Todays USA today TS article

[David Prince]

If I were a school, I would buy one. If my kids were Joe Citizen, I would want them to be taught on a SS at a school if I am not there. This makes perfect sense to me.

If I were a business owner with employees, I would buy one. I could tell the employees to keep their fingers out of the blade, but I couldn't guarantee it.

I wouldn't want my children or an employee to be injured.

For my shop, I personally do not have a SS and don't plan to buy one. Reason: It is my personal choice and I DON'T SEE A NEED FOR IT FOR MY SHOP. If I put my finger in the blade it is my fault. (This isn't like the wearing seatbelt argument. The seatbelt laws were designed to protect everyone and you can even throw in the cost of insurance and cost to society and on and on. There are many variables that play into this. I agree with it and religiously wear my seatbelt.) (seatbelts are mandated because of the variables of other drivers, weather conditions, road conditions, mechanical issues, etc.)

I have never seen my tablesaw pull out on front of me or jump at my fingers or have too much to drink and swerve towards my fingers or blow a tire and roll or not get enough sleep and loose control of itself.

The tablesaw does what it does. If we lose a finger it is because our finger hit the blade. The blade doesn't normally jump out and hit our finger!

I for one will teach my children to keep their fingers out of the blade. I will also do everything in my power to keep my fingers out of the blade.

I don't agree with a business owner putting their nose into Government regulation when their intent is motivated by money. (they can say safety all they want, but if that was the truth, then the technology would be given away for a good of all)

[Brian Vaughn]

Well, you could argue that both ways. Several studies have proved that people who smoke actually cost less, over the course of their lifetime, due to dying younger and not having to be supported for their later years. Seat belts, well, I'll use another example. When Air bags were first installed in cars, they started to notice that there were a large number of people in cars that had airbag deployment that had severe leg injuries. As they studied further, they realized that previously, the people would not have survived, so those leg injuries wouldn't have mattered or had to be treated. Dead people are relatively cheap. Severely injured people are expensive. The same goes for helmets on motorcycles.

I know that everything has ripples, but let people make their own choices. If a local restaurant allowed smoking, I'd be okay with that. I wouldn't eat there, because I hate how I'd smell afterwards, but it should be their perogative who they want to cater to. No one is making people go there to eat.

Alright, I think I've wandered a bit off discussion topic at this point so I'll end it there

[Mac Houtz]

carpenters, shipbuilders and joiners have been missing digits since the beginning of time. Those with the least amount of proper training, the dullest or worst tools, or the poorest judgment and hand eye coordination are missing the most.

I have a good friend whose father worked in a large shipyard in England during the last days of wooden cargo vessels. He was missing two toes thanks to a poorly swung adze while hewing out rough timbers. Do you think he should have sued for compensation because the handle was wet, or the edge was poorly ground, or the sun was in his eyes?
Every time you go into your shop, the most important safety device protecting you from all manner of harm is your brain. You could put "sawstop" technology on every power tool in the shop, and I guarantee you there's an idiot somewhere(probably quite a few actually) who can find a way to hurt himself with it.
Everytime this discussion comes up, I get this comical image in my head of some woodworker from the year 2500 coming back to our time or even further, and upon surveying our operations saying something like, "wait a minute, do you mean to tell me you actually have to use your hands?"

[Kent A Bathurst]

I am enjoying this thread. I think I will go back to the archived circa 2006 discussions on the SS technology and re-read them all...

I'll join you, Michael. I'll bring the beer, and you make the popcorn, and we'll just sit back and relive all the "best of" threads.

Kent

[Brian Kincaid]

Ditch the table saw all together and use a tool better suited and more safe for the operation at hand. I replaced all TS operations with tools in a smaller footprint for less than the cost of the cabinet saws discussed. #RUNS AWAY FROM THREAD#


-Brian

[Mike Henderson]

These threads seem to aways divide into two camps.

Camp 1: I'm in favor of any technology or technique which will help protect me from a mistake, should I make one.

Camp 2: If I cut my fingers off, shame on me for making a mistake, and I'll live with the consequences.

I'm in the first camp.

Mike

[Chip Lindley]

Bryan, as one of my Army Drill Instuctors usta say, "I AM prejudiced, but I do NOT discriminate." I won't keep you from spending your money on a SawStop, should you choose.

[Dan Hintz]

These threads seem to aways divide into two camps.

Camp 1: I'm in favor of any technology or technique which will help protect me from a mistake, should I make one.

Camp 2: If I cut my fingers off, shame on me for making a mistake, and I'll live with the consequences.

I'm in the first camp.

I'm in Camp1... so long as it's not mandated by law simply because some guy wants to make money off of his patents.

And I'm also in Camp 2. I love technology that will help me... but shame on me for making a mistake anyway.

[David Cramer]

The guy came up with quite an innovative idea. No one can argue that.

Obviously, he's human and wants to be compensated for his new safety idea. Some don't like his approach, and that's fine. For me, I could care less.

Sidenote: I don't think a pro athlete should get paid millions and millions to play a game (and I know why they do), but I'm usually in the minority on that as well. Doctors impress me more than athletes and Mr. Gass impresses me more than most athletes as well.

I believe he's a patent attorney, but I am not positive (I think I read that a few years back).

If money were no object, who can honestly say that they wouldn't want that technology in their shop? I have young kids and I don't want to see them get hurt nor do I want to see anyone's child get hurt.

For me, money is an object.

I own a 2001 Delta Unisaw. I cut a lot of wood.

I've never had an injury yet I realize I am not special. If it can happen to you it can happen to me. How do I combat this?


Well.......my approach is to cut down the odds like I do with most things in life. There is a range around the blade that I WILL NOT enter for any reason whatsoever. I also use several ways to cut down on kickback.

I witnessed a terrible tablesaw accident years ago and it left a lasting impression on me, therefore I have the above approach.

By doing so I am still getting the same quality of cut from my tablesaw that I could get if the SS were in my shop, but without the braking mechanism.

I admire the man's genius and would definitely buy one if money were no object, or if it were priced more in my range, which it isn't.

One day, things will change. For now, I cut as safely as possible on my Delta Unisaw and stay in my safety zone.

My 2 cents

David

[David Weaver]

These threads seem to aways divide into two camps.

Camp 1: I'm in favor of any technology or technique which will help protect me from a mistake, should I make one.

Camp 2: If I cut my fingers off, shame on me for making a mistake, and I'll live with the consequences.

I'm in the first camp.

Mike

Camp 3: my fingers never get near the TS blade, I should never have to be in camp 2.

and don't forget Camp 4 - the slider folks! "you only need that on your tablesaw because cabinet tablesaws are an inferior design".

[Howard Acheson]

>>>> and he's got patents out the wazoo.

He is, after all, a patent attorny.

[George Bregar]

I'm in Camp1... so long as it's not mandated by law simply because some guy wants to make money off of his patents.

If someday it is mandated it will not simply be because some guy wants to make money off his patents. So you have nothing to worry about.

[John Sanford]

These threads seem to aways divide into two camps.

Camp 1: I'm in favor of any technology or technique which will help protect me from a mistake, should I make one.

Camp 2: If I cut my fingers off, shame on me for making a mistake, and I'll live with the consequences.

I'm in the first camp.

Mike

Ahh, but the problem here Mike isn't between Camp 1 and Camp 2. It's those mooks over in Camp 5 making the trouble. THEY are in favor of any technology, training, etc that will help protect ME from a mistake, should I make one, and dadgum, they're going to force ME to pay for it and use it, whether I want to or not.

The "public safety" argument can be used to justify cars that are speed limited to 15mph and built like tanks. (See "Demolition Man" starring Sylvester Stallone, Sandra Bullock and Dennis Rodman) Only licensed and trained individuals are allowed to woodwork, and such woodworking can only be done commercially, because "hobby" woodworking presents too much of a cost to society, etc. Heck, the only real "public safety" justification for mandating the use of seatbelts is that a seatbelt will help keep the driver behind the wheel and in control of his vehicle. All of the other reasons offered (rollovers, blowouts, falling asleep, etc) are risks to the vehicle occupants, not to the public at large. Once you lose control of the vehicle, a seatbelt does nothing to protect other folks, barring the statistically meaningless "he was thrown from the vehicle and as he pinwheeled through the air, he collided with and killed a pedestrian." From this standpoint, kickback prevention is a far more significant "public safety" concern than blade injuries, because kickback can harm someone who isn't even operating the saw. As a practical matter, not so with blade injuries.

As my dad often said "If you're not smart enough to solve your own problems, someone else will". That's the issue with safety, if we as a group can't solve our problem legislation will.

And if I don't consider it to be MY problem, and I don't consider YOUR problem to be MY problem? That's pretty much what this comes down to... Smoking, skiing, skydiving, motorcycling, and hammering on one's own kneecap all present health risks. The difference is that for most of us, the smoking, skiing, skydiving and/or motorcycling all potentially present upsides that justify our participation in the activity, not so much hammering on the kneecap. The cost (i.e. risk) is outweighed by the benefit. If the risk mitigation reduces the benefit too much, as most people would agree speed limiting (via governing technology) all cars to 15mph would do, then we don't do the risk mitigation, even though it would make us safer. The rub is, who decides?

IF "safety is our #1 priority", then we will outlaw woodworking via any means other than CNC, which you will observe behind the safety of bulletproof glass in a room with separate air from the "shop". No tablesaws, bandsaws, drill presses, wide belt sanders. ahhhh.... the Galoots reign will be nigh!

Nope. No chisels, no handplanes, no adzes, axes, awls, augers, saws, scrapers, you can't even touch the wood without wearing kevlar mesh gloves to prevent splinters, and you have to be "trained and licensed" to pick up a piece of wood and move it from the lumber storage area to the CNC bed.

How many on this board are going to continue woodworking under those conditions? Pretty grim, eh? But you'll be SAFE. Nobody is pushing for 15mph cars, CNC only woodworking, mandatory yoga, etc. Why not? Because safety is not our #1 priority, and it will never be. It is a priority, which is weighed along with lots of other priorities.

Who's to say that my priorities for you are more legitimate than your priorities for you?

[Adam Shapiro]

The free market ideal is supposed to mean that technological advances should be offered to the public to make their own decision as to whether or not they wish to buy a product. That didn't happen in this case, a monopoly interfered and attempted to lock the SS technology out of the marketplace (because they were afraid of bigger lawsuits on their BORG special saws lacking the technology). Gass's response has been to try to break the monopoly buy building the saws himself and pressuring the monopolistic powers by supporting litigation and regulation. Some call that unscrupulous, I call it just desserts for the monopoly who conspired to keep new technology off the market. Keep in mind, the reason for the conspiracy was not that they didn't think consumers wanted the SS tech, but because they were afraid they'd be sued if they sold it.

What I always find it interesting in these threads is the number of commentators saying when the patent gets taken away for 'the public good' is when they'll buy the technology. Frankly, as a semi-capitalist, I'd love to buy a SS now, but the quality and cost of the SS is just too high. That's my choice, but I sure wish I had the option to spend $800 on a $500-$600 Grizzly or Ridgid with the SS technology. I'd jump at the chance.

[Bryan Wellman]

Bryan, as one of my Army Drill Instuctors usta say, "I AM prejudiced, but I do NOT discriminate." I won't keep you from spending your money on a SawStop, should you choose.

I actually have a marble topped Ridgid that I really like. My comment was more a play on words I guess. Trying to add a bit of levity in a somewhat redundant argument.

I feel that if anyone wants to spend the money on the technology...more power to them. Capitalism works. As far as the patent holder trying to backdoor the industry to comply with his technology.....standard operating procedures. Albeit, a bit shadey in my book. But that's America. Convince the right people of ANYTHING and the sky's the limit.