SawStop files petition with CPSC.

[Paul Geer]

I saw this on another forum and thought everyone here would be interested. SawStop the makers of a device that instantaneously stops a table saw blade when it contacts human skin has filed a petition (CP 03-2) with the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) to mandate that all table saws with blades 12" or under be outfitted with the technology.

SawStop's web site: http://www.sawstop.com
CPSC Petition page: http://www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/foia03/petition/peti.html

What do you think?

[Ron Meadows]

While I agree with the idea of Sawstop, I don't agree that they should be a mandated accessory on every new tablesaw. They should devise a method that is easily retrofitted onto current saw designs and let the end user choose about its use.

I could say a lot more about this subject, but we don't do politics here

Ron

[Jason Roehl]

I'm with Ron on this one...we don't do politics on here, so I can't go into how much like tyranny/extortion/racketeering this is.

The market/manufacturers already said they didn't want SawStop, so that's no reason to go get it mandated. Not to mention that the petitioner stands to profit from any implementation of requirements.

Stinks no matter how you look at it.

[Ken Garlock]

I am 110% against a mandated requirement for this device, especially when it is profit motivated.

I think the product is a good product if you want it, but I don't want it :mad: If it were mandated, I would be the first to disable it.

The question now becomes: how do you submit comments on the petition? I would be willing to send the people in DC my vote against the device. :mad:

When my shop was inspected for "occupancy," in order to get the electric meter set, I was required to install 20 some GFCI plugs just because I had a double door to the shop. Go figure :confused: So as the GFCI plugs fail, I will replace them with standard plugs, I have a box of them in the attic :( Another less than erudite requirement....

[Richard Allen]

Hi Paul

Thanks for the heads up and the links.

[Bill Grumbine]

What do I think? I just came in from rototilling the garden in the bright sunshine and 110% humidity. I didn't think I coud get any hotter right now, but I am. :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

I have written at length on this Saw Stop thing, and I think the people trying to shove it down our throats are reprehensible - and they will probably succeed, considering how our society is trending towards a nanny state. I may have already crossed the line for this forum, and if I have, I apologize to you all.

Bill

[Jim Fuller]

I agree,
I couldn't have said it as well as Bill, so let it surfice that I agree

[John Miliunas]

I'm not sure what the statistics today are, but I know a few years ago, the number 1 cause of personal injury was stairs. Yeah. You know...those things you go up and down to get from one level to another. Well, I do NOT recall the elevator companies mandating an end to stairs! How ridiculous. Plus, I'll just about bet that there are more injuries or some other form of damage done by kickback, rather than direct confontations with a spinning blade. (DAMHIKT :D ) No skin contact with the blade there! :cool:

[Jason Roehl]

I'm not sure what the statistics today are, but I know a few years ago, the number 1 cause of personal injury was stairs. Yeah. You know...those things you go up and down to get from one level to another. Well, I do NOT recall the elevator companies mandating an end to stairs! How ridiculous. Plus, I'll just about bet that there are more injuries or some other form of damage done by kickback, rather than direct confontations with a spinning blade. (DAMHIKT :D ) No skin contact with the blade there! :cool:

I also wonder how much of it is due to UTS (User Too Stupid) errors! I would bet that a large majority of flesh + blade accidents could have been avoided by using a more thoughtful approach.

Just like matches don't cause arson, tablesaws don't cause cut fingers.

[Dan Bussiere]

I am not in favor of anyone, no matter how well recieved their product is, mandating law for profit! Bill, if you crossed any lines of conduct here, I will gladly take your punishment, so speak on and charge it to me!
Dan

[Steve Clardy]

I wouldn't mind having one, but I would rather not HAVE to buy it, only if I want to. Steve

[Bill Roland]

I don't like the idea of forcing something on the consumer and the tool folks that is going to make the company rich or put a lot of tool manifactures out of business.

My 2c.

Bill Roland

[Doug Littlejohn]

Since we're treading lightly here, I don't care whether it's for profit or not. I am not to stupid to take care of myself, I don't want or need the government to take care of me and I find the idea of making such things mandatory reprehensible.

There, I'll get off my soapbox now and put it away.

[David Rose]

I don't know what is technically within the realm of politics, but this probably is so I'll tread as lightly as my (hyper) conservative stance will allow. As long as people value themselves and their desires above and at the expense of those around them, we will remain on this downhill slide. I only see one answer and I *know* we can't thoroughly discuss that one here! But we have to USE some sort of accurate, honest moral guide if we desire to turn things around.

There, I did it. I crossed several boundaries. Sorry.

David

[Jim Becker]

When my shop was inspected for "occupancy," in order to get the electric meter set, I was required to install 20 some GFCI plugs just because I had a double door to the shop.

Interesting, considering that one GFCI at the begining of the circuit protects the whole circuit. The only instance that I can see needing them in every location would be if the wiring itself was ungrounded. In that case, they are appropriate to protect you. Oh...another thought...did you have 20 circuits that needed protected?? That might make sense!

[Ken Garlock]

Interesting, considering that one GFCI at the beginning of the circuit protects the whole circuit. The only instance that I can see needing them in every location would be if the wiring itself was ungrounded. In that case, they are appropriate to protect you. Oh...another thought...did you have 20 circuits that needed protected?? That might make sense!

Hi Jim. Just to refresh my own memory, I just counted 2 30A/240V, 7 20A/240V, and 15 20A/120V outlets. So, yes, I was over stating (lying) about over 20 GFCI outlets, it was only 15 :( Each of those has its own home-run and circuit breaker. Of the 15, 12 are paired in the 3 quad boxes on the north a 3 on the south walls. Then there are 2 duplex on the east wall and one on the west wall. The notorious double doors are on the west wall. All the 120V outlets are at 42 in. off the floor. The 20/240 outlets are 3 on each the north and south walls, one on the west, and 2 on the east walls. They are are all at 14 in. from the floor. There is 1 30A on the east wall for a dust collector, and one 30A in the dust collector floor ditch. There is also a 30A in the shop garage for an air compressor. Of course, only the 20A/120V circuits have the GFCI option.

I try to accurate on what I post, but my disgust with the topic clouded my thinking. Thanks for making me fess-up. :)

[Ed Falis]

David,

Interestingly, I consider myself sort of "ultra-liberal", but I didn't hear a thing in your post that I disagreed with. ;-)

Maybe you were being too circumspect, or just a gentleman.

- Ed

[David Rose]

Ed, sometimes I think the liberal/conservative definitions are pretty blurred. I probably shouldn't have even used the word.

No, I wasn't being "just a gentleman". I was sharing my heartfelt convictions pretty straight. OK... maybe we should define "gentleman" too. ;)

David


David,

Interestingly, I consider myself sort of "ultra-liberal", but I didn't hear a thing in your post that I disagreed with. ;-)

Maybe you were being too circumspect, or just a gentleman.

- Ed

[Robert Waddell]

I'm just curious! What is it about this anti-hotdog slicer that he tool mfg's don't want. I would think that a product this revolutionary they would be running over each other to get it first. There must be something wrong with it or the inventors are a bunch of jurks asking for too much money.

[Jim Becker]

I'm just curious! What is it about this anti-hotdog slicer that he tool mfg's don't want. I would think that a product this revolutionary they would be running over each other to get it first. There must be something wrong with it or the inventors are a bunch of jurks asking for too much money.

1) Requires complete redesign of the arbor/trunnions
2) Replacement "Cartridges" are expensive...$60-80 a "pop". Literally. One your trip it, you have to replace the mechanism...it cannot be "reset".

[Ed Weiser]

After reading the links involved with this petition, I feel compelled to add my 2 cents.
(1) This petition would never have been filed if SawStop were a commercially viable product.
(2) The alleged manufacturer comment that "safety doesn't sell" is absurd. Biesemeyer, Exactor, Excalibur, etc. continue to have vigorous sales of safety-oriented products. Articles appear almost daily describing after-market products that are "safety first".
(3) I suspect that SawStop has been rebuked by power tool manufacturers because of Sawstop's greedy royalty demands. In their own documents they estimate that "at most" SawStop would add 25% to the cost of a table saw. For a Delta Unisaw, that would add over $400. After reading through the technology description, the royalty to SawStop might be $300 or more per saw. (SawStop is not "rocket science", simply a clever idea.)
(4) If SawStop is so concerned about saw user safety, I would somewhat "tongue-in-cheek" suggest that the technology be provided free. After all, they themselves are trying to circumvent the open market by appealing directly to the USCPSC for intervention.
(5) I agree completely with the previous posters. THIS PETITION SMELLS WORSE THAN WEEK-OLD OYSTER SHELLS!!
Just some thoughts IMHO...

Ed Weiser

[Ian Barley]

I have to agree that a commercial organisation attempting to compel the installation of any device (safety or otherwise) on which it has a monopoly is so patently wrong as to be almost laughable.

Over here in europe we are used to a much higher level of regulation on things like this but I cannot think of anything were a piece of safety regulation gives any manufacturer a monopoly of this nature.

If sawstop has such a compelling idea, and the price is appropriate, it will get taken up. The truth is that they are selling safety in a situation where the user has a complete ability to avoid the incident being protected against. I cannot conceive of an instance where I, in using a table saw, would touch the moving blade. I use blade guards and manage my cuts to avoid it. I have complete control of the event.

Contrast this with the airbag in a car, a device which fills a similar safety niche. The big difference is that I take my car on the highway and thereby come into contact with other risks (drivers) where I do not have complete control. The airbag is therefore protecting me against incidents which I cannot have the complete ability to avoid.

Sawstop is clever. If I were choosing between two otherwise similar saws and one had sawstop fitted and it cost an extra $50 -$60 I would probably go for it. The cost of replacement cartridges wouldn't concern me as I would never anticipate having to replace one.

If this petition gets anywhere I will be both amazed and disappointed.

[David Blangger]

However this time I will abide by the rules. I will silently agree with above posts ;)

David

[Robert Waddell]

1) Requires complete redesign of the arbor/trunnions
2) Replacement "Cartridges" are expensive...$60-80 a "pop". Literally. One your trip it, you have to replace the mechanism...it cannot be "reset".

Thanks for the info. Jim. I wasn't aware of the replacement cartridges. But even with this information it still points in the direction of they want too much money and are willing to do what ever it takes to get it or the design has not been fully developed. Replacing the cartridges should never happen and if it does IMHO I think a finger is worth more than $80. I think what we have here is a case of greed plain and simple.

[Ed Falis]

David,

You're right about those definitions not quite being up to the realities. But let me define how I meant gentleman in my post: someone who has the courage of his convictions, respect for himself and others, and is secure enough in himself not to have to prove anything to anyone.

- Ed

[David Rose]

Ed, I like the definition. I'm working in that direction. ;)

David


David,

You're right about those definitions not quite being up to the realities. But let me define how I meant gentleman in my post: someone who has the courage of his convictions, respect for himself and others, and is secure enough in himself not to have to prove anything to anyone.

- Ed

[Ken Salisbury]

I don't like the idea of forcing something on the consumer and the tool folks that is going to make the company rich or put a lot of tool manifactures out of business.

My 2c.

Bill Roland
Bill,

I was reading the petition to see what it was all about. Since I was having a slow day I scanned down through the list of petitioner's names I might reconize. There is William A. Roland from Mt Juliet on the list. Could it be ? Based on your comment above I guess there is either another Bill Roland in Mt Juliet or they have harvested your name from somewhere.

[Patrick Smith]

I hope everyone takes this post as worth what you paid for it.

I agree with their petition. I think they are right on track and will support them 100%. So what if trunnions need redesigned? They've been the same for 60 years. So what if cartridges cost $60? The surgery on your finger cost 5 grand. I even hope they come out with one of these for my router, because freehand routing scares the S**T out of me and I sure don't want to be like the stories I read here.

The fact is, if tool companies were honestly concerned about safety they would have picked up on this right away. Or better yet they would have designed one of these on their own! But they haven't - their concern is profits, which is understandable. But sometimes when new technology, or new ways of doing things (or saving fingers) comes along, it TAKES regulation and mandates to force companies to actually care about safety enough where it impacts their bottom line and the consumers wallet, too. Think of the Corvair and how it started the wole industry of automobile safety, and how much safer our cars are now. Same mentality (people were mad about new ways of doing things) and it definitely has made vehicles much more expensive. How I dream about a $4000 Corvette that I will never see. But I don't ever need to think about being impaled on a chrome dashboard in my new Honda.

The other fact is that every company in the world has an agenda. The mfg's (Delta, other tool makers, even Saw Stop themself) interest is profits. The accessory companies (as mentioned those that make guards, etc.) have a big interest in keeping everything the status quo. This device would turn everything on it's ear. I don't see that as being a bad thing, even if someone says I can't buy a new table saw without one.

You are all entitled to your feelings and opinions on this. I respect that totally. My summed- up opinion is, if there is no usability impact to this technology I'll pay the extra money for it gladly, and saw my projects stress-free for the rest of my days.

Best regards to all.
Patrick

[John Miliunas]

Patrick, while I can agree on the safety end of it, I'm really thinking that many of the previous posts are leaning against such a mandate, not for just this one petition. If you read between the lines on many of the posts, it's not just about SawStop, but more so, it's about mandates, in general. It's starting to look like the "Big Brother" syndrome. Where does it stop? You yourself mention the router and your feelings regarding its safe operation. Well, let's take it a step further. No, let's take it *many* steps further: Just about *any* tool that you plug into a 110-240v outlet carries some risk(s) or danger of injuring the user. Look at any one of the user manuals which come with these tools. I'll bet each and every one of them is prefaced with a multitude of warnings and precautionary notes. They're typically scattered about within the context of the remaining manual, as well. These warnings are there for a reason. And, it doesn't end with tools. As mentioned in my previous post, stairs are a leading contributor to personal injury. So what should be done about them? Outlaw them or mandate air bags be designed into them to cushion the fall? (Gee, I hope I didn't give some wiseguy a "bright idea" there! :D

Again, I'm not saying the proposed device, in itself, is a bad thing. Safety is of paramount importance and we have a very large audience here who, I'm sure, would not argue that. But *mandating* such a product, particularly when the proposal has the designer of said product doing the cheerleading, is just wrong on many levels! Instead, I'd personally like to see the government press the OEM's a bit into doing research and developement for similar safety products. I could even *almost* agree with the government pushing OEM's into developing more safety peripherals, BUT, those peripherals should then be offered to the customer as an *option*. NOT something immediately built into the machine with a corresponding price increase. As it stands now, the petition brought forward has a main purpose of making the manufacturer and/or patent holder very rich. And, at the taxpayers' expense, no less! I mean really, when's the last time you saw an advertisement for their product? If this petition became law, not only would their profits soar, but they would be doing it with NO advertising! Some folks may call this very resourceful. I call it pretty low rent!

I too, respect your feelings and opinions on this matter. My opinion is that we *already* have the Government trying to run our lives in too many ways! I sure don't want them trying to run my shop, too! OK, stepping down off the soapbox now.

[David Rose]

The worst injury I have had from tools in 33 years of gunsmithing and two years of hobby woodworking was from a screw driver. There was nothing permanent as I missed a tendon, but it entered my hand nearly an inch. I am so glad it wasn't a nice sharp chisel! The wound might have been cleaner but much deeper. I knew at the time that I was in an awkward and hazardous position. I took a shortcut and took a chance and paid for it.

My point is that any useful tool can be hazardous if incorrectly used. Some can do more damage than others granted, but I really feel the way to deal with the problem is training. I do not own a table saw, but if I did, I think I would like this type safety device. I probably would not buy theirs on principal, but that is my principal not everyone's. But I would hate for others who do not want it to have to pay for it. If it could be sold as an option, I think it would be great. Generally, I like safety devices. Sometimes I peel them right off.

I probably use a router more than any tool in wood working. I very seldom make a climb cut because I was taught (books and online) that was normally the wrong way to do the job. Some guys can do it well and safely. Most of the time I think about the job I am doing and observe the potential problems. As is often said "the best safety mechanism we have is our brains".

Stay sober, stay alert, don't push yourself beyond reasonable limits or leave and come back to the shop another day.

David

[Ian Barley]

Reading back over my post I'm not sure I fully expressed my point.

Like Patrick, I don't have any great problem if a safety device which makes sense is made mandatory. The problem is when a safety device that operates under a commercial protection which makes it immune from competition is made mandatory.

To take the automobile example, in Europe fitting seat belts in cars was made mandatory over thirty years ago. The laws that made them mandatory defined the performance levels that those seat belts must meet but they didn't say "And you can only buy them from Bob's seat belt company".

We have a requirement under Health and Safety legislation that says that the blades on machines like circular saws must come to rest wirhin seconds of being switched off. The logic is that a near silent running blade with 90% of the energy of a noisy running blade is more dangerous than a noisy one with 100% of the energy. This is usually achieved with DC electric braking. The law that requires it doen't say how it has to be achieved or from whom the technology must be purchased. It makes sense and competition exists to drive down the price. You can now retrofit this technology to an old saw for about thirty pounds ($50ish)

[Jim Martin]

So where do we stop Patrick? I see you have kids that you proudly picture. I propose that the government ban rap music, censor cartoons and do a background check on you to see if you are fit to raise the children. How about a $400 surcharge on twinkees and all other fattening snack foods? Finally, if your children join the swim team as they grow I propose that life jackets be mandatory on all competitors. After all, just what is your child worth to you?

All this is said tongue in cheek, but I would be willing to bet there are supporters for all of the things I said to one degree or another. I agree with most here that the sawstop requirement would smack of "big brother".

[scott spencer]

Thanks for bringing this to our attention. I sent them a scathing note yesterday revoking my support and interest in their product. From what I've read so far, the vast majority of folks like the technology but are peaved by the idea of a mandate. If that's the case, I suggest we all write them a little note to get them to back down. The mandate is primarily beneficial to their wallets.

[Ed Weiser]

I think the issue of SawStop petitioning CPSC comes down to a commercially unsuccessful product trying to force itself on the consumer in the guise of safety in the public good. Remember how the mandatory seat belt issue evolved? Do we have to go through that again? Unfortunately, most of us keep our table saws longer than our cars. I hope the CPSC has the sense to distinguish true safety from the politics of greed. If the regulation is enacted, the "playing field" should be as level as possible to prevent SawStop from a monopoly and holding the consumer hostage.

Ed Weiser

P.S. I'm sorry my opinion here is so one-sided. As a physician and surgeon I understand the incredible value of avoiding life-changing power tool injuries. I just don't see that SawStop is doing this in the public interest much at all. If so the wording of their petition might have been quite a bit different...

[Martin Shupe]

I have very mixed emotions about this topic...

On one hand... :cool:

Personally, I think the Sawstop is a great idea. I think in a free market society, Sawstop should be able to produce its own line of tablesaws that incorporate their proprietory technology, then market them as "safer" tablesaws. (And in our society, they can.) Then they could charge whatever the market would bear. In fact, I thought that was what they were going to do. I thought I read somewhere that Sawstop was going to produce and market their own line of cabinet saws. I would have fully supported them in this effort, although I don't think I would have run out and bought one, as I already have a cabinet saw.

On the other hand... :mad:

It seems that Sawstop shopped its technology around, and no one bought off on it. So, in order to make money, they have decided to appeal to the government to FORCE people to buy and use their technology. I have a major problem with that. The talk about safety, but in my humble opinion, it is all about greed.


Thanks for bringing this to our attention. I sent them a scathing note yesterday revoking my support and interest in their product. From what I've read so far, the vast majority of folks like the technology but are peaved by the idea of a mandate. If that's the case, I suggest we all write them a little note to get them to back down. The mandate is primarily beneficial to their wallets.

I think writing Sawstop would be useless. They don't care what we think. If they did, they would produce a saw, and then try to sell it to us. If we really want to make a difference, we need to make public comments to the CPSC. If a thousand woodworkers voiced their opinion that they don't want to be forced to pay an extra $400 next time they buy a cabinet saw, it might make a difference. I say might, because I am a little cynical when it comes to government. Personally, I think a lot of laws are made based on which lobbyist got to the guy with the swing vote. I am sorry I feel this way, but I think the founding fathers would not be pleased with how laws are made in this day and age.

So, does anyone have the link to the public comments section of the CPSC website? I would look for it myself, but I just don't have time right now.

Stepping off my soapbox...

[Bill Grumbine]

The fact is, if tool companies were honestly concerned about safety they would have picked up on this right away. Or better yet they would have designed one of these on their own! But they haven't - their concern is profits, which is understandable....

...The other fact is that every company in the world has an agenda. The mfg's (Delta, other tool makers, even Saw Stop themself) interest is profits. The accessory companies (as mentioned those that make guards, etc.) have a big interest in keeping everything the status quo. This device would turn everything on it's ear. I don't see that as being a bad thing, even if someone says I can't buy a new table saw without one.

Patrick

Hi Patrick

I think you make some valid observations, but I would like to politely disagree with your conclusions. You are right when you write that tool companies are interested in profit. That is how the business end of our society works. A person, or people provide goods and services and make money doing so. There is nothing inherently evil in doing this. To say that the tool companies are not interested in safety because it would cut into profits (a little WW humor there) is inaccurate. The tool company will do anything it can to enhance its profit margin. If a safety feature means they will sell more saws with more profit, they will jump right on it. Tool companies are constantly working on new and improved versions of their tools. If they don't, the competition leaves them behind.

The Saw Stop is a good idea, but it is not a panacea for table saw safety. Kickback is much more likely to occur than getting one's fingers in the blade, even though most of us know someone who has had that happen (I know several). The inventors shopped their concept around, and found no takers. Apparently they do not have the investors needed to go into business on their own. This safety device doesn't add enough of a safety margin to be desirable, so they are going to the place of last resort, and attempting to force us to buy it through the brute power of the federal government. And if someone writes and says if it saves just one finger, it will be worth it all, I will barf right on my keyboard.

Let's say the guy is successful, and gets a government mandate that all the table saw companies have to buy and install his product. Now that he has a guaranteed and captive market, and a monopoly to boot, what is his motivation to improve or even maintain his product? Who cares how, or how well it works? It is now law that people have to buy it.

The other thing I would like to address is your comment about the interests of the saw and accessory companies. I think it is a real stretch to accuse these companies of operating in some sort of collusion to maintain a status quo. Remember, most of these companies are out for the same market. Anyone who buys a Delta saw is NOT going to buy a Jet, or Powermatic, etc. If and when any of them come up with an edge, they don't call up the other guys and say "hey, we need to keep this under our hats so it doesn't upset the apple cart". They get it into production, and try and take as many people out of the market by selling their tool as fast as they can. If the Saw Stop was as good as its inventor claimed, someone would jump on it as a way to get an edge.

Then there is the law of unintended consequences. You cited automobile safety. I do not remember the name of the study I read, but I remember reading that all of the safety devices which have been mandated over the years for cars have really done nothing to reduce injury or death. People are still killing themselves wholesale, because as the safety features have increased, so has reckless and irresponsible driving. People come to depend on the device to preserve them rather than exercising common sense, and devices are even more fallible than the human mind. You can bet that if this Saw Stop comes on the market, you will see an increase in other types of TS injury because it will endow people with a false sense of security, and people will do even more stupid things than they are doing now.

The last thing I would like to say is this. This action of the Saw Stop company is a slap in the face to woodworkers everywhere. They are essentially saying we are too stupid and unsafe to take care of ourselves, or to make appropriate decisions where those decisions impact our safety. I know the fall back position, which is what about all those poor people who work in shops where they are forced to use an unsafe saw? I say phooey to that. I worked for a company that insisted on putting me in an unsafe environment every single day. It got to the point where I quit. I have a family, and we needed my income to get by, but I quit because I refused to risk my safety and even my life for a company that really didn't care about me. My well being was more important to my family than my paycheck. In our society, no one can compel anyone else to do something they don't want to do, except by using the force of the Federal Government, and that is exactly what the Saw Stop people are trying to do.

Bill

[David Rose]

Martin, I think you are exactly right. When I first read the Sawstop postings, they were met with some postiive and supportive comments. But they seemed to have an attitude that alienated other folks. It sounded like they really didn't care from the beginning what anyone thought of their idea. Maybe their posting person was just not a salesman, I don't know. But they got a lot of negative response THEN they went to the CPSC.

It seems to me that government now listens most to those who can create a bandwagon to collect the most money. Things have change a lot in our system and not for the best IMO.

So... does anyone believe that there is anything we can do to make a difference? I agree to trying to influence the CPSC.

David

________________________
I think writing Sawstop would be useless. They don't care what we think. If they did, they would produce a saw, and then try to sell it to us. If we really want to make a difference, we need to make public comments to the CPSC. If a thousand woodworkers voiced their opinion that they don't want to be forced to pay an extra $400 next time they buy a cabinet saw, it might make a difference. I say might, because I am a little cynical when it comes to government. Personally, I think a lot of laws are made based on which lobbyist got to the guy with the swing vote. I am sorry I feel this way, but I think the founding fathers would not be pleased with how laws are made in this day and age.

[Carl Eyman]

The Corvair was not an unsafe car. About the time the last one was manufactured the National Trafic Safety Board (have I the name right?) declared it to be no more unsafe than other cars of its class. This is little known since by the time it came out The corvair was no longer news. Ralph Nader's lies however had made him millions of dollars and, IMHO, made no one the safer. It is just as Adolph Hitler said it was - Lie often enough and loudly enough and a lot of people will believe you.

[Ed Weiser]

Bill Grumbine is, I believe, quite correct. The SawStop petition is directed at consumer products, not industrial. The petition seeks to place the device on 12" and smaller table saws. I suspect they did not want to take on the furniture and other wood product industries, just consumers and "mom and pop" operations. The issue, therefore, of "workplace safety" should not play a role, assuming the CPSC members understand the issue before the ruling is made.
I normally don't jump on bandwagons but I see this as an incredibly important issues for woodworkers. Other that electrical code conformity and the like I am unaware of any time the Federal Government has gotten involved with our area. The voice needs to be loud and clear (and heard in multiples) that woodworkers do not wish government supervision or regulation (if in fact that is so.)

Ed Weiser

[Jim Becker]

The SawStop petition is directed at consumer products, not industrial. The petition seeks to place the device on 12" and smaller table saws.

Yes, it would not effect "industrial" users, but it would effect just about every cabinet shop, carpenter and other trade professional as well as "consumers/hobbiests". '12" and under' covers almost the entire market for stand-alone table saws!

[Ed Weiser]

Yes, Jim, I agree, but these are perceived as individuals of limited political voice. Clearly, the SawStop lawyers and marketers have thought this through (or at least think they have.)

Ed Weiser

[Kirk (KC) Constable]

I think the idea of the SawStop is probably a good one. I wouldn't have squawked if I had to pay another $200 for a new saw because JET decided to make it standard equipment, but I wouldn't have gone out of my way to put one on my existing equipment. The filing of this petition, however, will result in the SawStop people never getting one thin dime of my money...for ANY product they may be involved in.

KC

[John Miliunas]

Some have mentioned writing to the CPSC. I for one already did just that this morning. Whether I'll be heard or not is anyone's guess, but if one were to go by the responses thus far, I'd say there are a LOT of folks who are apposed to this mandate. Here's the problem, as I see it: I just checked the stats and this thread has been viewed 888 times! Granted, some of those times will be repeat visits, but still, there are only 41 replies! I truly am hoping that this is not indicative of the type of action we can expect from our fellow WW's when the time comes to make our cumulative voices heard! Yeah, I'm sure there are many folks out there who already have their cabinet saws and think this will not affect them. But, won't it? Like many have said, "Where will it end?!" And, if OEM's are forced to apply these devices, who's to say they won't divide up some of the costs between their entire line of tools? Let's face it, an extra four bills or so, would put many people out of the running completely for a cabinet saw! So, for those of you who think this wouldn't affect you, think again. If we let this go through, Big Brother will most assuredly mandate something which will affect you too! Just another passing thought from one who wishes he had a cabinet saw..... :cool:

[Patrick Smith]

This must be a first for me :) I've read all the responses... I must say it is kind of odd to be the only dissenter.

Mr Bill Grumbine: Well written words, although I am one of these "woodworkers everywhere" and I don't take their filing as a slap on the face. I don't think they are calling me a stupid ww'er that can't work safely! I think they are making this public for all the non-ww'er people that will see this and think, "wow, that really makes sense! - how come the tool companies haven't put this in their tools yet?" [P-R-O-F-I-T-S] My only other correction (if you can call it that) would be that I never wrote that companies having profits in mind was a BAD thing :) It's fully expected and understood. I think my point was that if business is moving along ok, redesigning their tools for a new safety device would cut into profits for only a certain (limited) percentage of users that would buy one. The safety equipment that came with my Delta contractor saw in 2001 is the same basic stuff that was issued at least 20, if not 40, if not 60 years prior. Yet we've seen a revolution in microchips and CAD capability that have left TS trunnions and 10" TS blades behind. Heck, between BP where this first reared it's head to now I would bet $50 that less than 20% of all the posters have written to say they would buy this *if it were an option*. It's a losing bet from the start! Safety always seems to be... how many people do we all think have dropped $400 for killer overarm guards? Not too many. So I must politely disagree with your assessment that these tool mfg's are implementing new safety equipment in their saws when it makes profitable sense to do it.

Carl - I DO agree with you, I don't think the Corvair was unsafe. I wish more people had heard of oversteer, I really do! But it was a catalyst (by it's own fault or not) for safety change in the auto industry.

I couldn't care less about SawStop's business tactics - tactics that are just like any other for-profit company, don't delude yourself. I want their technology in my saw for my own safety and the safety of other ww'ers. The actual end-consumer cost of it is negligible. If it's non-impacting (NOT like the super-safe GFI breaker in my box that pops when the wind blows wrong) then we should all be happy the technology is ready for the masses, and willing the plunk down the extra bucks when it comes time to buy a new saw.

Just my opinion folks. I am still surprised to be the only dissenter. If you feel that strongly about this maybe it would help to take a sec and email one of the guys that's posted recently about losing a finger or three to the TS.

BTW, I am really surprised that link is generating THIS much interest, response and paranoia about the government. The CPSC gets press but they don't really have much teeth when it comes to what consumers actually BUY. If you want proof just go look for all the non-compliant bunk beds you can still buy.

Best regards,
Patrick

[Dan Bayliss]

Just a thought on how the woodworking industry might aproach the subject.

[Ed Weiser]

I've located a web address where opinions on the SawStop petition can be e-mailed to the CPSC Commissioners:

cpsc-os@cpsc.gov

Another approach from a large tool manufacturer's perspective would be to inquire as a consumer to Delta or Jet/Powermatic or General Tool or Grizzly. Anyone know people at these firms that could provide an explanation of SawStop's failure to generate any interest?

Patrick, I'm not opposed to the technology of safety. It's just not the usual way to go about the process (appealing to the CPSC BEFORE marketing the device.) The perceived concern is, I believe, an unwillingness to embrace new technology as REQUIRED before it functions within the marketplace. I truly believe that the saw manufacturers would incorporate SawStop if they felt it would make THEIR saw more marketable. Ultimately more saw sales equals more profits.

Regardless of how you feel on the issue, contact the CPSC and register your opinion. To paraphrase: "Don't curse the darkness if you're unwilling to light a candle..."

Ed Weiser

[Jason Roehl]

Patrick, I think your comment about your GFI popping shows that you have missed at least part of the point about SawStop. You're annoyed when you have to press a little red button for no reason just to use an outlet. What happens when the SawStop misfires? It's a piston that's rammed into the blade--you're out a blade and the cartridge for SawStop, not to mention the downtime as you wait for replacements.

Someone brought up airbags...I know airbags were around for at least 20-25 years before they started finding their way into cars and became mandatory. Why? Unproven technology.

How about this. What if I came up with a $400 tool that guaranteed no paint spillage while rolling paint on a wall and tried to get Wooster, Graco, Wagner, etc. to buy the technology. They subsequently turn me down because they know the market doesn't want it. So I try to market it myself...still no dice. My last resort? I go to the CPSC and get them to mandate its use when all paint is being applied. Now everyone has to buy MY technology, and I can name whatever price I want.

The bottom line is, THAT is NOT how AMERICA should work.

Oh, and if this does go through, suddenly a 13" TS sounds very appealing!

[Jim Becker]

I am wondering why that if the SawStop folks are so concerned about safety that they don't help this along by putting their patent in the public domain? It would lend credibility to their petition...

[Bill Grumbine]

This must be a first for me :) I've read all the responses... I must say it is kind of odd to be the only dissenter.

... although I am one of these "woodworkers everywhere" and I don't take their filing as a slap on the face. I don't think they are calling me a stupid ww'er that can't work safely! I think they are making this public for all the non-ww'er people that will see this and think, "wow, that really makes sense! -

My apologies if I implied that the feeling was universal. I am not so naive as to think that every single woodworker in the US takes this as an insult, but rather that the feeling is quite widespread. Just look at the posts coming in and the locations of the posters. Furthermore, there really isn't anything public about this. Most people in the US can't even name their congressional representative, so I think it is a safe bet they aren't browsing through the CPSC website. Secondly, I don't think that people who aren't woodworkers really have any business in how I run my shop. In fact, being quite libertarian in my outlook, I don't think ANYONE besides me has any business in how I run my shop as long as I am obeying the laws of the land and being a good neighbor.


The safety equipment that came with my Delta contractor saw in 2001 is the same basic stuff that was issued at least 20, if not 40, if not 60 years prior. Yet we've seen a revolution in microchips and CAD capability that have left TS trunnions and 10" TS blades behind.

This is an invalid comparison between a mature technology and an infant technology.


Safety always seems to be... how many people do we all think have dropped $400 for killer overarm guards? Not too many. So I must politely disagree with your assessment that these tool mfg's are implementing new safety equipment in their saws when it makes profitable sense to do it.

If there were no profit in it, manufacturers would not be building "killer overarm guards". The whole crux of the matter is this. The safety equipment is out there. It is the decision of each individual user on how much and of what type safety equipment he or she is willing to use. If you go back and read through this thread, virtually everyone, including myself is on record as saying the Saw Stop is a pretty good idea. What we don't like is the idea of being compelled to use it.

Let me give you an example. I am a professional woodworker. As part of my business, I teach people how to turn on the lathe. Safety is a big thing for me on and off the lathe. One of my chief safety devices is a PAPR (powered air personal respirator). It sells for close to $600. Lots of my friends and associates have one (so much for the theory that safety doesn't sell). It costs more than the lathes of a lot of my students, and is the current pinnacle in facial and respiratory protection. When a student comes to my shop, I require full facial protection. It does not have to be an air helmet, but it does need to be at least a face shield. The price difference is somewhere around $575.00, making a face shield affordable for anyone who is interested in turning.

There are three points to this. In the first place, I do not require them to possess the same degree of protection that I have personally decided on for myself. In the second place, I am not forcing anyone to come to my shop. In the third place, I am not traveling about to other shops forcing people to use a faceshield. They are completely capable of making that decision for themselves. If they aren't, experience is a hard teacher. The real big overarching point to all this is they all - no, WE all have the freedom to make the choice. We are not compelled to make it by someone who thinks they know better.

Even my own choice is on a continuum. I wear the helmet 100% of the time when I am alone in my shop. I wear it some of the time when teaching or demonstrating, removing it when I deem it safe, and for efficacy in teaching. If the Saw Stop people were in charge of air helmets, I would have no option but to scream through the lexan faceshield and over the sound of the fan motor when teaching or demonstrating because I would not be "safe enough" in their mind.


I couldn't care less about SawStop's business tactics - tactics that are just like any other for-profit company, don't delude yourself.

I am not deluded, and I resent the implication. I do not see any other tool companies running to the Feds to make the rest of us buy their product.



I want their technology in my saw for my own safety and the safety of other ww'ers.

No one is stopping you from buying one. Why not invest in the company so they can produce the thing on the free market?


The actual end-consumer cost of it is negligible.

Everything businesses do cost the consumer. Business is not in the business of giving things away. We already pay a premium for every tool we buy because of government regulation because of the extra costs incurred just for paperwork. Any costs incurred are passed on to us, the financiers of that business.


Just my opinion folks. I am still surprised to be the only dissenter. If you feel that strongly about this maybe it would help to take a sec and email one of the guys that's posted recently about losing a finger or three to the TS.

I think it is safe to say Terry is probably reading this, and if he feels like commenting, I am sure he will. Remember, the issue is not about whether or not it is a good idea, but rather whether or not we can decide for ourselves.


BTW, I am really surprised that link is generating THIS much interest, response and paranoia about the government.

Patrick

I am really disappointed in this last statement. Up until this posting of yours, the discussion, while passionate, was civil. In this post you have accused me of being delusional, and all of us who disagree with you as paranoid. Many of us disagree with your perspective, but no one has resorted to personal attack.

By the way, I have a "killer overarm guard", for which I paid $350.00 at a woodworking show in '99. It is cumbersome and dangerous (IMO) to use, and has been off the saw for almost a year now. I'd be glad to sell it to you for a real good price.

Bill

[Dave Anderson NH]

I have real philosophical problems with the idea of mandating safety devices of one particular design or type. This is a attempt to guarantee a market for a device which has been unsuccessful in selling itself to a large and diverse group of manufacturers. Worse still from my viewpoint is the fact that it only protects from one type of injury ( cut digits) and does so only slightly better than any number of stock or aftermarket or home designed blade guards. It does not address the problems of kickback and it doesn't offer any protection against a kerf closing on a cut. Safety issues which cause at least an equal number of serious injuries.

Here in NH we have our state motto- Live Free or Die. While it is not license for irresponsibility, it demands of us that we take responsibility for our own actions. The primary line of defense against injury is a combination of knowledge and safe working habits. This holds true on all tools we use, not just tablesaws. Rhetorically, of what use is a device which stops the blade instantly if you have a guard, splitter, and stand to the side of your saw while using a push block, featherboards, and other devices in combination? Remember, this device is designed to work on capacitance and doesn't stop the blade if it encounters a problem with the wood it is cutting. It only saves fingers and hot dogs, neither of which should be in the way of the blade under any circumstances.

Bottom line- I deeply resent a corporation trying to mandate the use of its device when it has failed in the marketplace and I equally resent the implication that both my work habits are unsafe and that I need to be protected from myself. I worked hard to develop safe work habits and I believe that only I can keep myself from from being injured.

[Patrick Smith]

Bill - I'm sorry you took that personally, as it was not meant that way. I respect your thoughts and don't think you are delusional at all, nor paranoid. And I sure didn't say everyone who disagrees with my opinion is paranoid, but this link has certainly generated some of that. Perhaps I could have chosen better words.

I do hope, however, you go the CPSC site and read at a minimum page 9 of the 1st petition. I would hope that everyone who has responded at least reads that, if not the rest of both petitions in entirety.

Jim Becker: There should be enough information between the two filed petitions to make your own better version of SawStop. I did a quick patent search but didn't come up with anything. Maybe they didn't bother getting one!

Jason Roehl: That was kinda my whole point of wanting the technology. If this thing works right and doesn't pop all the time, then it's non-impacting. Works when you need it but you can't tell it's there when you don't.

Dave Anderson: I understand where you are coming from, however this issue is above personal responsibility. Finger injuries come from all walks of life, and I would bet many of those are uninsured carpenters that will then need public assistance in some form or another. IMO I think the hobbiest part - where people take the most care to be safe and responsible - of the finger injury stats is probably the smallest.

One point I don't think has come up is that you can turn this thing off. There is no one from the gov't standing behind you in your shop making sure it's still turned on, or even installed. You could remove it entirely and sell it on eBay. Or put it on the shelf right next to the overarm guard that came with the saw. I wonder if there would have been this big of a response when overarm guards were mandated, but now we take them in stride simply because they come with the saw. I see a lot of parallels with that.

I will let everyone get back to work and make this responses my last. Since I am still the only one disagreeing there's not much point to debate this. This would be a good time over a grill and a few beers but it doesn't work well online - words are taken wrong too easily. You can all agree together now! :) But before you send that email to the CPSC at least READ THE FIRST TEN PAGES OF THE PETITION. That's a minimum pre-req.

BTW, if you really feel strongly about this, why not call one or all three of the filers and ask them exactly why they did this? Their phone numbers are on the petition. I think I will call them later today just to get their take on why they did it this way.

Best regards to all.
Patrick

[Ken Salisbury]

I have read all of the posts in this thread and although it is a very lively discussion, there have been some subtle personal attacks in both directions. We can all debate this issue without those. Please continue this discussion in a constructive manner which will make my moderator duties much easier - I don't want to have to edit any of the posts if possible and won't unless it gets "out of control".<p>

Please do keep the discussion going ! ! !

Thanks !!</p>

[Ed Falis]

This must be a first for me :) I've read all the responses... I must say it is kind of odd to be the only dissenter.


You're not the only dissenter.

- Ed

[Mike Circo]

Patrick,
Please watch your facts.

1) you cannot remove the SawStop. It is an integral part of the saw. That is why it cannot be added on as an aftermarket kit.

2) You can only disable it for one cut (one cycle of the power). Disableing is only included for metal cutting on occasion.

Put me in the camp of making it available as an option, not a federal requirement. If we start here, then every powered tool, garden and kitchen device would require such a upgrade..

[Patrick Smith]

Patrick, Please watch your facts.

Hi Mike. Your correction intrigued me, so even though I said I woudn't reply any more, I went in search of some information to see what the facts really are. Looking at the patent applications (I found them, see next post) Saw Stop does not appear to have anti-defeatable mechanisms built into it. The patent applications are decidedly vague however, using words like "may implement" or "Various... implementations". So, could you "remove it entirely and sell it on eBay" as I quipped below? Probably not, but it doesn't look like any production plans have been finalized so I think it's acceptable to call that one a 'maybe, but probably not'.

As for a switch that only works for one cut, there is mention of that as an option in the patent application. But it also mentions another switch option could be used to cut power to the brake that drops into the blade for multiple cutting operations, thereby bypassing the Saw Stop device until the switch is flipped again to bring power back to it.

As for making the device an option on new saws - I think I agree with you, as long as it's actually made an option. After reading through the petition it sure seems like the tool companies were colluding to make sure this technology never made it to market as an option on their equipment. Sure reads like a conspiracy theory.

Lots of fascinating views on this subject. I wonder when CPSC will make a judgement or recommendation? Hopefully it will be soon.

Best Regards,
Patrick

[Patrick Smith]

Hello everyone. I took it on myself to find out more information about the Saw Stop devices in response to an inquiry from a poster here. It turns out the information is indeed public.

The Saw Stop patent applications are available online at the US Patent Office (http://appft1.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/search-adv.html). The link takes you directly to the Advanced Search box of patent applications. If you plug in the inventor's name as a search, you will see the results. Copy/paste this into the search box: in/gass-stephen-$ and 35 hits will come back.

Worth noting are Saw Stop applications for table saws, band saws, miter saws, and routers. Maybe a shaper is next.

This will be my last post on this unless someone has a correction to one of my previous posts. Have a great day all.

Best Regards,
Patrick

[Paul Geer]

I think that most here are intrested in table saw safety like me, but don't want a mandate on a device that might work properly and then maybe not work. Most here would like a choice in the matter and buy for themself said device. And chances are if it was put on the market as an manufactured add on, (and I think it is, right?) it would work and work well. It would have to, after all if it was full of problems the manufactures would be in trouble.

I say NO to any kind of mandate (Federal or not) of any device for table saws or anything els for that matter, even if it works, even if it's safe.

[Dave Anderson]

If these folks were truly interested in improving <u>the product</u> (table saw) they would NOT be petitioning the Government for <i>their product</i> to be "mandatory."

Rather, they, and all current U.S. manufacturers, would be pushing for a Euro style splitter as the mandate.

Kickback, not cut "hot dogs", is the number one cause of serious table saw injuries. Some kickback induced injuries DO include cut hands, arms and digits IF said kickback drags the operator's appendage into the spinning blade.

Do I <u>think</u> about a cut finger? Yes. But, I'm obsessed about kickback!

I don't have a blade guard on my table saw. I do have the splitter installed and beyond that use jigs and featherboards where appropriate. My work-pattern and use or non-use of "safety" equipment tell the story - my safety focus is on kickback and its prevention.

And, finally, this observation from the LEFT leaning LEFT coast of CALIFORNIA - I don't want the government <u>telling</u> me I HAVE to do anything! :rolleyes:

[Cliff Newton]

What ever became of this petition?

[Dave Bonde]

I agree 100% with Ron and others. Put out a product if it has value the consumers will support it.
Dave



While I agree with the idea of Sawstop, I don't agree that they should be a mandated accessory on every new tablesaw. They should devise a method that is easily retrofitted onto current saw designs and let the end user choose about its use.

I could say a lot more about this subject, but we don't do politics here

Ron

[Pat Salter]

Woodworkers Journal April issue has a few letters to the editor concerning this.

[Mark Singer]

Yeah John stop staring....it could result in injury...

[Ken Fitzgerald]

Patrick,

As one who installs, repairs and calibrates daily electonic equiments (CT & MR scanners, x-ray and mammography units) capable of using or producing high voltages (up to 150,000 vdc), 3-phase 480 vac, x-rays, rf energey (up to 20,000 watts), cryogens (Lhe) and dangerous electro-mechanical devices my personal safety as well as the safety of patients and other health care workers is of prime concern.

I read an article about Sawstop some months ago, viewed a video demonstration of their product shot at an Atlanta WW show and went to their web site. As I was in the process of replacing a 20+ year old DD t/s, I priced one of theirs. I could not justify the price difference.

If you want to buy a saw with the safety option...you can order one from them today.

Rather than making their saws price competitive, they have elected to force the competition to invest in their product or a similar product. What an neat idea.....have a federal agency regulate the competition to enlarge your personal market share........

I don't like the idea of them insulting my intelligence by saying their product should be mandatory on all manufacturer's products because they are interested in public safety. Their prime concern is increasing their market share and profits.

[David Rose]

Jason, I don't know about the saw stop, but I surely am interested in your "paint director device". Could you come down on it just a tad for an ole Creek fellow dipper? I'm really hoping it will work with brushes too. How about containing overspray? You know... ole buddy... you need a partner??? :D :D

Well, I do agree with you about the Saw Stop too. Increases in reglation always mean loss of freedom. It should be the users responsibility to learn the proper ways to use a tool. Any tool.

David


Patrick, I think your comment about your GFI popping shows that you have missed at least part of the point about SawStop. You're annoyed when you have to press a little red button for no reason just to use an outlet. What happens when the SawStop misfires? It's a piston that's rammed into the blade--you're out a blade and the cartridge for SawStop, not to mention the downtime as you wait for replacements.

Someone brought up airbags...I know airbags were around for at least 20-25 years before they started finding their way into cars and became mandatory. Why? Unproven technology.

How about this. What if I came up with a $400 tool that guaranteed no paint spillage while rolling paint on a wall and tried to get Wooster, Graco, Wagner, etc. to buy the technology. They subsequently turn me down because they know the market doesn't want it. So I try to market it myself...still no dice. My last resort? I go to the CPSC and get them to mandate its use when all paint is being applied. Now everyone has to buy MY technology, and I can name whatever price I want.

The bottom line is, THAT is NOT how AMERICA should work.

Oh, and if this does go through, suddenly a 13" TS sounds very appealing!

[Philip Duffy]

I saw this on another forum and thought everyone here would be interested. SawStop the makers of a device that instantaneously stops a table saw blade when it contacts human skin has filed a petition (CP 03-2) with the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) to mandate that all table saws with blades 12" or under be outfitted with the technology.

SawStop's web site: http://www.sawstop.com
CPSC Petition page: http://www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/foia03/petition/peti.html

What do you think?

Well, as ole Ronnie used to say; " We don't need more govment". Phil

[John Parker]

I have been hesitant to post to this thread becouse I am one of the statistics spoken of. About one year ago I lost the first joint of my right middle finger in my table saw. The accident happened becouse of a error on my part and a slip on some sawdust on the floor in my shop. The saw stop probably would have saved my finger tip. I did have a overarm guard and splitter on my saw. Even knowing that the sawstop might have saved my finger, I still think the way that this company is trying to get thier product used is wrong.

[Eddie Severt]

I have been hesitant to post to this thread becouse I am one of the statistics spoken of. About one year ago I lost the first joint of my right middle finger in my table saw. The accident happened becouse of a error on my part and a slip on some sawdust on the floor in my shop. The saw stop probably would have saved my finger tip. I did have a overarm guard and splitter on my saw. Even knowing that the sawstop might have saved my finger, I still think the way that this company is trying to get thier product used is wrong.
John,
I thank you for the courage to speak your mind on this matter. I admire you for your honest assessment of this matter. I usually stay out of these discussions, but I felt I had to get into this one. Following is a copy of an email I sent to the CPSC this morning. Everyone feel free to copy it and send it as is, or modify it to suit your own feelings. The email address is : info@cpsc.gov and the petition number is: CP 03-2.
Thanks,
Eddie Severt

Sirs,
Regarding the above petition, I am of the opinion that this is an attempt to force mandatory regulation of a specific safety device solely for the profit of the only company that makes such a device. The mandatory added cost of approximately $400.00 per saw would effectively block me from purchasing a new saw that incorporated this safety device, even if I would want it. If you study the individual cases of injury caused by table saws, it becomes apparent that "kickback" of the material being cut is the greatest cause of injury. I would like to see this product as an option on new saws, but I must strongly protest it being made a mandatory modification to all products in this area. Also, as proposed, this would not enhance workplace safety as most production shops use saws larger than the 12" suggested in the petition as the maximum size. I thank you for your careful consideration of this matter.
Sincerely,
Edward Severt
Box 275
Bolt, WV 25817

[Bill Karow]

The fact is, if tool companies were honestly concerned about safety they would have picked up on this right away.

Patrick, I have to respectfully disagree with you. In our excessively litigious society, perhaps the worst position manufacturers could be in is to tout a new safety feature that protects users in this way. They would in effect be telling purchasers that it's OK to ignore basic tablesaw safety. All this is well and good, but when the first SawStop malfunction happens - and it WILL happen - and results in severe injury to someone who had relied on the promise of protection, well, that company will at minimum have a new owner.

I agree safety breakthroughs should be considered by all reasonable folks. I also prefer that they be available aftermarket so I'm able to choose for myself. But for someone in a monopoly position to attempt to legislatively mandate use of their technology, which has been rejected by manufacturers on grounds of cost and the liability issues I mention above, I'll do my best to ensure the SawStop petition is rejected.

[I hope this is not too strident, and if it is, I encourage the moderator to delete it.]

Thanks-
Bill

[Mac McAtee]

I see a slightly different angle on this.

If I, as a machinery manufacturer, saw a device coming on the market that may enhance my machine and hence the sale of my machine which of the following would I do:

1. Immediately purchase the device from the devices originator and pay his or her price?

2. Since I have a full staff of machinery designers that are being paid to sit at my desk, would I have them start looking at the device, look at the patent on the device, look at other similar devices, take them apart, see what makes them tick. Knowing full well that all patent applications have as many holes in them as Swiss cheese, wouldn't i then design my own version of the device that works on my machine? Then wouldn't I hold that design to see if the market demands it? If there was no demand for the new device, just leave it in the files somewhere? If there was a small demand that I could profit from, make it available as an option on my machine? If there was a great hew and cry amongst the customer base to offer a saw with the device, then trot it out at the next major woodworking exhibition with a bunch of good looking babes sticking hot dogs into the blade to show how my device works better than the one that my competitor is flogging?

I see no reason that any manufacturer of table saws would feel the need to promote something that would turn all the profit over to someone else.

And don't tell me about corporate greed and all the fingers laying around in all the wood shops all over the world. I know people get injured, but the only one that can prevent the injury is the person standing at the saw.

[Dennis McDonaugh]

I think the sawstop is a good idea. Am I going to buy one? No, I think a splitter, blade guard, and other accessories used properly will do everything the sawstop can do. The sawstop protects your hands by immediately stopping the blade if your hand touches it. The splitter/blade guard/accessories do it by keeping your hands away from the spinning blade.

I am definitely not in favor of legislature to make sawstop mandatory. I already fired off an e-mail to tell them what I think and encourage others to do so too. Write your elected officials too.

[David Blangger]

Patrick hasn't posted since last year. Could it be he has ties with *saw stop* hmmmmmmm

[Ken Salisbury]

This thread has migrated to a political debate which is in violation of the Sawmill Creek Terms of Service. Therefore I have closed the thread to further posting.


"Your Friendly Moderator"