Latest from CPSC on the Tablesaw Issue

[Peter Aeschliman]

...snip...
There is money to be made with safer T-Saws, and Sawstop seeking profits filled this need wonderfully. Insurance companies are free to adjust premiums if they think there is a financial benefit, which would also provide feedback to market choices. Legal liability will further drive the market choices. All's working fine without big brother stepping in.

...snip...

...snip...
You say that legal liability will drive more market choices but in fact just the opposite is what's occurring presently. Threat of lawsuit is preventing the larger manufacturers from developing systems similar to the SS. Do you really believe Delta, Powermatic, Grizzly, etc. don't have a brake available for their saws because they don't think it's a good idea? No, they don't offer them for fear of costly legal litigation.
...snip...

These are two excellent points, and I believe they clearly articulate the two sides of this argument. Well done!

If I might add to this logic. I think the problem is that the liability issues in place are stifling innovation and tablesaw safety. I made this point somewhere in this massive thread. I believe that a free market can, and often does, naturally creates incentives for people to do the right thing. Obviously there are plenty of cases where it's the opposite. I think the picture you two have painted is one where the tablesaw market has most of the pieces in place to create the natural incentives for manufacturers to create safer tablesaws while consumers retain their right to choose.

The problem is the way liability is disproportionately (IMHO) placed on manufacturers. Fix that, and tablesaws will be safer and consumers will retain their freedom of choice in the new tablesaw market. Period. Both sides of this argument would be fully satisfied.

Btw, I own a sawstop.

[Steve Griffin]

Thanks for your clarification Bill. Reading your posts again makes it clear you are more moderate on the issue than some of the others on this thread. -Steve

[Alan Schaffter]

If SawStop goes belly up where are you to get a replacement brake mechanism?

You don't need one put in a spacer bar and run it in bypass mode, leave or strip out the electronics. Then you have a regular cabinet saw.

[Mike Henderson]

I specifically said WILLING, i didn't say anything about making the employee pay for it. What if an employer said/could say to his employees, "I'll buy the SS, provided the person that fires it off pays for the cartridge, and blade." How many people do you think would actually do that? Such a deal would help the employer by having the employee financially conscious and thus reducing mis-fires on certain materials as well as an another incentive to keep his fingers out of the blade, while saving his fingers in the event of a moment of inattention, or outright stupidity. As well as helping the employer manage the cost on something that could easily break the bank. I don't know the answer myself, but i ask this based on peoples tendency to buy the minimum required insurance in other areas, as well as the number of people we have in this country that choose to not buy health insurance because doing so would mean they'd have to give up "niceties" in order to do so. As well as peoples tendency to go the cheap route when its coming out of their own pocket.

You'd have to check with an employment lawyer to be sure but I don't believe that what you suggest would pass legal muster. The reason is that it's very hard to separate "voluntary" from "required". Think about this scenario: the boss comes in and makes your suggestion to the employees and tells them to think it over. Later,the boss calls in one person and confides that anyone who doesn't agree to your proposal will be laid off. So when s/he goes back and asks for the employees decision, they all agree to it. The boss just accomplished what is prohibited in the law. I'm pretty sure the employees cannot voluntarily agree to something that's prohibited.

Mike

[Anthony Whitesell]

True, true. You got me. I didn't think in that direction.

I wonder if they looked at the motor brakes that are available. I know several industrial robots that use them. But then again, stopping the motor and arbor shaft would cause the blade to unwind the arbor nut, unless the "nut" was redesigned as well.

[Mike Henderson]

You say that legal liability will drive more market choices but in fact just the opposite is what's occurring presently. Threat of lawsuit is preventing the larger manufacturers from developing systems similar to the SS. Do you really believe Delta, Powermatic, Grizzly, etc. don't have a brake available for their saws because they don't think it's a good idea? No, they don't offer them for fear of costly legal litigation. Immunity from these lawsuits would allow other manufacturers to produce similar systems for their saws, and they would do it in a heartbeat because at present SS is selling a regular old cabinet saw with $100 worth of extra parts at a huge premium. But, at present, the risk of lawsuit outweighs the rewards of higher profits. Competition would shrink the margin on safe saws dramatically and give us all a choice. Tort reform is what is necessary but that's a tough nut to crack.

Nobody's going to force you to do anything, you won't have to replace your current saws if you don't want to. It is interesting to me that you are willing to accept seatbelts, vehicle stability control, antilock brakes, airbags etc. offered at a HUGE cost but not a safer tablesaw. I suspect if you were missing some digits you might feel such mandates are warranted.

I don't think that by failing to offer a safety system the manufacturers are making themselves immune to litigation. Quite the opposite is probably true as demonstrated by the Ryobi decision recently. If a safety system is available and the manufacturer fails to implement it, they'll be held negligent. They'd be much better off as far as liability to offer the safety system.

Mike

[Bill Maietta]

I don't think that by failing to offer a safety system the manufacturers are making themselves immune to litigation. Quite the opposite is probably true as demonstrated by the Ryobi decision recently. If a safety system is available and the manufacturer fails to implement it, they'll be held negligent. They'd be much better off as far as liability to offer the safety system.

Mike

Mike, Ben,

I think you're both right. If another case were brought with some of the details changed a manufacturer could be held liable for making an improvement. Maybe, it opens them to not doing it soon enough. Just hypothetical there. Lots of variations. Many of which end in potential for liability... who has the best lawyer and all that.

The critical thing that I hope comes from CPSC/Business collaboration on new rules would be clarity. A set of guidelines to limit liability for companies that follow them. In a sense, it is tort reform for this one product. Businesses should not expect certainty. Risk is always present, but reasonable limits are needed.

And hopefully it opens the door to big innovations. I bet there are designs out there that are held up right now. I was wondering like Anthony mentioned above about motors with brakes, used in a lot of industries. Right now they're pretty darn expensive, but maybe adapted to TSs? Accounting for arbor nut issue; not tearing up a good blade (it really gets my cheap side up the blade being destroyed).

two cents or so there, I hope,
Bill

[ben searight]

"I don't think that by failing to offer a safety system the manufacturers are making themselves immune to litigation. Quite the opposite is probably true as demonstrated by the Ryobi decision recently. If a safety system is available and the manufacturer fails to implement it, they'll be held negligent. They'd be much better off as far as liability to offer the safety system.

Mike "

I agree whole heartedly. I think recently is the key word in that post. Had that verdict been handed down 8 years ago we'd probably have several to choose from by now. Up until that verdict manufacturers thought they were protecting their legal interests by not producing a brake. Obviously they were mistaken. It probably doesn't matter what the CPSC says the trend toward this technology is now probably inevitable.

"And hopefully it opens the door to big innovations. I bet there are designs out there that are held up right now. I was wondering like Anthony mentioned above about motors with brakes, used in a lot of industries. Right now they're pretty darn expensive, but maybe adapted to TSs? Accounting for arbor nut issue; not tearing up a good blade (it really gets my cheap side up the blade being destroyed).

two cents or so there, I hope,
Bill "

I think we'll eventually end up with something better than SS. The arbor nut is easily addressed with pinned blades (Felder and others with motor brakes do this already). I hope we end up with the braking mechanism on the arbor not the blade, maybe a sacraficial gear or roller clutch of some sort. Something that would require you to spin the blade back a quarter turn to unlock it, push the reset button, and go back to work.

[thomas prusak]

This should be a no brainer and should be on every TS

[Tom Rossman]

Last I checked, Volvo has a miniscule market share that is consistent with the percentage of the population that is willing to pay extra for safety.

[Rich Engelhardt]

This should be a no brainer and should be on every TS

LOL!

My greedy little mercenary heart is so much in agreement w/that.

The price of my "pre ban" Ridgid TS3660 would just soar!

[Leo Graywacz]

Nah..They will just make it illegal and it will only be worth the scrap metal price.

[Anthony Whitesell]

For my newer Craftsman, that wouldn't be much...it's mostly plastic!

[Scott Vigder]

Someone that buys a $300 table saw probably can't afford to replace the mechanisms that discharge in non-health risk accidents. Someone that shells out $4000 for a TS probably can...he might groan about it, but he can do it.

Therein lies the rub: economics would prevent the person who cannot afford the new technology saw from entering the market; yet the gung-ho anti-government let-me-choose voices complain bitterly when government has to raise their taxes to pay for the expensive injuries incurred.

Heartless as it sounds, it is the same argument as helmetless motorcycle riders. I'm ok with a rider not wearing a helmet as long as I don't have to pay for the EMS team that scrapes him off the pavement; the ER team that sews him back together; the Physical Therapists and ancillary team members that rehab him; or the extended care facility that may have to spoon feed him the rest of his life.

I've seen many references here linking seat belts and air bags to this discussion and I think they are misguided. Yes the gov legislated safety. Yes the industry bitched and moaned and finally gave in. But the cost of adding these devices was fractional...less than 1% of the selling price.....so the economic impact was minimal, did not drive potential customers from the market, and has saved billions of dollars and countless lives.

Let's face it: the costs here are the result of accidents. No one wants to lop off a digit while making a rocker for the spouse. The insurance industry is designed to handle this. Can't the insurance industry offer a policy specifically for the risks we as woodworkers take? Premiums can be based on the level of safety technology you have in your shop. No gov interference. Just the free market.

And lastly, I'll stir up the pot by asking: if I hurt myself doing my hobby, and I can't afford care, why is the government responsible for fixing me up?

[Rich Engelhardt]

Nah..They will just make it illegal and it will only be worth the scrap metal price.

I'm thinking more along the lines that they only be illegal in CA.
The rest of us will be able to grandfather in