Saw Stop Back in the News [Archive] - Sawmill Creek Woodworking Community

Marvin Keys

08-14-2006, 1:13 PM

The following is an article regarding Saw Stop's continuing agenda to force manufacturers to use their mechanism to prevent injuries. http://www.designnews.com/CA6360672.html

If you read the article you will see that engineers from the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission recommended that the government begin a “rulemaking process” that could result in mandatory safety standards for table saws. The agency’s commissioners have concurred with the recommendation.

Please do not take my posting of this to be anti-SawStop, but I am always skeptical when the guy who makes the product is the voice touting its need and requesting that the government mandate its use. I for one am certain that if regulations are adopted, the SawStop will not be the technology that wins this battle. I think they burned a bridge or two with their method of affecting the change that they wanted, that and an exorbitant 8% royalty fee is enough to make the big boys develop their own technology. Perhaps the creator of this technology really only wants to see safety improved, but my guess is that he wants to see it mainly because it impacts his bottom line positively (which I have no problem with).

I for one am hoping that it isn't successful because I simply prefer less regulation.

Jeff Horton

08-14-2006, 2:07 PM

Chris Padilla

08-14-2006, 2:22 PM

tod evans

08-14-2006, 2:36 PM

i`m in the no more government regulations camp......fact is utility knifes account for most construction related injuries not power tools. plain-n-simple if it`ll cut wood it`ll eat flesh, those who fail to remember this simple fact learn the hard way. i`m all for the technology being available but think we as a society are waaay over-regulated as it is, it should be up to the person/company if they want to use the technology......same with helmets-n-seatbelts....02 tod

Mike Henderson

08-14-2006, 2:37 PM

This is a tough balancing act. Personally, I think it's time that the American saw manufacturers did some things to increase the safety of saws - adding a riving knife is a good example since kickbacks are a problem. The Europeans addressed table saw safety long ago.

The problem is whether to allow market forces to bring these advances to the products or to mandate them. There are examples where government mandates have worked well, as in air bags in cars and GFCI in homes.

There are times when the user does not get to choose the table saw, such as in a woodworking school, or as an employee in a production shop. We can say that the people who supply the saw in those situations are liable but the person who loses the fingers has to live with the results, even if they get some money for it. How much would you sell a thumb for?

But asking 8% of gross revenue as a licensing fee is confiscatory - it would give a tremendous advantage to SawStop in the marketplace.

I used to participate in standards bodies for modems. The standards are set by the participants, who are primarily the people who make the products. In general, we would not include a patented technology in a standard unless the patent holder would agree in writing to license the technology "freely and reasonably", which in our industry meant to anyone who applied and for no more than about 1% to 1.5% of gross revenue for the product incorporating the technology.

I'm fairly sure that the standards for saws will be set the same way - by the manufacturers - so I'm pretty sure that whatever they come up with will be license free, or will have very low license fees.

So, my overall take is, I'm glad to see activity to improve the safety of table saws. It will benefit us all.

Mike

Lee DeRaud

08-14-2006, 2:59 PM

Mark Rios

08-14-2006, 3:21 PM

T How much would you sell a thumb for?
Mike

$6,127,894.22 would be my price. :D :D :D

While increasing the safety standards on the equipment that we use is obviously a good thing, that little 8% dealy just seems to smack of self-servance. It seems that the SawStop folks may be getting a little too greedy and damaging their point of concern for safety.

When I first read the article and the first post I immediately remembered the cartoon of "The OSHA Horse". If you remember seeing it, it had a big ol' safety net all the way around it and blinders and goggles on the horse and all sorts of silly appointments.

I think I'll hurry up and buy a new TS before it comes standard with a plastic blade.:D :D :D

Al Willits

08-14-2006, 3:42 PM

The ability to buy a safer saw, I'd welcome it.
The gov't mandating it, scares me...ain't often they get it right..

Al . who thinks there's a big difference between being safe and the gov't doing it for us.

Wes Bischel

08-14-2006, 3:52 PM

These issues are always very interesting to watch unfold. I, for one, would like to see more emphasis on safety from manufacturers. I also understand why they haven't - once a stake is put in the ground, it provides a basis for lawsuits. Not good logic, but financial logic - unfortunately.
I also know that the big guys have very smart people working for them. I suspect we will see some very clever and safe solutions (oh, and cost effective). What I also think we will also see is the formation of guidelines or standards which need to be met- developed with a very (suddenly) proactive industry- standards which will most likely work to the detriment of the SawStop technology - or negate it all together. A classic "Watch what you wish for" scenario. Hopefully I'm wrong on that point, but I've seen it happen before.

Thanks for the link Marvin - interesting read.
FWIW,
Wes

Chris Barton

08-14-2006, 4:00 PM

Well, I will weigh in once again on this topic. First, had it been Mr. Gass' initial intention to bring a safer table saw to market and weather the market forces to sell his product as a safer and better alternative to what already exists I probably would applaud his efforts. However that is not what this attorney chose to do. First, he approached some companies with his product and tried to extort an 8% royality fee from them. When that failed he did start selling some saws that he contracted to have built (yet it is my understanding that no profit has yet to be seen) but, continued his attempt to mandate the use of his device through his efforts with regulatory bodies (very lawyer-like). I am very suspecious about Mr. Gass' intentions and I personally believe that Saw Stop table saws exist as a business only as a sham to cover his real mission, out licensing of a "mandated" technology that will put money in his pocket without any additional investment. I would be willing to bet that if the government mandated such a requirement that the production of Saw Stop table saws would cease instantaneously and their business would then become royality collections. They wouldn't even make the device that actually stops the saw any longer. That would become the job of the saw manufacturer. They would simply sit back and collect their "toll" upon the woodworking society. I will be curious to see what eventually happens with this. I am all for safety but, if safety is what we want why don't we mandate the passing of a government certified safety course before anyone purchases and power tool (or gun, or knife, or mower, or ladder...). But, myself I would rather defer to liberty and less government telling me what to do...

scott spencer

08-14-2006, 4:36 PM

I have to agree. Since when it is the Governments job to protect me from myself?? If there is a problem in business and they are not willing to correct it then maybe they should be forced. But is there a big enough problem to justify this??

It's like mandatory motorcycle helmets. WHY? If I chose to be stupid and not wear one I endanger not one but by myself. I have never heard of a automobile driver injured because a motorcyclist didn't wear his helmet! I don't ride anymore but I always wore one, I think it is stupid not to. But it should be your choice to be stupid if you want too.

Kicks the soap box back to the center of the room. I'll take that soapbox for moment....Government involvement too often results in the evolution of some minor industry (I mean goverment branch) that primarily benefits those that are employed by it, and I definitely don't like the idea of Saw Stop technology being mandated, but I have to disagree about seat belt laws and helmet laws. Saw Stop doesn't save many lives, if any for that matter...that's a lame argument, but seatbelts, airbags, and helmets do save lives. More to my point, they also reduce the number of head injuries that result in long term stays in tax payer subsidized institutions, which do indeed impact me. Most cyclists/motorists/individuals don't have enough money or insurance to cover the actual cost of an extended care facility, and that's when you and I step in and pay the difference.

Dave Fifield

08-14-2006, 5:12 PM

Why shouldn't Mr.Gass make a decent amount of money from his patent/s? I'm miffed that I didn't think of the idea first, but not so miffed that I begrudge him his just deserves. An 8% royalty is not unheard of. The guy has a monopoly position and rightfully asserted it. The TS manufacturers refused to play (whether they conferred on their decision to turn Mr.Gass down or not is a question I'd like answered) and so Mr.Gass decided to go it alone. I applaud that decision. The TS manufacturers were very short sighted IMO - they could easily have incorporated the SawStop technology into new ranges of machines, raised the prices 25% (which we all would have paid) and paid Mr.Gass his 8%. When I build my new 'shop in a year or two, I'll be looking for a new TS and you can be darned sure it will have SawStop technology in it.

The only con argument that I have seen so far that I agree with is the legal liability one. Right now, if someone looses a finger on a TS, they are on their own - the TS manufacturer is like teflon. The day someone loses a finger on a SawStop machine that failed to work, there'll be an outcry and huge sums of money will be changing hands. This could force the TS manufacturers to take on an additional insurance burden. However, it seems to me that the cost of the extra insurance would still be worth it.

Dave F.

Cliff Rohrabacher

08-14-2006, 5:16 PM

First, had it been Mr. Gass' initial intention to bring a safer table saw to market and weather the market forces to sell his product as a safer and better alternative to what already exists I probably would applaud his efforts.
Yup a hearty "bravo well met" would have been my responce too.

that is not what this attorney chose to do. First, he approached some companies with his product and tried to extort an 8% royality fee from them.

He'd have been in the general ball park compared to some royalties I have paid inventors. Then again I paid 2% to plenty.

When that failed he did start selling some saws that he contracted to have built More power to him. Takes guts to do that.

continued his attempt to mandate the use of his device through his efforts with regulatory bodies (very lawyer-like). I dunno bout "lawyer like" but it is true that too many people think all the world's ills can be solved with a federal law.

I am very suspecious about Mr. Gass' intentions and I personally believe that Saw Stop table saws exist as a business only as a sham to cover his real mission, out licensing of a "mandated" technology that will put money in his pocket without any additional investment. The conflict of interest does appear plain on its face. It is possible however that he's just another loose geared leftist who thinks all the world's ills will be solved by yet another (Oh please dear god not another) federal law.

I would be willing to bet that if the government mandated such a requirement that the production of Saw Stop table saws would cease instantaneously and their business would then become royality collections. This would be the most logical step. Most manufacturers would probably want it that way too. They'd not want to be in direct competition with the company that first introduces the gadget gizmo thingie that they had to incorporate.

They wouldn't even make the device that actually stops the saw any longer. That would become the job of the saw manufacturer.
It would be more economical.

I will be curious to see what eventually happens with this. I am all for safety but, if safety is what we want why don't we mandate the passing of a government certified safety course before anyone purchases and power tool (or gun, or knife, or mower, or ladder...). and on and on and on God forbid that we let people take some responsibility for their own conduct.

But, [...] I would rather defer to liberty and less government telling me what to do...

Amen to that.

I never really liked that saw stop gizmo at all. I just don't trust things that use tekgnoglogogly to do what I ought to be doing. Eventually I'd lose the ability to do it for myself learning instead to trust the gizmo, and 10 years later when the xxxxx hits the fan the damn gizmo is broken and that's all she wrote.

But then I am one of those people who disapproves of fly by wire computer compensated navigation for private planes.

Chris Padilla

08-14-2006, 5:19 PM

Lee DeRaud

08-14-2006, 5:29 PM

Why shouldn't Mr.Gass make a decent amount of money from his patent/s? I'm miffed that I didn't think of the idea first, but not so miffed that I begrudge him his just deserves.I don't begrudge him his right to benefit from his patent and make a decent amount of money as a result. The problem is, apparently he can't. What he's trying to do now is have the federal government ensure his success by regulatory fiat.

Chris Barton

08-14-2006, 5:36 PM

Mr. Barton,

You use some rather strong and negative words in there like "extort" and "toll" and "sham". It is Capitalism at its finest--defer to your Liberty on that! Freedom in the market allowed him to pursue this avenue and if he becomes obsecenely wealthy because of it, then so be it. Do you feel similarly about Bill Gates, maybe Steven Jobs (Apple guy), or any other wealthy Capitalistic opportunist? For a "sham", his TS sure is a nice piece of equipment! Have you seen or used one at all?

Hi Mr. Padilla,

I am always open to a lively debate, I find them refreshing. Words can neither be "negative" or "positive," they should only have the meaning that is associated with them from their definitions. I stand by my choice of words and prefaced them as my opinion. I never asailed Mr. Gass' right to do what he did. I did however, question his motive. Being forced to use a safety device is inherently anti-free market. Both of the examples of the "obsecenly weathly" you used don't have their products mandated by the federal government. I don't think Mr. Gass' saw is a sham, just the establishment of his company selling saws. I don't believe selling Saw Stop table saws is his real intent and I said so. I have seen and used the Saw Stop at my local Woodcraft. It is a very nice machine. It is also a machine that should rightfully compete based upon its merits in a market driven economy, not mandated by code or regulation.

PS: it's Dr. Barton...;)

Lee DeRaud

08-14-2006, 5:40 PM

Freedom in the market allowed him to pursue this avenue and if he becomes obsecenely wealthy because of it, then so be it. Do you feel similarly about Bill Gates, maybe Steven Jobs (Apple guy), or any other wealthy Capitalistic opportunist? For a "sham", his TS sure is a nice piece of equipment! Have you seen or used one at all?Chris, his right to make a profit and become wealthy selling saws is not at issue here. What is at issue is his attempt to have the federal government force his competition to use his device and pay him for the privilege.

Since you brought up Gates and Jobs, consider this. A lot of people feel that Mac O/S is much better than Windows. So...would you have a problem with Steve Jobs asking the government to (1) require all computers sold in the US to come equipped with Mac O/S and (2) require the manufacturers of those computers to pay Apple 8% of their gross revenue to do so?

Winning in a free market is one thing, gaming the system is something else altogether.

tod evans

08-14-2006, 6:10 PM

the technology is cool, a good thing. bucking for federally mandated marketing is the most uncool thing i`ve heard of in the woodworking tool industry, on par with "cloning" others designs. i`m going with a hillbillys sence of "ethical" business here, i`m to the point in life that i could give a rats behind if it legal or not, right is right and wrong is wrong and trying to force industry or the consumer to purchase your product with legislation is flat out wrong......02 tod

Mike Henderson

08-14-2006, 7:00 PM

Let me modify the question somewhat. Ignore the SawStop patent and licensing issue - pretend it doesn't exist.

With that assumption, what's your opinion about a safer table saw? Do you think that the technology available in the saws now is sufficient, or are there safety enhancements you'd like added to a saw?

Second question - Should saws with enhanced safety features be required in places like woodworking schools and production environments where the people using them cannot choose the saw?

Final qustion - If you answered "Yes" to the above question, should those safty features be required for hobby saws as well?

I'm just interested in what the group thinks.

Mike

Geoff Barry

08-14-2006, 7:00 PM

I have mixed feelings about Glass's approach, but not about the CPSC action. Nothing in life is black and white - it is possible to have good results from actions driven by less than pure motives, just as one can have bad results from actions driven by "good" motives. As I see it, there are two separate issues: 1) the CPSC action, and 2) Glass.

The CPSC: I'm all for the CPSC taking some sort of action. The reason we don't have any similar safety devices available on table saws today is a hard, cold calulation by the manufacturers -- offering such an advice risks liability for saws not offering such devices. They don't care how many folks loose fingers o rhands, as long as they're not liable. As long as no saw has such a device, it's easy to convince many courts (though not all) that any injury is not the responsibility of the manufacturer, as saws are "inherently" dangerous. However, the "danger", once again, is not black and white. At one end, you have the reality that you can't cut wood without a sharp, moving metal blade that surely will cut through flesh. On the other end, though, you don't have to accept that reality as an excuse to accept the sale and use of unguarded shiny spinning blades. A guard makes it less dangerous to use, a splitter makes it less dangerous, a riving knife even safer, and a blade sensor even more so.

Now, in a perfect market economy, everyone would have the ability to select the level of safety that they were willing to pay for, and everyone would bear the cost of their own injuries. Unfortunately, we don't live in such a world. First, many people use equipment purchased by employers or schools. Second, no manufacturer makes a saw with a blade sensor and the reason they don't is tied to their concerns over liability, not their concerns over market acceptance. If they were concerned about market share, you would think that they would notice the waiting list of folks willing to pay $3k for a cabinet saw with a blade sensor. But offering such a saw, at any price, would affect the liability issue, so no matter how many people might want such a safety device, no manufacturer offers such a device.

So, as here is a situation where the market does not work to the consumers' benefit, and not all people are not able to choose to protect themselves. The issue is not whether saws are dangerous becasue they can cut, but whether such danger can be reduced in a cost-effective manner. And as for the abstract desireability of goverment regulation, well, look at industrial working conditions at the turn of the last century and today, and tell me you think that workers were better off in 1900 . . . It's an issue of degree. Some government regulation is necessary, some is a good idea, and some clearly is too much. Where a particular issue falls on that scale says as much about the observer as it does about the government.

Now, the CPSC action is to begin a rulemaking procedure. While a decision to act would result in the requirement for some sort of blade sensing device, note that the CPSC does not have to "adopt" the SawStop mechanism. And, indeed, as it is in the business of performance vice design standards, I doubt it will adopt any particular mechanism, but rather, if it chooses to act, will require the use of a device with a certain response time. And such a recommendation would not come for several years, after a fairly extensive investigation and set of hearings. For all the doom sayers, I'd ask: can you think of any products that were driven out of existence or suddenly priced out of reach becasue of unrealistic CPSC requirements? I mean, other than the Johnny Torch halloween costume kit . . .

Glass: Glass, and his various efforts, are a separate issue. Once again, I think it is possible to have mixed motives. He may very well believe in the need for increased safety, and he may also want to personally benefit from such a need. At a minimum, I credit him with pushing this debate forward. Without him, we wouldn't even have the option of an expensive SawStop saw, let along the possibility that other manufacturers might find it necessary to come up with their own blade sensor devices. That being said, I don't like that his petition was narrowly drafted to encourage selection of a method covered by one of his patents, especially when coupled with his hope for an 8% royalty rate of the entire saw. As a licensing attorney, I have seen a variety of royalty rates, but I would expect a rate of 6-8% on the cost of the patented mechanism, or a much lower rate on the overall cost. But, as I said above, it is possible for people to have mixed motives, and while I hope his patent plan fails, I hope his safety campaign succeeds.

{sorry for such a long post . . .}

Chris Barton

08-14-2006, 7:13 PM

Geoff,

That was a great and well thought out reply. I too, am ready for improvements in all power tools that also result in added safety. But, let me chose them and pay for them out of my own free will and wallet. This debate springs up here at least once every 6 months or so. And generally, the camps seem to be devided into 2; safety at all costs and keep the government out of my saw and my shop. However, as an attorney, what risk management liability does the creation of such a device pose for shop owners and schools and the like where there is something that approaches "public access" to these devices? My own feeling is that this technology should compete in the market place to survive. However, I also see the logic for the need for such safety devices especially in something like a shop class and would think that every school district in the nation would be driving just such market decissions because of the added risk management benefits.

On the other hand (I still have 5 fingers on both:rolleyes: ) what about the weekend woodworker that has a $200 borg bench top table saw that would triple in price if it were to be required in all table saws? Do we eliminate an entire segment of the market as well as put multiple manufacturers out of business because of the "greater good" of the society? It is clearly a conundrum.

Cliff Rohrabacher

08-14-2006, 7:31 PM

Do you think that the technology available in the saws now is sufficient, or are there safety enhancements you'd like added to a saw?
Any so called enhancements should be at the option of the purchaser not the government.

Second question - Should saws with enhanced safety features be required in places like woodworking schools and production environments where the people using them cannot choose the saw?

Ahh an "American as Apple pie and Motherhood" question.
Well no I think that kids need to learn things. Insulating them from everything wee possibly can is madness. What will we have prepared them to accomplish? Maybe better class management and smaller classes is the better course.

Final qustion - If you answered "Yes" to the above question, should those safty features be required for hobby saws as well?
I answered no to both.

Allen Bookout

08-14-2006, 7:35 PM

Dave Fifield

08-14-2006, 8:26 PM

Wouldn't it be ironic if the expected SawStop sales of 3000 units in 2006 is actually larger than all the other TS manufacturers combined (anyone know the TAM numbers for the TS market?)?

If I were Mr.Gass, I'd be doing exactly the same things he's currently doing. Safety is an appropriate thing for the government to legislate IMO. Where would we be on the roads were it not for vehicle safety standards?

If I were a TS manufacturer, I would have signed Mr.Gass up to an exclusive deal immediately. The TS manufacturers are being childish about the whole matter IMO. Classic NIH syndrome.

"Let the market decide" - indeed it will. I know where my $$ are going.

Dave F.

Frank Hagan

08-14-2006, 8:28 PM

Most of these things have someone pushing them who will benefit, so there's no surprise in that. What will probably happened has been mentioned earlier: the standard will not specify the patented Saw Stop technology, even though that's what Mr. Gass wants. The standard will probably be worded such that manufacturers can come up with other ways to protect the user. Meeting the standard probably won't have to be as dramatic as nicking a hot dog and destroying a blade and special cartridge.

Those of us old enough to remember the air bag controversy in cars remember that the standard called for either automatic seat belts or air bags. Many cars were produced with automatic seat belts, designed by a someone from the Marquis de Sade School of Engineering ... they were miserable things, but they satisfied the standard. Airbag technology became cheaper than the auto seatbelts, and consumer demand for vehicles that would not strangle them helped.

I couldn't find verification of the numbers on Saw Stop's site ... they say the CPSC reports that there are 60,000 table saw injuries each year, with 3,000 amputations and over $2 billion in costs. The CPSC has initiated changes to products for far less injuries.

If manufacturers can show that most of those injuries happen with a saw without a guard, they simply have to make saws with non-removeable guards (designed, I'm sure, by that Marquis de Sade alumni). Then there will be a better solution, like a good overarm guard that doesn't get in the way, that cuts power when touched for people who fall into the guard, etc.

Chris Barton

08-14-2006, 8:38 PM

I wondering, does anyone beside engineers or lawyers see mandated, codified regulations as the best solution to this situation?

Lee DeRaud

08-14-2006, 8:48 PM

I wondering, does anyone beside engineers or lawyers see mandated, codified regulations as the best solution to this situation?Anyone besides engineers and lawyers?!? I haven't checked the occupation of every poster to this thread, but of the ones I know, the one lawyer says "no" and the engineers are split about evenly.

Chris Barton

08-14-2006, 8:56 PM

Anyone besides engineers and lawyers?!? I haven't checked the occupation of every poster to this thread, but of the ones I know, the one lawyer says "no" and the engineers are split about evenly.

Hey, your right Lee. I take it back...:eek:

Douglas Robinson

08-14-2006, 9:21 PM

OK.

1) I think Mr Gass's idea is neat and admire the patent.

2) Many regulations came from someone's self-interest, e.g. the entertainment industry is trying to promulgate the broadcast flag rule and has pushed for repeated extensions to the termof copyright.

3) I don't know if the regulation was passed, whether Sawstop would stop manufacturing, but it would make good business sense. If they had no product they could not be found to infringe someone else's patent.

4) Why isn't someone pushing for mandatory quality riving knives?

5) While regulations can be good, the government usually does a bad job enforcing them and wastes a lot of taxpayer money.

6) I think the helmet laws and seat belt laws are bad comparisons. There are MANY more drivers of cars and motorcycles than there are woodworkers. The impact on society is much greater with regards to insurance and taxes.

7) If Mr. Gass was solely concerned with the public's welfare than if he is successful in making the Sawstop concept mandatory he could offer royalty-free licenses or dedicate the patent to the public.

8) Finally, maybe some form of regulation would spur other manufacturers to develop other saftey features to compete with his.

Just my 2 cents.

Doug

Damien Falgoust

08-14-2006, 9:28 PM

Any comparison between mandatory SawStop technology and mandatory helmet/seatbelt usage is totally ridiculous. Consider the relative number and severity of the injuries concerned: are tens of thousands of hobbyist and semi-pro woodworkers dying or ending up in wheelchairs or on life-support from TS accidents? Don't think so. It isn't a ridiculous comparison because there are many millions more drivers than there are woodworkers. You can't compare absolute numbers; you have to compare accident rates.

There are around 100,000 professional woodworkers (http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_alph.htm) in this country, plus some unknown number of hobbyists. Compare that to 199 million drivers (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0908125.html).

In 2004 (http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/TSFAnn/TSF2004.pdf), there were 2,594,000 injuries attributable to traffic accidents, 33,134 of which were fatal. That's about one accident for every 76.7 drivers.

Sawstop claims the CPSC reports 60,000 table saw accidents per year. Let's say the number of hobbyists are double the number of pros, just to be generous. That's one accident for every 5 woodworkers.

Now, obviously we can speculate on the severity of these injuries: neither set of statistics tells us much about that, except that we have fatality information on the traffic stats. And sure, I doubt there are many fatalities from table saw injuries, though it isn't inconceivable (working alone, pass out from blood loss, etc.). But losing a hand or most of your fingers is a pretty damned serious injury. These aren't paper cuts we're talking about.

None of that necessarily means the CPSC should necessarily issue regulations in this area. It does mean, however, that the case for regulation is hardly frivolous, and that the seatbelt/airbag analogy is perfectly apt.

Dino Makropoulos

08-14-2006, 9:41 PM

Woodworking is better now.
Bravo Mr Gass.

Allen Bookout

08-14-2006, 9:42 PM

I say keep Government regulators out of it. Provide the products and let the comsumers decide.

Rob Millard

08-14-2006, 9:45 PM

I know very little about the Saw Stop mechanism. Being a mechanical device it can and will fail, and then where will the inventor be?. No safety device can save a careless operator, nor can any amount of regulation.
Rob Millard

Damien Falgoust

08-14-2006, 9:57 PM

I know very little about the Saw Stop mechanism. http://www.sawstop.com/how-it-works-overview.htm

Being a mechanical device it can and will fail, and then where will the inventor be?Why would you look to the inventor rather than the manufacturer? If you're hurt in a plane crash, do you pursue the estates of Orville and Wilbur Wright?

No safety device can save a careless operator, nor can any amount of regulation. No, but they can better that operator's odds against injury. Airbags aren't 100% effective in preventing injury (heck, in some cases, they cause injury). Does that mean we should reject airbags?

Michael Adelong

08-14-2006, 9:58 PM

Jake Helmboldt

08-14-2006, 10:02 PM

Based on what is being bandied about I'd say a lot have not. CPSC notes several things:
1. they are moving towards a voluntary standard, not outright mandates
2. even if mandated, SawStop technology wouldn't be required, only an option
3. as was pointed out, current laws essentially discourage the industry from making a safer saw, so who is the "bad guy" there?
4. Costs would drop immensely if a big player or the industry as a whole got on board, thereby negating the claim that costs would soar.

The article raised a point I was pondering; can someone now sue the industry for not making available known and proven safety technology? It isn't affordable due to economies of scale, not because it is expensive technology.

Gass certainly has a degree of altruism, and also wants to profit from an invention, just as anyone would. Industry is rarely quick to pay for something if they think they can figure out another way more cheaply, and I think that is largely where they are on this one.

JH

Bruce Wrenn

08-14-2006, 10:03 PM

I have to agree. Since when it is the Governments job to protect me from myself?? If there is a problem in business and they are not willing to correct it then maybe they should be forced. But is there a big enough problem to justify this??

It's like mandatory motorcycle helmets. WHY? If I chose to be stupid and not wear one I endanger not one but by myself. I have never heard of a automobile driver injured because a motorcyclist didn't wear his helmet! I don't ride anymore but I always wore one, I think it is stupid not to. But it should be your choice to be stupid if you want too.

Kicks the soap box back to the center of the room. Sorry you won't get my vote on helmets. Lost a brother in a low speed ( less than 30 mph) accident. He was a professional stunt rider, but got thrown from bike and head hit curb. Probably with a helmet he would have lived and my mother wouldn't haved to live with this hell every of her life. Also when you do get hurt, MY INSURANCE subsidises your stupidity. If you don't have insurance, my tax dollars subsidise your visit to hospital.

Michael Adelong

08-14-2006, 10:11 PM

Airbags aren't 100% effective in preventing injury (heck, in some cases, they cause injury). Does that mean we should reject airbags?

No, that means that every person who purchases a vehicle should ask for, and pay for, an airbag if they believe that it will make a positive impact on their personal safety. If you don't want it, don't buy it. That's all we ask. If I chose not to purchase an airbag for my vehicle and I get injured in such a way that an airbag would have prevented it, then I made the mistake, and should live with, and pay for, the consequences. I have no right to expect you or anyone else to pay for the results of my choice.

The government creates a problem, implements a solution, and then takes our freedom away under the guise of helping by protecting us from ourselves.

Michael

Lee DeRaud

08-14-2006, 10:26 PM

It isn't a ridiculous comparison because there are many millions more drivers than there are woodworkers. You can't compare absolute numbers; you have to compare accident rates.Well, no, actually the accident rates are not the issue.

There are people on this thread citing the aggregate costs to society of fatalities and maintenace of the gravely injured as the rational for the government intervention in the case of seatbelt/airbags/helmets. Extending that argument to the numbers and severity of woodworking injuries is spurious at best.

Mike Henderson

08-14-2006, 10:38 PM

Well, no, actually the accident rates are not the issue.

There are people on this thread citing the aggregate costs to society of fatalities and maintenace of the gravely injured as the rational for the government intervention in the case of seatbelt/airbags/helmets. Extending that argument to the numbers and severity of woodworking injuries is spurious at best.
There certainly is precedent for more stringent safety regulations on tools. One I can think of is double insulation on power tools. I doubt if the number of people injured by electrical shock was greater than the number injured by table saws, either in absolute numbers or in percentage of users.

As a society, we try to do things that protect our citizens. How much we do is a balance that has to be decided upon. Discussions like this are the first steps in reaching agreement on it. Personally, I'd like to see some advances in safety for table saws.

Mike

PS - Jake in post #36 makes some good observations.

Damien Falgoust

08-14-2006, 11:11 PM

No, that means that every person who purchases a vehicle should ask for, and pay for, an airbag if they believe that it will make a positive impact on their personal safety. If you don't want it, don't buy it. That's all we ask. If I chose not to purchase an airbag for my vehicle and I get injured in such a way that an airbag would have prevented it, then I made the mistake, and should live with, and pay for, the consequences. I have no right to expect you or anyone else to pay for the results of my choice. Except for the difficult little fact that we don't live in an Ayn Rand fantasyland. Costs of injuries get bourne, at least in part, by the general public. And that won't go away short of reinventing society into some kind of anarcho-libertarian dreamworld.

Accordingly, the general public, through representative government, does get a say in establishing minimal baselines for safety.

Like Mike Henderson points out, it's all a balancing act between those societal costs and the value of free markets and individual liberty. I'm a minimal regulation kind of guy myself, but that doesn't mean all such regulation is a terrible thing.

The government creates a problem, implements a solution, and then takes our freedom away under the guise of helping by protecting us from ourselves. The "problem," such as it is, is people losing fingers on table saws. Whether or not regulation is a good idea in this instance, I really dont think you can lay responsibility for creating that problem at the feet of government.

Sonny Porter

08-14-2006, 11:12 PM

Sometimes these regualtions are good. Through taxes, we all end up paying for the guy stupid enough not to wear his motorcycle helmet and who now needs special equipment to breath, blink, and "live" (on machines).... OSHA exists because of this. Sometimes we need protection from ourselves. Europe has done a good job with its regulations and safety on woodworking equipment.

The day you lose a finger will be the day you wished the gov't did make Delta/Jet/Grizzly/Powermatic/General have something in place...maybe! ;) I think that it is good that SawStop is forcing the regulatory commisions to have a hard look at this.

I dispute the assertion about why OSHA exists but let's speak to the point: a group with an interest in forcing the use of a certain type of saw gadget has been lobbying hard and has achieved what lobbying usually achieves: some measure of success. Woodworkers who've followed SawStop know they had legislation in mind practically from Day 1.

Civil servants and politicians are not famous for being able to choose winners in a technology race. We need only look at the last 50 years of entertainment electronics to see this.

Half the Congress critters surveyed confess they don't even READ most of the legislation they enact. They should not be making this choice for us.

Why should we entrust a decision of this sort to people who might not have installed a light bulb without help in the last ten years? Why include a tool spec which requires us to use modified table saws as if the antecedent class of tool were already a done deal? Why avoid the discussion of whether we should encourage more of the table saw culture we've seen for the last hundred years? Why is the radicalism only on behalf of one company with one idea, one product to sell?

What if there ARE better ways to go? What if, for instance, the guide rails and systems promulgated by such groups as EZ Smart (which has a support group here) and Tool Trolley (which does not) or Festool (which also does not), are actually safer choices for training woodworkers and cheaper too?

How many SawStops do we shove down taxpayers' throats by legislation before we kill off wood shop education? It's not exactly robust now. Why should we allow a vested interest to write self-serving specs? If safety is the issue, why are we limiting the discussion to SAWSTOP vs All the other table saws? Why not discuss the table saw as a dangerous, expensive idea in need of improvement? Maybe we need to discuss how radical innovation happens in skilled trades rather than allow political aggression to make changes without review by the people those new policies will affect.

As taxpayers, if not libertarians, we should be alert to abuse of the legislative process. Politicians get away with considerable corruption by wrapping themselves in "protecting the vulnerable among us."

We've all seen this coming. We should not be silent. Woodworkers have alerted us for several years now. SawStop intentions are clear. We can't say we weren't warned.

Damien Falgoust

08-14-2006, 11:20 PM

There are people on this thread citing the aggregate costs to society of fatalities and maintenace of the gravely injured as the rational for the government intervention in the case of seatbelt/airbags/helmets. Extending that argument to the numbers and severity of woodworking injuries is spurious at best. Put simply: 60,000 ain't a small number.

And even if it is, these things are always weighed against the cost of implementing a safety requirement. If we, as a society, bear costs related to table-saw injuries that are greater than the economic costs of additional regulation, then the regulation makes sense. Obviously, the devil is in the details in calculating those numbers -- what you include in them and so forth can be highly subjective, to put it mildly -- but the basic calculus makes sense.

Sonny Porter

08-14-2006, 11:23 PM

Sawstop claims the CPSC reports 60,000 table saw accidents per year. Let's say the number of hobbyists are double the number of pros, just to be generous. That's one accident for every 5 woodworkers.
Hold on, grab your common sense. You know a few woodworkers? Ask around, who had an accident last year and did they end up requiring medical attention? Phone a few pro shops. How many table saw accidents did they have last year? You don't have to accept a number just because it's written down!

Any time you deal with a party that's lobbying for legislation that will line their pockets, it's a good idea to check their claims. Do check the report that SawStop claims paints a picture of a negligent America where injured woodworkers are stacked up in Emergency Rooms like wet lumber.

:D

Geoff Barry

08-14-2006, 11:39 PM

Dang it, I had an earlier followup "disappear" on me . . .oh well, it proabably wasn't that insightful anyway :D

Just to emphasize one point that the article makes clear:

To those who say, well, the market should decide, people should only but this is they want to pay for it -- it WAS NOT available from any manufacturer until the inventor started his own company! THis is where the "free market" system stutters - IF there are no barriers to entry and IF there is easy access to distribution channels THEN the market solution is remarkably efficient. However, in this case, where the exisiting manufacturers had non-consumer driven reasons for not wanting to offer such a feature, and there were significant barriers to entry, the consumer HAD NO CHOICE! Until SawStop began shipping, you could not purchase the "extra" safety of a blade sensor at any price. And given the demand for SawStop cabinet saws, the only ones they sell, at over $3k a pop, I would argue that lack of a market was NOT the reason for the lack of availability from the usual manufacturers . . .

Ironically, to some degree, the whole CPSC argument is somewhat moot. It will take a little time, but now that there IS at least one saw for sale with this feature, courts are going to be a lot more skeptical about claims about the "inherently dangerous" characteristic of table saws. If any market control is more cumbersome than government regulation, it would have to be tort awards, but a few large judgments down the road I think you'll see a functional equivalent from the current manufacturers no matter what the CPSC says. If they're smart, the PTI and other major manufacturers will jump into the CPSC process with both feet in order to come up with a reg with which they can comply without paying patent license fees to Glass. Then they could use compliance with the reg as a defense in tort actions . . .

Damien Falgoust

08-14-2006, 11:42 PM

Civil servants and politicians are not famous for being able to choose winners in a technology race. We need only look at the last 50 years of entertainment electronics to see this. It is highly unlikely that the CPSC would mandate Sawstops specifically. Far more likely would be a requirement for some kind of method of stopping a blade such as to minimize injury to flesh. That would certainly give manufacturers the chance to invent around Steve Gass' patents.

And honestly, CPSC rulemaking is actually better for the manufacturers, since they have a chance to participate in the process and shape the final rules. The manufacture of Sawstop saws actually poses a greater threat. Here's why:

Gass's company has now proven that a safe saw can be built at a reasonable (albeit somewhat higher) cost while retaining quality. Those black saws are out there; they exist. And it won't be too long before some kid gets hurt on a new Powermatic and some plaitiff's lawyer gets the idea to sue Powermatic. That guy will bring a black saw into the courtroom, run a hot dog over the blade, and ask some PM exec on the stand "clearly, sir, you knew this technology existed; why isn't it on your saw?"

And that guy will say "cost" and that lawyer will say "gee, like the Ford Pinto," and that jury will return a big verdict, and Powermatic will have to start licensing Sawstop technology in a hurry to insulate them from the rash of suits that are sure to follow. As will the rest of the manufacturers.

And they have no control over that process. When the suits come, the only question will be "you could have protected this kid; why didn't you?"

At least with the CPSC, they will have some say over what standards they have to meet.

Frankly, mandatory saw brakes are coming; it's only a matter of choosing whether it comes from the CPSC or the courts. That handwriting's on the wall. And I don't weep for the manufacturers. Gass invented his saw in 1999 and showed it the saw makers shortly thereafter. If they had an ounce of foresight, they would have immediately set their R&D boys to coming up with a noninfringing method of stopping that blade. If they had done so, today they'd be ready. It was all pretty predictable (so says I with the benefit of hindsight). But they decided to sit on their hands for six years or so instead. Too bad for them.

Dennis Peacock

08-14-2006, 11:42 PM

Well....all I gotta say is that I've been running a tablesaw for over 30 years now and only 1 kickback accident in the 30 year span. Common sense tells me to keep my hands and fingers AWAY from the spinning sawblade and when the cut requires it? Use a push stick of sorts to better keep my hands away from the sawblade. No SawStop for me either...ever!!!!

Damien Falgoust

08-14-2006, 11:49 PM

Hold on, grab your common sense. You know a few woodworkers? Ask around, who had an accident last year and did they end up requiring medical attention? Phone a few pro shops. How many table saw accidents did they have last year? You don't have to accept a number just because it's written down!The plural of anecdote is not data.

Dennis, that goes for you too.

Anthony Anderson

08-15-2006, 12:09 AM

Hi Mr. Padilla,

PS: it's Dr. Barton...;)

Hey Chris, If you want to be addressed as "Dr." Barton then maybe change the title in your Avatar (Did I say that right?) No offense, as I always enjoy reading your posts, and admire your work. Just a serious thought. Regards, Bill

Ken Fitzgerald

08-15-2006, 12:18 AM

Robert Mickley

08-15-2006, 12:31 AM

WEll I for one think the tech on the sawstop is pretty cool, but I don't approve of the tactics he took. In my book he is nothing but a thief.

As for seat belts, like anything else you can skew the statistics to meet your needs. My dad was involved in a truck wreck before i was born, if he had been wearing a seat belt I would not be here right now.

Wade is another example. Even the cop admited if he had been wearing a seat belt he would not be with us now.

Sure they tell us about all the accidents where people "may" have survived if they had been wearing a seat belt, they are always quick to point that out. But you NEVER see anything about how if a person was wearing a seat belt and they got killed because they couldn't get out

Anthony Anderson

08-15-2006, 12:43 AM

Frank Hagan

08-15-2006, 12:44 AM

The article raised a point I was pondering; can someone now sue the industry for not making available known and proven safety technology? It isn't affordable due to economies of scale, not because it is expensive technology.

Yes. It becomes a factor in any products liability case.

One of the things a manufacturer is responsible for is the "foreseeable misuse" of the product. I have been in very boring, 8 hour long meetings where we brainstorm just how a person could misuse our product and then injure themselves. We then have to document if there is a way to design that "foreseeable misuse" out of the product.

Something I hear people say that is not accurate, at least to my understanding, is that if Delta, Jet, et.al. improve their saws by putting a Saw Stop-type of device on it, they open themselves up to lawsuits. In California, a safety improvement to a product cannot be used in court to bolster a products liability case. While it is still tried, and I'm sure the juries take it to heart even if the objection to it is sustained, the defense can usually keep the improvement to the product out of the courtroom.

However, the defense cannot suppress an expert who says there is a huge liklihood that 1 out of every 10 table saw owners will have an accident in any given year (the stats according to Saw Stop ... I haven't been able to find them independently cited). And they cannot stop other products being shown that do a better job than the one that injured someone.

Did the companies, which earn millions and millions of dollars, know that a simple, $150 device could have saved this man's hand?

"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, for want of a $150 device, Big Bad Equipment Company allowed the plaintiff's hand to be cut off. $150 device, and they are a 100 billion dollar company! I ask that you return with a verdict for the plaintiff in this case, and send a message to the Big Bad Equipment Company that they cannot ignore safety any longer. Punish them with just one half of a day's income ... less than a parking ticket to you! ... and return with a decision that will wake them up ... half a day's business, or 150 million dollars."

Brad Olson

08-15-2006, 12:56 AM

Gass certainly has a degree of altruism, and also wants to profit from an invention, just as anyone would. Industry is rarely quick to pay for something if they think they can figure out another way more cheaply, and I think that is largely where they are on this one.

JH

I think he has a LOT of altruism.

Most here don't seem to know this, but Gass left a VERY high paying lawyer job to pursue SawStop.

From talking personally to him, I am convinced he did this not because of money, but for a love for WWing. If he wanted to make money he would have kept his day job.

The major saw manufacturers told him to get lost, not because the idea was stupid, but because as everyone knows, safety does not sell and the execs told him that.

It is little known but a major manufacturer almost integrated SS into some of their saws. The only reason they did not was that at the time the technology wasn't quite proven enough. From Gass, he indicated that the lines of communication were still open and that this manufacturer was keeping a close eye on how the SS market plays out.

As to why a sawstop costs about $1500 more than a Unisaw, it is simply a much better saw.

It is clear to me that the SS cabinet saw was not built to be targeted toward hobbiest shops. He built the cabinet saw, specifically for small to medium sized cabinet shops.

If you've ever used one or seen one at a show you know what I am talking about, it is a COMPLETELY different animal from a unisaw or PM66

Robert Mickley

08-15-2006, 1:03 AM

Robert, I think the term "thief" is not a good adjective to use here. I don't think that he stole anything. No one contests the argument that Sawstop is a good saw. Please be careful on the words you use, many good threads get jerked because someone becomes a little "loose" when slinging words. Let's be accurate and stick to objective relevant points. If you don't agree with his methods of business, for example, then state that. Let's just not call names, and be offensive. Regards, Bill

You know your right Bill, thief was a bit strong. Extortionist fits him much better.
Face it while he says he wants better safer saws what he really wants is to get his product mandated on saws by the government. Swaying the government to get this law passed is nothing more than legal extortion. In my book there’s no other word for it. And in my opinion an Extortionist is a thief. So I guess in the long run I stand by my statement.
Don’t get me wrong here. He has as much right as the next guy, to make a living off of his product. In fact I don’t care if it makes him a billionaire. I just feel he needs to do it on his own not get the government to do his job for him.

I never said the saw stop was a bad saw. In fact I all ready have an idea in my head for improving it that would not involve replacing a cartridge and ruining a blade.

But the real problem here is society, any more people cannot and will not take responsibility for their actions. They get hurt doing something unsafe and they sue, and WIN. We live in a sue happy society where its considered ethical to sue (another form of extortion in this context) for their own stupidity.

Gee your honor no one told me that a spinning saw blade could cut off my hand, so I think I should get $1,000,000. Personally I'm all for a little thinning of the gene pool.

Lee DeRaud

08-15-2006, 1:24 AM

The plural of anecdote is not data.

Dennis, that goes for you too.Ok, let's up that ante: there are 7K+ members here...gotta figure somewhere upwards of 20% of them have a tablesaw, ranging from $100 Sears benchtops to $30K Felders. Let's make it easy, call it an even 1000 tablesaw owners. So, using your (quoted) rate of one accident per year for every five woodworkers, we'd expect something on the order of 200 TS accidents in any given year, right?

Show of hands: typical pucker-inducing 'events' on the left, stuff requiring actual medical attention on the right. I've been here a little over a year...near as I can recall, there have been something under ten serious accidents reported here, most of them involving routers.

Or do you think that sample is still too small?

Geoff Barry

08-15-2006, 1:39 AM

Not to pick on Robert's recent posts, but I am reminded that we, as in humans in general, are remarkably bad at assessing risk. Yes, there are a few people each year who are killed because they wore a seatbelt. As a previous poster noted, there are a few each year killed or injured by airbags. Those numbers are dwarfed by the tens of thousands of lives each year that are saved by seatbelts and/or mandatory passive restraints. Not to fall into my own little anecdotal trap, but when I worked on a local rescue squad as a teenager, I was amazed at the complete wrecks that people wearing seatbelts were able to survive, and equally amazed at the bizarre (yes, you will fit through that window . . . ), hideous (there's a reason steering columns are now designed to collapse), and often fatal injuries experienced at low to moderate speeds by drivers not wearing seatbelts.

Frankly, I find it hard to believe that you really believe that all, or even a large number, of the people injured each year by table saws are injured because they are 1) stupid, or 2) genetically defective. Do accidents never happen in your world? Or only to stupid, defective people we'd be better off without?

Another 'hypothetical' conversation could go like this: Gee, your honor, nobody told me that a simple safety device costing $X could save Y number of Z injuries a year! The only real issues are the values of X, Y and Z. If X is small and Y is large and Z is ghastly, the speaker is a monster. If X is large, Y is small, and Z is trivial, then the speaker is making a rational decision. I would imagine that a public process such as the CPSC proceedings have a better chance of calculating the values of X, Y, and Z than anecdotal evidence on an internet forum . ..

Ian Barley

08-15-2006, 1:50 AM

Damien's numbers are wrong. A quick check of the list he published show over 900,000 cabinetmakers who are also in the "at risk" group. So at the very least there are 10 times as many "woodworkers" as he stated. I didn't look much further but the number is therefore at least 1 in 50 rather than 1 in 5. I suspect that Lee might find 20 hands raised for his poll of near misses?

That said, at least some of the cost of a TS injury is external. That is, it is paid not by the injured or the injurer (manufacturer of the saw, owner of the business, school board). This cost arises from a number of causes which may include medical care but also include loss of future economic activity by the injured. Transactions where external cost exists are reasonable targets for governement legislation from an economic standpoint. Therefore the discussion of regulation now that a technical solution exists is reasonable. The addition of such a solution will not increase cost, it will simply make more of the cost internal to the transaction (keep it between the user and the manufacturer).

I don't know how much time Mr Gass spent talking to european manufacturers where safety and regulation is a bigger part of our lives. I would not be at all surprised to see the first adopter of this technology be a manufacturer of a "euro" format saw.

A few years ago a regulation was introduced in europe around stopping time. I don't know the precise numbers but it was something like 10 seconds that was allowed for a blade to come to rest after power was switched off. This was to deal with sometimes large tooling full of momentum which would take many minutes to come to a complete rest and was throwing all that energy around in near silence, To hear the howls this was going to be the end of the world as we know it. But there was a long (5 years?) lead in period and most machines could be backfitted with DC braking. All new and old machines now comply with this requirement and the silent maiming of a boys hand by an unpowered (but still very energetic) spindle block that I know of would, thankfully, not happen again today.

regulation or no regulation. The first time that sawstop level safety is offered on a euro format saw I will get my chequebook out.

Per Swenson

08-15-2006, 5:46 AM

I dunno,
We have lawyers, doctors, woodworkers and politics.
I don't do gubamint.
I own a sawstop and I do reality.
The way I see it they should be in every high school in America
and every union shop.
If not sawstop, the technology.

I think Joe Woodworker and Harry the Homeowner should be
able to cut his/her fingers off in a manner they see fit.

I think Mr.Gass is correct in his shotgun approach.
He won't win it all, concessions will be made.

The end result is still saved limbs 'n digits.

But what I don't understand is the politics of purchase.
You Know, " I will never buy that cause he is a evil greedy lawyer/inventor"

Seperate the product from the company politics for a moment.

Keeristmus, I drive a Ford.

Per

Chris Barton

08-15-2006, 6:33 AM

Hey Chris, If you want to be addressed as "Dr." Barton then maybe change the title in your Avatar (Did I say that right?) No offense, as I always enjoy reading your posts, and admire your work. Just a serious thought. Regards, Bill

None taken Anthony. I did that because I was suddenly addressed as "Mr. Barton" in the reply of that particular post and not the much more comfortable and my prefered moniker of, "Chris." Interesting how a difference of opinion can suddenly change what people call you.:)

J. Greg Jones

08-15-2006, 6:38 AM

Anthony...........I suspect that was a "joke" on Chris's part.....He's a doctor.....the inventor of Sawstop is a lawyer....a prod on Chris's part, maybe?

I tried addressing Chris by Dr. once....he corrected me....

It might be more insightful to say that the inventor of the SawStop is a doctor that also has a law degree. Gass is a doctor also-holds a Ph.D in physics in addition to his Juris Doctorate. I would expect that his education in physics influenced his thinking on the SawStop technology more than his education in law did. Clearly his education in law has influenced his thinking on how to best capitalize on the SawStop technology.

Chris Barton

08-15-2006, 6:48 AM

This has been an interesting thread to follow and a great bebate. One thing seems to stand out; most believe that the Saw Stop in its currently available form is a decent saw. The other thing that stands out is that most seem to believe that having regulations drive your future selection of table saws is not desireable. I wonder how this situation will play out in the market place? I know that several of the folks that posted positive things about the SS also own one (like I said from the beginning, it's a good saw). I wonder if all those that posted in support of potential regulation for such a device actually own a SS?

Remember "Big Brother" is just looking out for you and knows what is best for you.:D

Jim Hinze

08-15-2006, 6:54 AM

I find this thread pretty amazing. If in 1999, Glass had come to an agreement with the other MFG'ers, I betcha there'd be a whole lotta new saws in our homes featuring his brake...

The bottom line is, it's good technology. It can prevent a ton of injuries (but not all obviously).

The government mandates all sorts of safety measures for us --> Airbags, minimum crash standards, seat belts, blade guards, splitters albeit all these items can be disabled or removed if we choose... so can this break.

I agree with Per and Brad, separate the polotics from the technology. Don't be as short sighted as the execs were when first introduced to the technology.

Just my humble opinion....

Stu Ablett in Tokyo Japan

08-15-2006, 7:15 AM

Been away for a few day, so I'm coming in late on this.

A few points as I see it;

Comparing accidents with a TS to car crashes is not valid. I can be driving along, doing nothing wrong, and some guy runs a stoplight and kill me and my family.
An accident on a TS is not (usually) caused by someone bumping my hand into the TS, thus the regulations on seat-belts and airbags, as well as other safety features in transportation is something that the government got into. The thing is, the car makers now tout their safety features, as selling points. I know that I really looked at the numbers when we went to buy a new van for our family.

The idea that if other maker put a saw stopping device on their equipment, they would be open for litigation is, IMHO also not a valid point. I think the makers don't want to put the R&D into this device.

A better comparison would be ABS, and I'll apply it to motorcycles, as there are some very valid comparisons, IMHO.

When ABS came out, it was expensive, intrusive and heavy, it added a lot of weight to a motorcycle, most everyone who rode a bike DID not want it, but some did get it, mostly the touring kind of guys, where an addition of 10 or 15 pounds was not such a big deal, and the idea of ABS for safety on a large touring bike was welcome.

Over the years, ABS has become a lot better, the difference between an ABS and non-ABS bike, in weight was not much of a factor anymore and the price difference also had narrowed. Now, a lot of bike can come with ABS and it works VERY well, and it is getting lighter and cheaper all the time.

One day soon most bikes will come with ABS, and most bikers will want to have it. I've been in situations where the ABS on my buddy's bike saved my bacon, I've also crashed a few times when ABS would have sure been nice, is if perfect? No, it is not, but it is often a LOT better than a non-ABS bikes.

I've never heard of a bike maker being sued by someone because the bike was NOT sold with ABS brakes, so I do not see how a TS maker could be sued because they did not buy the saw with the saw stopping device.

I've never heard of someone suing the makers of cars what were built in the 60s for not having airbags etc, so retroactive lawsuits on saws made with out a saw stopping device, are not likely.

Well, for now, that is what I wanted to add.

Cheers!

Kyle Kraft

08-15-2006, 7:21 AM

I'm with all the anti big government folks on this one. This type of regulation will simply boost the values of the pre-ban tablesaws just like the Brady bill caused pre-ban "assault" weapons values to soar. Listen, did you hear a can of worms being opened?:D

I always try to keep my fingers and other important body parts out of harms way. If in the future an unfortunate accident occurs, it is no ones fault but my own. I alone assume all risks involved in the execution of my hobby, just like any other high risk avocation.

Rob Millard

08-15-2006, 8:02 AM

http://www.sawstop.com/how-it-works-overview.htm
Why would you look to the inventor rather than the manufacturer? If you're hurt in a plane crash, do you pursue the estates of Orville and Wilbur Wright?
No, but they can better that operator's odds against injury. Airbags aren't 100% effective in preventing injury (heck, in some cases, they cause injury). Does that mean we should reject airbags?

First let me say, I’m opposed to law suits against a manufacturer who brings a product to market and has it fail in an unforeseen way. Jack pot justice is a terrible burden on our system. The inventor by pursuing the devises installation by regulation is upping the ante.

Using the airplane and Wright Brothers as a comparison is hardly appropriate. Aircraft today bear only superficial resemblance to their airplane.

I don’t see the air bag analogy as any more on target. When I hit the road, I’m not in total control of the situation; other drivers "share" the road with various levels of competence and attention. On the other hand when I flip the switch on my table saw, it's all on me.

Rob Millard

Robert Mickley

08-15-2006, 9:49 AM

Not to pick on Robert's recent posts,
Oh you can pick on me, :D I've been picked on by the best :D:D

but I am reminded that we, as in humans in general, are remarkably bad at assessing risk.
There ladies and gentlemen is the problem!!! Give that man a cookie!!!:D

Stu brought up ABS brakes
A year or so ago I read an article, Car and driver if I rember right. They took 10 people in their daily drivers andset up a road course with cones. Sent them around in their own cars. All was good. Then they sent them out in a variety of cares with non abs brakes. Every one of them spun out or overshot stopping points. Age range was about 25 to 60. some of those folks learned to drive on cars that did not have ABS.

Safety devices make people complacent. Then when they do something stupid they sue.

As foir that raise of hands, I haven't had an accident yet on the Table saw. Notice I said yet since anything is possible. I try to be very aware of what I'm doing.

In fact none of my corderd tools have bit me yet. Chisel's knives and other sharp ahnd tools on the other hand have bit me a few times. Hammers? I've had a few sore thumbs.

I'm not saying ABS is a bad thing, I'm just saying that because of it people have forgotten how to drive. In fact I would venture a guess it contributes to some accidents since folks with a certain mindset will drive more aggresively

Sonny Porter

08-15-2006, 9:53 AM

It is highly unlikely that the CPSC would mandate Sawstops specifically. Far more likely would be a requirement for some kind of method of stopping a blade such as to minimize injury to flesh. That would certainly give manufacturers the chance to invent around Steve Gass' patents.
Totally disagree. If you know how legislation works, the company itself will be writing the rules. Further, SawStop has moved heaven and earth to assure that it owns a ring of patents all around the basic idea.

There won't be any other companies that qualify to meet the specs SAWSTOP itself will have bribed into existence. The whole history of special interest legislation runs in the opposite direction from choice. The idea of special interest legislation is that it should benefit the company paying for it.

Stu Ablett in Tokyo Japan

08-15-2006, 10:14 AM

Stu brought up ABS brakes

Safety devices make people complacent. Then when they do something stupid they sue.

You ARE talking about the US, right ;) :D

I'm not saying ABS is a bad thing, I'm just saying that because of it people have forgotten how to drive. In fact I would venture a guess it contributes to some accidents since folks with a certain mindset will drive more aggressively

I very much agree with that, I have taken a ton, as in near 20, Honda Motorcycle School courses, from the basics to advanced track riding (I'm 42, and I've been riding bikes since I was 8) and I still have stuff to learn, but I do work at it. My point to many friends about ABS bikes is that if it fails, or if they get on a bike without it, they are VERY likely to crash, where I train (emergency stops from 50 mph) regular like and I'll have a better chance..... sorry for the hi-jack :o

Damien Falgoust

08-15-2006, 10:50 AM

Damien's numbers are wrong. A quick check of the list he published show over 900,000 cabinetmakers who are also in the "at risk" group.
Thank you for pointing out my error; I admit I just skipped down to the "woodworking" category and didn't look under cabinet making (the description was broad enough to encompass cabinetmaking, or so I thought).

Having said that, the stat "Cabinetmakers and bench carpenters" adds 120,000 workers to the group of professional woodworkers. Am I missing some other category that gets you to your 900,000 figure?

Steve Schoene

08-15-2006, 10:51 AM

The TS manufacturers were very short sighted IMO - they could easily have incorporated the SawStop technology into new ranges of machines, raised the prices 25% (which we all would have paid) and paid Mr.Gass his 8%.
Dave F.

It is a major mistake to think that if prices increased that we all would pay it. And, the price increases wouldn't be a consistent percentage. The lower priced machines--the $350 entry level-- would disappear with the lowest price to play probably double that. And, with the risk of a $100 or more payout everytime the devise triggers (new cartridge and new blade) there could well be additional resistence to paying that price. The "new" Unisaw might only increase 25%.

The import machines that currently squeeze prices by using public domaine designs would also be forced to do the same new engineering with new castings as the larger players, with the added problem of patent compliance. The import manufacturers would then be put in the position of manufacturing significantly different machines for home market than for US export, if they are willing to undertake the redesign to begin with. Can anyone believe China or Vietnam or India or Korea are going to adopt the same safety rules as the US? Competition would decline as import sellers exit the US market. This would increase prices of all machines in addition to the costs of re-engineering and of the machine itself.

Used machines would be more valuable, and at the same time "junk" would be less likely to be scraped. The "have nots" might end up with greater risk of injury than now.

Especially since rules have already been issued mandating riving knives, table saws are already slated to become safer. Frankly, the risk of kick back seems much greater to me than running a finger or hand through the blade. And, I suspect that many of the "blade contacting body part" incidents are in fact triggered by kickback. Solving kickback would go so far to reduce injury that the rest would be too minor to requiring the mandate of spending billions on high technology solutions.

Allen Bookout

08-15-2006, 10:59 AM

I say keep Big Government out of whatever you can. I hear that Mr. Brown of FEMA fame is looking for a job.

Is this what you really want?

Damien Falgoust

08-15-2006, 11:06 AM

Totally disagree. If you know how legislation works, the company itself will be writing the rules. This is regulation, not legislation, which means all the provisions of the Administrative Procedures Act apply. That means including public comment in the rulemaking process and maintaining a transparent set of procedures under which the final rules are set, among other things.

And while proposals are indeed sometimes drafted by the regulated industry, the ultimate text of the regulation will be decided by the agency itself.

I should know, I've represented my share of companies in regulated industries, and boy-o do they wish they could write the rules under which they operate simply by proposing new rulemaking. It'd certainly make their lives easier. Doesn't generally work that way, though.

And frankly, this is an odd point to raise. If you're really concerned about the venal nature of the political process, ask yourself this: who has more political clout, some rink-a-dink startup selling 3,000 saws a year, or a coalition of multi-milllion dollar manufacturers who've been around for close to a century?

Damien Falgoust

08-15-2006, 11:18 AM

I say keep Big Government out of whatever you can. And I say keep bumper-sticker slogans out of meaningful discussions.

You may not guess it from my participation in this thread, but I'm actually a small government, governs-least-governs-best kind of guy. But neither does my knee jerk at every proposal to cross a government agency's desk.

I would oppose a rule that mandates Sawstop-specific solutions to tablesaw safety. However, I think a rule mandating some kind of (unstated) mechanism to minimize damage when a hand hits a moving blade might be quite sensible. That way, the government isn't picking a particular technology as the winner, other manufacturers can elect to R&D alternative solutions rather than paying Sawstop LLC if they so desire, and consumers will get safer saws.

Not all regulation is terrible (though some is), and some of it is actually quite good. We should consider the specific proposal that the CPSC comes up with before we get up in arms.

Ian Barley

08-15-2006, 11:49 AM

Thank you for pointing out my error; I admit I just skipped down to the "woodworking" category and didn't look under cabinet making (the description was broad enough to encompass cabinetmaking, or so I thought).

Having said that, the stat "Cabinetmakers and bench carpenters" adds 120,000 workers to the group of professional woodworkers. Am I missing some other category that gets you to your 900,000 figure?
Damien

I also included "carpenters" (and should have said so) on the basis that they were a group that was quite likely at some point in a working year to come into contact with a tablesaw of some description. The list shows 926,000 odd of them. Don't get me wrong - I support your basic logic but 1 in 5 just didn't go with my own knowledge of my own circle of contacts but 1 in 50 very easily fits my own real world experience. I am very willing to believe that if you put 50 random woodworkers in a room at least one of them would have a numerically smaller choice of which finger to use to pick his nose.

Chris Barton

08-15-2006, 11:53 AM

Ian Barley

08-15-2006, 12:05 PM

Let me ask what I consider a more interesting question about Saw Stop and the one no one seems to have considered yet. What happens the first time someone is using a Saw Stop and it doesn't work (remember, all systems fail) and there is a serious injury? With a conventional machine it is well understood that you are working at your own risk. But, with the Saw Stop there is an implied mitigation of risk. I wonder if SS has enough cash reserves or liability insurance to cover their first litigation of such an event?
An interesting point Chris. Personally I don't think that I would ever trust this technology enough to become lapse, just like I don't trust airbags and therefore have not modified my driving habits one iota since they became widespread. I would still consider myself to have the primary responsibility for my safety but Sawstop have accepted a secondary responsibility in exchange for payment. That said, if I had a sawstop and through accident ended up needing it and it didn't work - yes, my first conversation after the doctor would be with a lawyer.

Mike Wenzloff

08-15-2006, 12:05 PM

Chris, that question was raised somewhere in the thread. Not as concisely, though.

I think that though there would be a pre-jusdgment settlement or cash award from a jury, unless the product at that time had manufacturing defects [product liability ins.] it is potentially less than other manufacturers face if they choose to not comply with "voluntary" safety recommendations this committee may arrive at.

Though there is understanding of inherent risk for all US machinery lacking even the relatively simple and implementable Euro standards of safety, that hasn't prevented lawsuits and settlements.

I suspect in fact that manufacturers will do an end run around the SS technology at some point by adoption of similar Euro standards of equipment design safety. It shows they care <g> and they save $5/unit.

Take care, Mike

Chuck Saunders

08-15-2006, 12:13 PM

My opinion? Thanks for asking,
Biggest contribution to a safe TS is a sharp blade and a powerful motor. Ensure that the saw will cut what it is fed.

Account for the unpredictability of the internal stresses in wood, riveing knives address this well. I also like the finger boards and ratchet wheels.

Keep the hands away from the blade, pushsticks. I just don't like blade guards.

Stop the blade upon hand contact, SawStop is the only one I have seen. Seems a bit harsh to trash a blade but I would probably pay that willingly if it was my hand.

It would not surprise me if Gass is focused on the goal of make the TS a safer tool. The actions of trying to get it's use mandated when there is no other alternative is as likely the action of a evangelist as an opportunist. Some people see the government as the mechanism for change. Others see government as a last resort. Your view of government will tint your view on motives.

I would prefer that government not be involved. I would like SAwStop technology to be available on many brands. I don't have it on my Unisaw and have all my fingers without so much as a close call after 28 years. Tommorow all that could change.
Chuck

Geoff Barry

08-15-2006, 12:17 PM

Not to digress, but in response to the question above about owning a SawStop:

I don't own one. By all accounts, the SawStop is a wonderful cabinet saw, but I don't need a cabinet saw, I don't want a cabinet saw (well, of course I do, but I work outside - no garage - so I don't want one just yet . . .), and I don't have $3k to spend on anything that I can't drive :D Now I'm one of those nuts who actually uses the blade guard and I have a saw with a riving knife -- a bt3100, a great little saw, but not a substitute for a cabinet saw by any means. I also use push sticks, featherboards, etc. So I'm pretty sure that I'm running about as safe as I can run nowadays (but let me tell you about the time I tried to freehand crosscut a 2x8 on my skil 3400 . . .). However, I also have three little kids who are fascinated by my woodworking, so I would gladly pay a little extra for a blade sensor, if it were available.

Randal Stevenson

08-15-2006, 1:00 PM

I am very suspecious about Mr. Gass' intentions and I personally believe that Saw Stop table saws exist as a business only as a sham to cover his real mission, out licensing of a "mandated" technology that will put money in his pocket without any additional investment. I would be willing to bet that if the government mandated such a requirement that the production of Saw Stop table saws would cease instantaneously and their business would then become royality collections. They wouldn't even make the device that actually stops the saw any longer. That would become the job of the saw manufacturer. They would simply sit back and collect their "toll" upon the woodworking society. I will be curious to see what eventually happens with this. I am all for safety but, if safety is what we want why don't we mandate the passing of a government certified safety course before anyone purchases and power tool (or gun, or knife, or mower, or ladder...). But, myself I would rather defer to liberty and less government telling me what to do...

A bit cynical, I think. Being a lawyer, he will do that, but being a smart businessman, he would keep selling the brakes, like Gillette razor, I think.

Cecil Arnold

08-15-2006, 1:03 PM

Let me ask what I consider a more interesting question about Saw Stop and the one no one seems to have considered yet. What happens the first time someone is using a Saw Stop and it doesn't work (remember, all systems fail) and there is a serious injury? With a conventional machine it is well understood that you are working at your own risk. But, with the Saw Stop there is an implied mitigation of risk. I wonder if SS has enough cash reserves or liability insurance to cover their first litigation of such an event?

Chris, this may be the reason the SS costs so much. It could be that the manufacturer has some very high liability insurance premiums to pay. It would also help justify his royalty numbers if his design should be attacked in court. Just a thought.

Chip Charnley

08-15-2006, 1:13 PM

I am one of the first to be for less regulation HOWEVER, for things like bike helmets, auto safety belts, etc. where there is clear evidence that not wearing them costs lots of other people lots of money, the law should be, if you don't do XXX, you are assumed to have opted out of social security disability, welfare, and all other publicly funded programs to help pay for you to stay alive, function, etc. If you do something this stupid, you don't get help.

And yes, the question is where to you draw the line on stupid. IMHO, that's were our legislators come in. Instead of writing the law that says you pay thus and so fine, if the impetus is there to write the law, screw the fine, and drop the after accident support instead.

<passing the soapbox on to the next person>

Damien Falgoust

08-15-2006, 1:14 PM

Being a lawyer, he will do that,...
Not to be overly sensitive or anything, but just what exactly do you mean by that statement?

Al Willits

08-15-2006, 1:33 PM

""""""
If I were Mr.Gass, I'd be doing exactly the same things he's currently doing. Safety is an appropriate thing for the government to legislate IMO. Where would we be on the roads were it not for vehicle safety standards?
"""""""""

Ya mean like the Corvair, didn't nader and his cronnies decide that was not a safe enough vehicle and basicly drive it out of exsitance?
You think the VW bug of its time was any better??

Personally I want the gov't out of my life, they do enough damage as is.
I also would like to see personal responsiblity come back, but with the politicains we have running the country I doubt that will happen.

Al

Mike Henderson

08-15-2006, 1:35 PM

I am one of the first to be for less regulation HOWEVER, for things like bike helmets, auto safety belts, etc. where there is clear evidence that not wearing them costs lots of other people lots of money, the law should be, if you don't do XXX, you are assumed to have opted out of social security disability, welfare, and all other publicly funded programs to help pay for you to stay alive, function, etc. If you do something this stupid, you don't get help.

<passing the soapbox on to the next person>
Our society values life, even when a member of that society does something "stupid". It'd be extremely difficult to just let someone die because they made a mistake. When a smoker presents with lung cancer, for example, should we tell him/her to go home and die because they were stupid to smoke?

Even though it cost me money, I prefer to live in a compassionate society rather than an uncaring society.

Mike

tod evans

08-15-2006, 2:06 PM

Even though it cost me money, I prefer to live in a compassionate society rather than an uncaring society.

Mike

herein lies the entire jest of this thread in my opinion. should each of us be required to fork over our monies by law or edict because you or joe blow chooses to be compassionate? this type of behavior is for the community/church/county or state to deal with not the federal government or any of its branches. following this train of thought lawnmowers should have flesh sensing technology also, or how about cnc equipment, or shapers and moulders...heck even planers..these machines aren`t as easy on a body if you stick your appendages into them, they pull you in and keep grinding bone-n-flesh.. once again, yes the technology is fantastic but mandating it is just wrong! ..02 tod

Mike Henderson

08-15-2006, 2:21 PM

herein lies the entire jest of this thread in my opinion. should each of us be required to fork over our monies by law or edict because you or joe blow chooses to be compassionate? this type of behavior is for the community/church/county or state to deal with not the federal government or any of its branches. following this train of thought lawnmowers should have flesh sensing technology also, or how about cnc equipment, or shapers and moulders...heck even planers..these machines aren`t as easy on a body if you stick your appendages into them, they pull you in and keep grinding bone-n-flesh.. once again, yes the technology is fantastic but mandating it is just wrong! ..02 tod
Tod, you certainly are free to choose whatever type of society you wish to live in. I would choose a compassionate society that values the lives of its members. Each of us has the right to choose and to vote for people who support our views.

Mike

Dick Strauss

08-15-2006, 2:37 PM

Thanks for bringing this to our attention.

The point I want to make is this patent attorney/Physics Phd/inventor Gass says “We’re not just doing this for the money...We’re doing this because we feel good about it.” That is ridiculous!!!! If they were concerned about safety they wouldn't be charging an exorbitant 8% royalty fee on the total saw price. They would want to see it implemented on all saws and take a very small licensing fee or a standard per use fee for their technology. This is one of the major problems experienced by Rambus in the memory industry (huge licensing fee+royalty on total price) that prevented its technology from becoming commonplace. Think of this as an 8%+ price increase if Gass's "technology" is forced down our throats. It will probably eliminate the under $200 saw market for those getting started.

Am I supposed to pity a lawyer who only makes one third of what he used to make because he took a chance on a goldmine/lottery ticket that hasn't paid off yet? Heck no!!!!

It boils down to personal responsibility! If you pay attention you'll probably be safe whether driving a car or using a table saw. If not, manufacturers can't be held liable for your lack of attention or plain stupidity!!! If your brakes fail on a new car, then you have a case. If you don't apply the brakes because you weren't paying attention, don't blame the manufacturer. In other words, if the arbor cracks and the blade comes up at you, you've got a case. Otherwise forget it.

Society will always have the costs shifted to them for individual stupidity whether it be people that decide to take drugs or whatever the circumstances are...

I'll gladly step down from my soapbox now...

Dick

Lee DeRaud

08-15-2006, 3:03 PM

I would choose a compassionate society.And I would choose an intelligent society.

Doesn't look like either one of us is going to get our wish.

Frank Hagan

08-15-2006, 3:21 PM

I think its wonderful technology, but probably not the only technology. If his attempts are simply selfish, and they increase safety, then Ayn Rand was right. People working in their self interest benefits us all.

I don't like regulation, being a small government type myself. But I'm realistic enough to realize that any tool that causes injury will attract the attention of regulators and class action attorneys. If the saw manufacturers are not gearing up for safer saws the stockholders of those companies should demand the management be replaced.

And by the way, Saw Stop absolutely would not have higher liability insurance premiums because it is safer. Insurance premiums follow the risk, and his premiums would be cheaper than a saw with less safety features (if the insurance company actually looked at the saws).

Sawstop may have higher premiums because they have more coverage ... large companies tend to self-insure for any awards under a certain amount, usually $1 million. Mr Gass may have a policy that pays out over $10,000 or $100,000 because he can't afford the risk of a $900,000 award by some idiot jury. In reality, his product liability insurance premiums will decline as the safety of the saw is proven over time, and his company incurs less lawsuits. And more lawsuits will come to Grizzly, Jet, Delta and the rest because they have more dangerous products in the marketplace.

I don't like it, but that's the way our system works.

tod evans

08-15-2006, 3:44 PM

Tod, you certainly are free to choose whatever type of society you wish to live in. I would choose a compassionate society. Each of us has the right to choose and to vote for people who support our views.

Mike

michael, i`m not saying society shouldn`t be compassionate. i`m saying it`s not the federal governments place to tax the citizens for the causes it chooses to show compassion for. big difference i think....02 tod

Mike Henderson

08-15-2006, 4:05 PM

michael, i`m not saying society shouldn`t be compassionate. i`m saying it`s not the federal governments place to tax the citizens for the causes it chooses to show compassion for. big difference i think....02 tod

Tod, yes, I understand exactly what you are saying. This got started because of the posting advocating that we should not assist people who make mistakes. My position is that our society is such that we just won't allow that - we value life too much - and I think that's the right "ethic" for our society.

I think we both agree on that, and I think we would both agree on many of the limits that must put on compassion.

Mike

Al Willits

08-15-2006, 4:07 PM

Chris Padilla

08-15-2006, 4:15 PM

Have we got to second hand smoke yet? :D :D

Pretty evident we have two (at least) schools of thought here, one that believes the gov't should protect us at any cost...and them that believes there needs to be a bit of personal responsibility here and keep the gov't out.

Not sure we'll ever see answer that makes all happy.

Al

I don't think is it quite that black and white...it isn't for me at least! :p In general, I'm for small gov't but big gov't has done some good things for society.

I know this is further straying off the course, but let me ask folks this question:

"What is the main function/purpose of your goverment?"

Dale Sandford

08-15-2006, 4:20 PM

Just a thought:

If you can make an argument for blade stopping technology on a table saw that same argument could be used for planers, jointers, bandsaws, shapers, miter saws, etc.

-- D

Andy Hoyt

08-15-2006, 4:22 PM

Al Willits

08-15-2006, 4:35 PM

"""""
Carrying that notion into this discussion, would not the ever present and carefully worded warnings (that I assume are vetted by corporate lawyers and insurance carriers, et al) on every tool and in the accompanying manual serve to relieve the saw manufacturer of liabilty arsing out of a users disregard of those safety instructions?
"""""""""

Not a lawyer, but you'd think so, but I doubt it, lawyers are making millions on suing on behalf of ignorant people, consider lawyer make up a great part of our gov't I doubt you'll see a change (tort reform maybe?)

Chris, notice I said at least two, I under stand it's not black and white, but there seems to be two main schools of thought here...could be wrong though..:)
But it does seem most if not all agree that a safer saw is welcomed, just how we end up with a safer saw seems to be in question though.

Al who thinks the sane ones want a bit less gov't ...and is now hiding from the incoming under his desk.....:D :D :D

Lee DeRaud

08-15-2006, 4:35 PM

I know this is further straying off the course, but let me ask folks this question:

"What is the main function/purpose of your goverment?"<TOS violation deleted> mostly. :D

Chris Padilla

08-15-2006, 4:36 PM

<TOS violation deleted> mostly. :D

Yeah, I figured I was straying a bit too much! :rolleyes:

Geoff Barry

08-15-2006, 7:10 PM

I'm reminded of that idiot who sued a coffee purveyor and won (I think) because his "to go" coffee cup did not warn him that the contents may well be hot. That warning is now commonplace on all "to go" coffee cups.

Carrying that notion into this discussion, would not the ever present and carefully worded warnings (that I assume are vetted by corporate lawyers and insurance carriers, et al) on every tool and in the accompanying manual serve to relieve the saw manufacturer of liabilty arsing out of a users disregard of those safety instructions?

Heck - they are often the only part of a manual that's written well enough to understand.

Well, product liability is a complex field, and I'm not a PL lawyer, but basically warnings can aid a company's defense, but do not relieve a company of any and all liability. For example, you can't just sell a sawblade attached to a motor as a consumer saw and attach a warning saying "stay away from the shiny spinning end- it is sharp". Despite the warning, selling such a sevice as a saw would be viewed as objectively unreasonably dangerous. Similarly, as a matter of public policy, one cannot disclaim (or contract away, for that matter) liability for gross negligence. However, if a prodcut is not unreasonably dangerous, and has a warning label saying "Keep hands away - blade is sharp", and a person ignores the warning label and touches the blade, then they're out of luck. It may surprise people, but the courts know the world is full of dangerous things, and a determined fool can always injure themselves.

The McDonald's coffee case is an interesting case for a variety of reasons. Everyone knows it was stupid, right? After all, hot coffee is hot, right?

The salient points: McD's coffee was intentionally maintained at an unusually high temperature, which could produce third degree burns in a matter of 2 or 3 seconds. Most other restaurants maintained their coffee sugnificantly cooler, for safety reasons. In the ten years prior to the accident in question, McD's had settled over 700 complaints involving burns from its coffee, many of them serious. McD's had paid out over $500,000 for these complaints. Yet, despite knowing that it kept its coffee unusually hot, despite knowing that its coffee could produce serious injury in an instant, and despite knowing that there had been a large number of severe injuries from burns, McD's felt no obligation to warn consumers that its coffee was unusually hot and could cause injury. At trial, McD's admitted that it knew customers were unaware on the dangers from its unusually hot coffee.

So a 79-yr old lady got third-degree burns. The jury actually found the her partially at fault, and reduced actual damages accordingly. The largest part of the reported award (later reduced, and then settled) was punitive damages for McD's willful negligence. If you're doing something that can cause severe injury, and you know it, and you also know that your customers are unaware of it, and you don't tell them, well, that's more or less the definition of willful and wanton misconduct.

As a result, the McD's coffee case is covered in most first-year tort classes at law schools. :) Here's a link to some more information about the case: http://www.citizen.org/print_article.cfm?ID=785

Damien Falgoust

08-15-2006, 7:38 PM

The point I want to make is this patent attorney/Physics Phd/inventor Gass says “We’re not just doing this for the money...We’re doing this because we feel good about it.” That is ridiculous!!!! If they were concerned about safety they wouldn't be charging an exorbitant 8% royalty fee on the total saw price. They would want to see it implemented on all saws and take a very small licensing fee or a standard per use fee for their technology. Oh, bollocks. One can make a safety device and legitimately claim it isn't all about the money and that it does make you feel good while still caring about pesky things like paying the rent. You don't have to be Mother Theresa to derive personal satisfaction from the good results of your invention.

As for the reasonableness of the royalty -- well, we've had a couple of posts in here addressing that, at least one of which indicates that 6-8% is not automatically exorbitant and is well within the range of license fees for certain devices. Furthermore, Mr. Gass is, after all, a well-regarded, successful patent lawyer -- he presumably has professional expertise in valuing intellectual property. It wouldn't be sensible for him to ask for an unheard of license fee, since he presumably wanted people to license his invention. He may have ended up valuing his license a bit too high, but I seriously doubt it was an exorbitant miscalculation.

Indeed, according to this story (http://www.inc.com/magazine/20050701/disruptor-gass.html), Gass came very close to a licensing deal with Ryobi for a 3% rate plus an escalator to 8% based on industry adoption.

Damien Falgoust

08-15-2006, 7:40 PM

Just a thought:

If you can make an argument for blade stopping technology on a table saw that same argument could be used for planers, jointers, bandsaws, shapers, miter saws, etc. Except for the pesky fact that table saw blade-stopping technology actually exists in the here and now, and is merely theoretical for those other devices.

Damien Falgoust

08-15-2006, 7:43 PM

And I would choose an intelligent society. Surely you do not mean to imply that Mr. Henderson or others who would advance the notion that a measure of regulation might be sensible are unintelligent.

Damien Falgoust

08-15-2006, 7:48 PM

Pretty evident we have two (at least) schools of thought here, one that believes the gov't should protect us at any cost...and them that believes there needs to be a bit of personal responsibility here and keep the gov't out. It isn't a binary choice. See my post #74 -- my view on saw safety regulation depends almost entirely on the substance of the proposed regulation itself (which the CPSC hasn't promulgated yet).

I don't believe the government should protect us "at any cost," but I do believe there is a minimal role for the government to play in this arena. And I believe that one can strongly believe in personal responsibility while still recognizing that the world isn't perfect and that an ounce of prevention might be worth a pound of cure, especially when, as a practical matter, some of those cure costs are going to be bourne by the taxpaying public.

Lee DeRaud

08-15-2006, 8:24 PM

Surely you do not mean to imply that Mr. Henderson or others who would advance the notion that a measure of regulation might be sensible are unintelligent.Of course not...although I might tend to infer that about someone who would deliberately (mis)read my post that way.

Lee DeRaud

08-15-2006, 8:35 PM

Questions for the product-liability experts:

ABS is pretty much universal now, although as far as I know there is no regulation mandating its inclusion on cars sold here. But in the beginning it was an extra-cost option on some models and completely unavailable on others.

1. Were there ever any suits brought against a manufacturer for not providing that safety device on some particular car?

2. If not, would such a suit have any merit?

Drawing parallels with the SS blade-stopping technology is left as an exercise for the reader.

Lee DeRaud

08-15-2006, 8:43 PM

Except for the pesky fact that table saw blade-stopping technology actually exists in the here and now, and is merely theoretical for those other devices.Nothing theoretical about it: the technology simply involves the sensing device and a mechanical means of stopping the blade. Applying it to other tools is just a question of design engineering.

Looking at it the other way, the SS technology is not "bolt-on", so it is in that sense "merely theoretical" when applied to a Unisaw or a PM66.

(Relevant question for the SawStop experts: will the blade-stopping widget work with one of those fine-tooth laminate/plywood blades or does it require big teeth to jam into?)

Steve Rowe

08-15-2006, 8:47 PM

There are already federal regulations concerning woodworking machinery in 29CFR1910.213. If this procedes to rulemaking, it will be published in the Federal Register (which is issued daily) as a proposed change to the aforementioned section and a public comment period will ensue. If you wish, you may sign up for email notification on proposed rules at http://origin.www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html. If it is proposed as a rule, make formal comments within the prescribed period and the appropriate agency proposing the rule is required to address them and publish the results in the Federal Register. Public comments do impact rulemaking and I have seen proposed rules revised or dropped completely. The real question is whether you want the manufacturers to make these comments for you or whether you wish to comment for yourself.

With all the railing against SS, OSHA, Mr. Gass, big government, etc., I wonder if anyone has looked at the industry response to the CPSC contained in the article. Just in case not, it was:

Industry’s View
The following is an excerpt from a letter from the Power Tool Institute to the chairman of the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission on June 12, 2006.
“… The fact is that each manufacturer evaluated and assessed the technology, some more extensively than others, and each independently concluded that licensing the technology was not appropriate, particularly under the terms demanded by Mr. Gass. All of the table saw manufacturers identified significant problems associated with the technology, including such things as a propensity to inadvertently activate when cutting high moisture content wood. Additionally, at the time of each company’s evaluations, the technology was completely unproven and untested; only a prototype had been produced, and it had not been subject to any real world testing over time as would be necessary before any table saw manufacturer would introduce new technology such as this.” - CM

What a lame response. If we were to believe this position one could conclude that we should not go to this technology because it is "unproven and untested." We would all then be forced to continue to rely on their existing technology which has been proven to injure and maime thousands of woodworkers every year. With few exceptions, the safety systems on tablesaws (i.e. - guards and splitters) are useless and most people take them off for that reason. As a result, woodworkers make trips to the emergency rooms and we all pay the price as a result (either as taxpayers or insurance premiums). The industry has no one but themselves to blame for the very existence of Sawstop technology and the possibility of proposed rulemaking.

The bottom line is that manufacturers apparently could care less about our safety otherwise, they would have already taken action to provide guards and splitters that actually work instead of providing just marginal compliance with the existing regulations. If they had done this, the threat of rulemaking would not exist. I believe this may be the kick in the seat of the pants the manufacturers deserve to get them to take action and improve safety for us all.

Steve

Chris Barton

08-15-2006, 8:47 PM

Excerpts from the Saw Stop saga:

"Indeed, precisely who would assume that risk turned out to be a major sticking point in SawStop's licensing negotiations. The manufacturers believed Gass should indemnify them against any lawsuit if SawStop malfunctioned. Gass, however, says that he could not possibly make such a guarantee since he would not actually be manufacturing the saws. And there is another facet to the liability issue. If SawStop did come to market and was proved effective in preventing accidents, it might be easier for plaintiffs to win lawsuits against manufacturers of traditional saws, because juries might be more likely to return a verdict against a manufacturer that chose not to implement SawStop. That's the main reason, Gass believes, that the big tool makers are refusing to deal with him. They want his product to go away."

"Meanwhile, the industry's product-liability fears appear to be coming to life. In 2003, a construction worker walked into the Wellesley, Mass., office of attorney Richard J. Sullivan. He was looking for someone to represent him in a case against Chicago-based S-B Power Tool. The worker had lost his thumb and four fingers while using a table saw. Doctors were able to reattach them, but even after six surgeries and $150,000 in medical bills, he still had no real functionality in the hand. Living on workers' comp, he fell behind financially and was forced to sell his home.
Sullivan turned the case down twice because he didn't see a way to hold the manufacturer accountable. Then a colleague told him about SawStop. "His injury occurred on a saw manufactured in April 2003 and sold in May 2003," Sullivan says. "The industry has known about this technology since 2001. That gave the manufacturer plenty of time to react." The lawsuit, filed in Massachusetts state court in the summer of 2004, alleges that the manufacturer was negligent for not implementing the technology and seeks compensation for lost wages, future lost wages, and pain and suffering. (Attorneys for S-B Power Tool responded in January, denying all claims.) "If Gass can figure this out by tinkering around in his backyard, what has this industry been doing for the past 20 years?" asks Sullivan, who has since taken on five similar cases. "They're like the auto industry, which had to be dragged kicking and screaming to install air bags."

And what about all the small adults and children that have been killed by airbags in low speed accidents that would not have resulted in injury otherwise and mandated by the government (and very well documented).

Brad Olson

08-15-2006, 9:18 PM

The bottom line is that manufacturers apparently could care less about our safety otherwise, they would have already taken action to provide guards and splitters that actually work instead of providing just marginal compliance with the existing regulations. If they had done this, the threat of rulemaking would not exist. I believe this may be the kick in the seat of the pants the manufacturers deserve to get them to take action and improve safety for us all.

Steve

I tend to agree. The blade guard on a most saws are pure and simple junk if you compare them to their European counterparts.

Why is it that I can buy a $300 table saw with a riving knife (ryobi BT3100), but none of the other American saws bother adding this very important safety feature to their saws? I think if CPSC is going to mandate anything, a riving knife that follows the arc of the blade through its entire motion should be mandated. While riving knives will not prevent all kickbacks, they will prevent most kickbacks since the back of the blade is protected from wood being jammed or getting caught in it.

Even the powermatic guards, which are about as good as american style OEM blade guards get are still not much better than junk. The first time I took it off my saw, I could never get it back on and functioning properly without a lot of fiddling. I ended up investing in an aftermarket guard.

The only glimmer of hope is that the PM2000 includes a true riving knife and a decent blade guard, but is still not implemented as well as the Sawstop riving knife and guard nor most European versions

Steve Schoene

08-15-2006, 9:25 PM

I think if CPSC is going to mandate anything, a riving knife that follows the arc of the blade through its entire motion should be mandated. While riving knives will not prevent all kickbacks, they will prevent most kickbacks since the back of the blade is protected from wood being jammed or getting caught in it.

This is already been done. After a certain date--I believe it is the end of next year all new saws will have to have a riving knife, and after a later date the existing models (ie. Unisaw, or Grizzley 1023, etc. will no longer be allowed to be sold without a riving knife. I presume the Powermatic 2000 will replace the 66 at that time, etc.

Jake Helmboldt

08-15-2006, 9:26 PM

Another 'hypothetical' conversation could go like this: Gee, your honor, nobody told me that a simple safety device costing $X could save Y number of Z injuries a year! The only real issues are the values of X, Y and Z. If X is small and Y is large and Z is ghastly, the speaker is a monster. If X is large, Y is small, and Z is trivial, then the speaker is making a rational decision. I would imagine that a public process such as the CPSC proceedings have a better chance of calculating the values of X, Y, and Z than anecdotal evidence on an internet forum . ..

"Gee your honor, I really wanted a safer product but the industry conspired to avoid liability by not providing any significant safety improvement in decades, thereby retaining the assumption of risk for the end user, even though affordable technology existed. Affordable that is for the manufacturers with an economy of scale, but not for one individual who chose to bring it to market. And so I couldn't afford the inflated price."

Extortionist. Thief. All these criticisms and I don't hear anyone criticizing the industry for keeping the status quo (to the point of rarely including a riving knife for crying out loud). They move operations overseas to reduce costs and avoid liability. They are taking your money and potentially your digits, but nobody is bashing them?

JH

Chris Barton

08-15-2006, 9:54 PM

Extortionist. Thief. All these criticisms and I don't hear anyone criticizing the industry for keeping the status quo (to the point of rarely including a riving knife for crying out loud). They move operations overseas to reduce costs and avoid liability. They are taking your money and potentially your digits, but nobody is bashing them?

JH

I criticize them by buying a Robland x31. Consumer choice is the ultimate critique...

Ken Fitzgerald

08-15-2006, 10:14 PM

These long winded debates are just that...long...full of hot air and seldom accomplish much.

The people who post in them have almost always analyzed the subject and made an opinion. The odds of changing their opinions are slim and next to none.

I'm old oil field trash and farm boy. My father though not very well educated is still one of the most intelligent men I"ve ever met and I work with doctors daily. My father often advised me to pick your battles well and fight intelligently and hard. This isn't a battle that's going to be won on this forum.

I first saw an online video of the SawStop being demonstrated at a large woodworking convention in Atlanta a few years ago. I was intrigued. Then I found the SawStop webpage and nearly ordered one.

Then I found out about the manufacturers petitioning the CPSC.

I WILL NOT EVER HAVE A SAWSTOP IN MY SHOP! Period.

If the inventor is that concerned about woodworking safety....he's a doctor, a lawyer, a physicist....he's should be financially set....let him donate his invention to be used freely by all manufacturers. That would be a display of real concern for public woodworking safety.

In the mean time I remember my father telling me....If it looks like, quacks like and waddles like a duck......The odds are it's a duck! This duck appears to be pecking for megabucks and his end justifies the means.

I bought my table saw knowing full well I could get hurt by it. If it happens I'll be financially responsible for the outcome.

SawStop?.........Not in my shop!

Damien Falgoust

08-15-2006, 11:18 PM

I first saw an online video of the SawStop being demonstrated at a large woodworking convention in Atlanta a few years ago. I was intrigued. Then I found the SawStop webpage and nearly ordered one.

Then I found out about the manufacturers petitioning the CPSC.

I WILL NOT EVER HAVE A SAWSTOP IN MY SHOP! Period. I have never understood this view. Hey, if you think a Sawstop is too expensive or not as good a saw as the alternatives or hell, if you just think black is a lousy color choice for a saw, by all means don't buy one. But to not buy one because company management petitioned their government -- which is their right -- for something you think is a bad idea?

Good heavens. If I built my buying decisions around things a company has done that I find overbearing, I'd never buy anything, ever.

Case in point: if you want a real example of corporate venality in the lawmaking process, look to Disney. These knuckleheads lobbied successfully to extend copyright terms from 70 years to 90 years even for existing works, an extension that certainly does not do what copyright law is supposed to do -- encourage creation of artistic works. Ol' Walt, I assure you, will not be retroactively even more incentivized to create "Steamboat Willie."

Shall I avoid everything Disney and its parent, ABC, produces for the rest of my days?

I mean, goodness, you'd think Mr. Gass was out raping nuns and killing puppies or something.

If the inventor is that concerned about woodworking safety....he's a doctor, a lawyer, a physicist....he's should be financially set....let him donate his invention to be used freely by all manufacturers. That would be a display of real concern for public woodworking safety. From each according to his ability to each according to his need, then?

Upon what grounds do you say Gass is "financially set" just because he's a lawyer? Heck, I'm a lawyer, and while I earn a comfortable living, I'm no Rockefeller. (He has a doctorate in physics, but that fact alone does not mean he earns his money as either a doctor or a physicist, any more than my undergraduate degree in accounting makes me a CPA.)

Why on earth can "real concern" only be expressed by giving away the fruits of your labor? Is that really how this works -- no one can plausibly claim concern for a problem unless they're Mother Theresa about it?

Dennis Peacock

08-15-2006, 11:46 PM

Oh my aching head!!!!! Is the world still round? :p :D

Lee DeRaud

08-15-2006, 11:52 PM

Oh my aching head!!!!! Is the world still round? :p :DRound?!? Wrong forum, Dennis: the Turner's forum is over there ---> :p

This one is definitely flat!

Ken Fitzgerald

08-16-2006, 12:38 AM

I have never understood this view. Hey, if you think a Sawstop is too expensive or not as good a saw as the alternatives or hell, if you just think black is a lousy color choice for a saw, by all means don't buy one. But to not buy one because company management petitioned their government -- which is their right -- for something you think is a bad idea?

Good heavens. If I built my buying decisions around things a company has done that I find overbearing, I'd never buy anything, ever.

Case in point: if you want a real example of corporate venality in the lawmaking process, look to Disney. These knuckleheads lobbied successfully to extend copyright terms from 70 years to 90 years even for existing works, an extension that certainly does not do what copyright law is supposed to do -- encourage creation of artistic works. Ol' Walt, I assure you, will not be retroactively even more incentivized to create "Steamboat Willie."

Shall I avoid everything Disney and its parent, ABC, produces for the rest of my days?

I mean, goodness, you'd think Mr. Gass was out raping nuns and killing puppies or something.

From each according to his ability to each according to his need, then?

Upon what grounds do you say Gass is "financially set" just because he's a lawyer? Heck, I'm a lawyer, and while I earn a comfortable living, I'm no Rockefeller. (He has a doctorate in physics, but that fact alone does not mean he earns his money as either a doctor or a physicist, any more than my undergraduate degree in accounting makes me a CPA.)

Why on earth can "real concern" only be expressed by giving away the fruits of your labor? Is that really how this works -- no one can plausibly claim concern for a problem unless they're Mother Theresa about it?

Damien................

I only wish I could use my favorite quote but that type of language isn't allowed on this forum. It's from a movie "Outlaw Josie Wales". That line later got the guy who played the Confederate Major the part in Animal House as Dean Wormer.

The long and short of it is this...I feel the SawStop company is less than genuine when it says it's petitioning the CPSC for the sake of safety and is insulting my intelligence by telling me so.

I never said Mr. Gass was raping or killing children or nuns....I just refuse to do business with someone who is trying to hoodwink me or insult me by trying to do so.

There's nothing wrong with making a profit on a product. I work for one of the largest corporations in the world. If a company doesn't make a profit it soon goes out of business. But what if all companies found a new invention and then went to the CPSC and tried to eliminate the competition or force the competition to buy their invention. In farm boy english that is pure hogwash or another method to promote professional services of which you are familiar .......

If you feel that you want to buy from overbearing companies.....so be it. I accord you that right.....but I demand my right to not to buy from same.

I understand the company has the right to petition the CPSc but it is IMHO for profit not safety and therefore the company is being less than totally honest and I find it insulting.

Gass/SawStop in my opinion...developed a good safety device.....he offered it to the competition .....they refused......he found a way that he thinks will force them to use his patented ideas. The company makes a mint....The end result.......the end justifies the means......I don't agree with this attitude and I don't have to buy their product! And I don't have to justify my decision. I was a short click of the button on my mouse from buying one.....

Randal Stevenson

08-16-2006, 12:50 AM

Not to be overly sensitive or anything, but just what exactly do you mean by that statement?

It was supposed to say "will probably", mind was working on three things while typing. IANAL and haven't violated any Lawyer/Client privilage or anything. And as I know several attorney's, they all have the view that if you anger one of them, owe them money, etc... they have time! So since (from my reading of the thing) patents and products were in this attorney's specialties, if anyone designs something close, following the principles that I listed above, he would make time to go after collecting, and Defend his patent (which you have to do to keep it valid).

Frank Hagan

08-16-2006, 1:18 AM

I don't think is it quite that black and white...it isn't for me at least! :p In general, I'm for small gov't but big gov't has done some good things for society.

I know this is further straying off the course, but let me ask folks this question:

"What is the main function/purpose of your goverment?"

To secure our rights and provide for our common defense.

And then whatever else we decide we want it to do, granting it permission to build roads across state lines, tax our income, etc., all the while knowing that we can remove those permissions when we really want to remove them.

I think product safety first started being the government's business in terms of mass produced food. We established agencies who set food purity guidelines and started grading beef, for instance. I doubt most of us would want the government oversight of food to end. Or drugs, for that matter. There are too many examples where economic expediency by a company overrules individual liberties.

At some point it becomes a nanny state, but its hard for me to see us at that point when talking about safety devices on saws. Lawnmowers are safer than tablesaws today, but it wasn't always so.

Mike Henderson

08-16-2006, 1:44 AM

I understand the company has the right to petition the CPSc but it is IMHO for profit not safety and therefore the company is being less than totally honest and I find it insulting.

Ken, what Gass is doing is very common and done every day in standards bodies. Most of my experience is with communications standards, but it was *extremely* common for each company to come in and make a presentation that advocated using their patented technology in the new standard. The person making the presentation was often the person who developed the new technology and I'm very sure that s/he really believed that their solution was the absolute best - after all, they invented it. But there was also a monetary reason for their presentation - if their patented technology was accepted, their company would get licensing fees.

No one on the standards committee thought anything at all about this approach - it's the way the world works.

In developing the standard, the companies challenged each other and argued about whose technology was the best. Test results were demanded and the testing methodology was challenged. Often, the result was a compromise - one side had to agree to include another's technology in order to get their technology included. You could argue that it was messy but that's the way agreement is reached.

What Gass is doing is exactly the same, and what the other saw companies will do, I suspect, is exactly what companies do in the communications standards bodies. But out of it will come a good solution that has been challenged and tested and verified before the group accepts it.

The old saw is "You don't want to see how sausage or laws are made." Well, standards are the same. Gass is just positioning himself like anyone else with patented technology would do. I'm sure he thinks it's the greatest technology that was ever invented, and he also wants to help the world and make some money off it.

Mike