove it, but civil liability will remain with the company - and the employee may have some civil liability, also. Usually, the employee does not have any significant assets so the claims go against the company.

Mike

[keith micinski]

So you have an inferior saw, when Gass neither knows nor cares. I am not sure you thought that out adequately.


Ha, he might not know that I didn't buy one of his saws but he would have known if I did by being 1300 richer and that's more then good enough for me.

[keith micinski]

Both are inherently dangerous. In fact, prior to flesh sensing technology, that's how saw manufacturers used to dodge responsibility for injuries. The successful argument was that saws are inherently dangerous and therefore the user accepted the risk of using the tool. But once flesh sensing technology became available, that argument was voided. A table (or job site) saw was available that was not "inherently dangerous". If a worker was forced to use an inherently dangerous saw because that's what was provided, the company and the saw manufacturer could no longer use the "inherently dangerous" defense because flesh sensing was now available.

You might equate that to a truck with bald tires and bad brakes - it's inherently dangerous and the company can provide a truck that is not inherently dangerous. In fact, has a duty to provide a truck that is not inherently dangerous.

Mike

[The loss of the "inherently dangerous" defense against accidents was one reason the saw manufacturers did not want to license the flesh sensing technology. They recognized that once fleshing sensing was available their defense was lost.]


So, now not only is a table saw without flesh sensing technology, bald tires and bad brakes, the companies designing these evil monsters are "dodging responsibility" for user using the saw improperly BUY STICKING THERE HANDS IN THE BLADE. I guess the old saying "you can't argue with stupid" really is accurate.

[Martin Wasner]

Being that there's been a glut of people being dumb with sharp spinning objects lately, it got me thinking how to quantify the number of cuts I've made in my career, versus the number of injuries more serious than a bandaid.

I've been hurt pretty good twice. Once with a bandsaw being stupid and cut into my thumb and earning a half dozen stitches. The second time was with a tablesaw and while I really mauled my thumb, there was no point in going to a doctor. They weren't going to do anything I couldn't do, and weren't going to tell me anything I didn't already know.

I've been at this for nineteen years. Day in, and day out. Most of that has been while self employed. I work way more than 40 hour weeks, but I'll just use 40 since that's probably an accurate number for in shop hours. So 2080 hours per year times 19 years for a total of 39,520 hours.

While it really depends on what I'm doing, there's almost no chance I make less than 20 cutting operations in an hour. In some cases I'm betting it's more than 200 per hour on the high end. To be conservative, I'll just use 60 as an average.

At sixty cuts per hour over the course of 39,520 hours, that's 2.37 million cuts in my career between tablesaw, cut off saws, panel saws, rip saws, jointers, shapers, etc. 2,370,000. With two significant power tool injuries. Those are educated guesses on the number of cuts, but it's gotta be in the ballpark. Say it's half and 1.19 million. That's a .00000168% failure rate. Go with the original number and it's .000000843%

I'll take those odds.

I don't use guards on a tablesaw
I believe push sticks to be dangerous and a last resort.
I don't use a splitter
I don't use a riving knife

I adhere to strict operational guidelines and maintain a razor sharp focus. Why? Because that tool cuts through wood like butter, and won't even notice my meat going through it.

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Flesh sensing technology isn't making you safer, it's allowing you to slough off adhesion to safety and making you complacent. Sorry, but only you are responsible for you and I'm not trusting a widget.

[andy bessette]

Your argument somehow has a perfectly functioning table saw with no defects, but not no flesh sensing technology, being compared to bald tires and bad brakes. Interesting.

What do you expect from a guy who hides behind his dog? :)

[Mike Henderson]

"you can't argue with stupid"

Sigh... Yes, that's very true.

Mike

[Mike Kreinhop]

This thread is not a discussion about truck liability ...

You introduced the corporate truck with bald tires and bad brakes. I didn't realize I wasn't allowed to expand on the topic. :eek:

[Jerome Stanek]

I always thought that most woodworking accidents happen with chisels

[jack duren]

Being that there's been a glut of people being dumb with sharp spinning objects lately, it got me thinking how to quantify the number of cuts I've made in my career, versus the number of injuries more serious than a bandaid.

I've been hurt pretty good twice. Once with a bandsaw being stupid and cut into my thumb and earning a half dozen stitches. The second time was with a tablesaw and while I really mauled my thumb, there was no point in going to a doctor. They weren't going to do anything I couldn't do, and weren't going to tell me anything I didn't already know.

I've been at this for nineteen years. Day in, and day out. Most of that has been while self employed. I work way more than 40 hour weeks, but I'll just use 40 since that's probably an accurate number for in shop hours. So 2080 hours per year times 19 years for a total of 39,520 hours.

While it really depends on what I'm doing, there's almost no chance I make less than 20 cutting operations in an hour. In some cases I'm betting it's more than 200 per hour on the high end. To be conservative, I'll just use 60 as an average.

At sixty cuts per hour over the course of 39,520 hours, that's 2.37 million cuts in my career between tablesaw, cut off saws, panel saws, rip saws, jointers, shapers, etc. 2,370,000. With two significant power tool injuries. Those are educated guesses on the number of cuts, but it's gotta be in the ballpark. Say it's half and 1.19 million. That's a .00000168% failure rate. Go with the original number and it's .000000843%

I'll take those odds.

I don't use guards on a tablesaw
I believe push sticks to be dangerous and a last resort.
I don't use a splitter
I don't use a riving knife

I adhere to strict operational guidelines and maintain a razor sharp focus. Why? Because that tool cuts through wood like butter, and won't even notice my meat going through it.

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Flesh sensing technology isn't making you safer, it's allowing you to slough off adhesion to safety and making you complacent. Sorry, but only you are responsible for you and I'm not trusting a widget.

I didn't use a splitter for 30years and have used it for the last 4 years. I won't run the Sawstop without it unless I have no choice(patterns). I took it off and forgot to put it on and another worker had a kickback within the hour.