Latest from CPSC on the Tablesaw Issue

[Mike Henderson]

Mike, I wasn't attempting to deflect the discussion to cigarettes. I was addressing the statement that the benefit of the regulation would be to reduce health care costs. If that argument is used there should be an explanation as to what health risks we as individuals should be allowed to take and which are decided by someone else. If flesh sensing technology is mandatory for tablesaws- and I'm not taking a position here- it should also be required on bandsaws, drill presses, shapers, routers, and lawnmowers. I'm not totally serious here but a certain amount of that logic does apply. We all draw the lines in different in different places.

A lot has been done for lawnmowers to improve the safety since a lot of people were cutting off their toes or mangling their foot or hands. If you use a modern lawn mower, you'll experience a lot of safety features that were not on lawn mowers 30 years ago. For tools like bandsaws and drill presses, I would bet the injury statistics are significantly lower than table saws. When you address accidents, you generally start with the high injury areas. The injury rate for bandsaws and drill presses may be low enough that it would not be economical to require additional safety devices. However, when we look at the cost of table saw injuries, it's clear that the benefit of certain safety devices will outweigh the cost.

But, again, I'll comment that it's not necessary to solve all the problems in order to address one. If people feel strongly that certain other tools should have additional safety devices, they should petition the CPSC for those safety devices. But that's a separate discussion than what's being discussed here, which is safety devices for table saws.

Mike

[David Kumm]

As I said, I 'm not being totally serious here. I agree that tablesaw injuries occur in greater numbers and hope that you are correct that solving that problem won't lead to more regulation in other areas. This potential regulation though does seem in some part to be the result of the much publicized lawsuit. If mandating the SS ends large settlements to people trying to rip boards without a fence I can live with it. Again, I have seen saw accidents first hand and have no real objection to anything that avoids them, although to be fair SS should warranty the module and replace any misfire. Being able to choose the technology on the saw of my choice will be a great benefit. It will be interesting to see where the line finally is drawn. Dave

[Larry Edgerton]

First, I think this is the kind of thing that adds cost to a job/product, and we are already behind on that in the world market. I suppose the next logical step that government would take would be to make it manditory for businesses to use these tools. I can barely make a profit now and I have done everything I can to cut costs.

I have nothing against the idea, and in fact if another product that is better designed comes along that is not so expensive when fired/misfired I will most likely buy one. The SS may do a fine job, but one misfire on a job between the downtime, cartridge and the cost of a new commercial blade would mean I lost money. Thats not why I am in business.

"For the greater good" is a scary term that has been used in many countries throughout history, so I am a little leary of this kind of legislation/regulation. I do not wish to impose my will on anyone else in their personal lives, and I do not wish to be imposed apon.

One good benifit is that it will force the others to invent a better mousetrap, one hopefully that is less expensive in use.

Larry

[John Coloccia]

True, but why should I pay higher health insurance premiums because you insist on using dangerous equipment? Essentially, integrating any flesh-sensing technology into the saw takes a large expense (health care - previously paid for by everyone) and integrates it into the purchase of the tool, as a much smaller expense, which is now borne only by the person using the tool. Plus, no one loses any fingers.



Alan - true. Maybe I should have said "will go up less"

The correct solution to your insurance dilemma would be for you to start your own insurance company (while you still can), and in all your policies declare that you're not covering table saw injuries. Then go ahead and sell yourself insurance. The correct solution is NOT to change everyone else's life around to make yours more convenient.

The real problem here isn't tablesaws, insurance premiums, stupid lawsuits and political maneuvering. The heart of the matter is that departments like the CPSC have nearly dictatorial control over our everyday lives, and can by whim hand down orders that have the capacity to affect our lives negatively, destroy businesses, etc. I'm just happy I wasn't a lawn dart manufacturer in the 90s. LOL.
a

[Jim Foster]

I think the biggest reason the table saw has the most accidents is because it's the most widely owned stand alone shop tool. A novice woodworkers first big purchase is most likely the tablesaw. In an old FWW article, the RAS was responsible for the worst accidents, but the table saw very much responsible for the most accidents.

Also, I suspect bandsaws tend to be owned by more experienced hobbyists as a third fourth of even fifth big purchase. And bandsaws probably don't exist on job sites

A lot has been done for lawnmowers to improve the safety since a lot of people were cutting off their toes or mangling their foot or hands. If you use a modern lawn mower, you'll experience a lot of safety features that were not on lawn mowers 30 years ago. For tools like bandsaws and drill presses, I would bet the injury statistics are significantly lower than table saws. When you address accidents, you generally start with the high injury areas. The injury rate for bandsaws and drill presses may be low enough that it would not be economical to require additional safety devices. However, when we look at the cost of table saw injuries, it's clear that the benefit of certain safety devices will outweigh the cost.

But, again, I'll comment that it's not necessary to solve all the problems in order to address one. If people feel strongly that certain other tools should have additional safety devices, they should petition the CPSC for those safety devices. But that's a separate discussion than what's being discussed here, which is safety devices for table saws.

Mike

[Mike Henderson]

The correct solution to your insurance dilemma would be for you to start your own insurance company (while you still can), and in all your policies declare that you're not covering table saw injuries. Then go ahead and sell yourself insurance. The correct solution is NOT to change everyone else's life around to make yours more convenient.

The real problem here isn't tablesaws, insurance premiums, stupid lawsuits and political maneuvering. The heart of the matter is that departments like the CPSC have nearly dictatorial control over our everyday lives, and can by whim hand down orders that have the capacity to affect our lives negatively, destroy businesses, etc. I'm just happy I wasn't a lawn dart manufacturer in the 90s. LOL.
a

There's a conflict between what we seem to want. Let me discuss.

We live in a society and because of that, we receive certain benefits. For example, when our house catches on fire, we can call the fire department and they'll come to fight the fire. When we are injured in an accident, we can go to an emergency room and receive treatment - free, if we do not have any assets. For those benefits, and for many more not mentioned, we submit to certain rules and regulations. For example, we have building codes that reduce the chance of fire and slow the spread of fire once it starts. We have those codes because it costs society (all of us) money to maintain a fire department. Similarly, it costs all of us money, either in taxes or in increased insurance premiums, to pay for treating injuries. For businesses, we have OSHA to make safety rules and enforce them. For consumers we have the CPSC.

If everyone was willing to let buildings burn down if the individual did not have their own fire fighting equipment, or to let people die from injuries if they did not have the money to pay for their injuries, we could take the attitude of "what you do is your own business." But that's not the route we've taken as a society.

There's a balance in this, however, between cost and freedom - and that's what we should be discussing. We'll pay either way - either for safety features or for treating injured people. We have information on the costs. Which way do you want to pay?

Mike

[Stephen Cherry]

The real problem here isn't tablesaws, insurance premiums, stupid lawsuits and political maneuvering. The heart of the matter is that departments like the CPSC have nearly dictatorial control over our everyday lives, and can by whim hand down orders that have the capacity to affect our lives negatively, destroy businesses, etc.. LOL.
a

Well said! We've gone from "give me liberty or give me death!", to just "give me something".

[Roger Wilson]

Regardless of where one stands on the politics of the size and scope of government, the table saw is a ridiculously dangerous tool. Given that the government is the size that it is and has a safety oriented group, pushing table saw manufacturers to put reasonable safety devices on tools isn't all that onerous. If you read the Fine Woodworking articles it looks like the WhirlWind device works electrically to stop the blade causing no damage to the blade. It is very cheap to build AND can be retrofitted. The problem with government is that it is mostly regulating things that don't have any clear rational or cost/benefit analysis and can better be handled by the market however sometimes markets don't work.

WhirlWind youtube video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ltFuEKCnM4

[Steve Griffin]

The problem in this reasoning is that money is not owned collectively.

Remember when we were free?

5 star post.

[John Coloccia]

There's a conflict between what we seem to want. Let me discuss.

We live in a society and because of that, we receive certain benefits. For example, when our house catches on fire, we can call the fire department and they'll come to fight the fire. When we are injured in an accident, we can go to an emergency room and receive treatment - free, if we do not have any assets. For those benefits, and for many more not mentioned, we submit to certain rules and regulations. For example, we have building codes that reduce the chance of fire and slow the spread of fire once it starts. We have those codes because it costs society (all of us) money to maintain a fire department. Similarly, it costs all of us money, either in taxes or in increased insurance premiums, to pay for treating injuries. For businesses, we have OSHA to make safety rules and enforce them. For consumers we have the CPSC.

If everyone was willing to let buildings burn down if the individual did not have their own fire fighting equipment, or to let people die from injuries if they did not have the money to pay for their injuries, we could take the attitude of "what you do is your own business." But that's not the route we've taken as a society.

There's a balance in this, however, between cost and freedom - and that's what we should be discussing. We'll pay either way - either for safety features or for treating injured people. We have information on the costs. Which way do you want to pay?

Mike

I hear what you're saying, Mike, but if I have a problem with my building codes or something like that, I can walk down to the town hall and petition my case. If the codes become onerous, I can go around my neighborhood and get the zoning and building board fired. I can walk down to my fire department and have them tell me when they're happy with my fire suppression system for a spray booth.

When the CPSC rules, I have no real recourse. I have theoretical recourses, but as a practical matter they rule and am their subject, as though I'm a peasant on a lord's estate. I don't feel like we have much of a say over such matters. I would much prefer the free market to drive things like this, and by and large it HAS. SS is the best selling saw in the world as far as I know, and I also happen to know that others (in addition to Whirlwind) have been looking at SS alternative technology very seriously. There's no reason for anyone to step in and mandate what I buy when I can do it just as well myself.

[Dan Friedrichs]

The correct solution to your insurance dilemma would be for you to start your own insurance company (while you still can), and in all your policies declare that you're not covering table saw injuries. Then go ahead and sell yourself insurance. The correct solution is NOT to change everyone else's life around to make yours more convenient.

Well, a lot of places are taking similar approaches - the Baylor health system in Texas recently decided that they won't hire any employee who smokes (on or off the job) because of the additional healthcare cost they incur. It's certainly no major leap to go from there to dangerous equipment.

Ultimately, though, I can't totally isolate myself from people who are unwilling to use best safety practices, because if someone hurts themselves, my local ER is going to treat them (maybe even for free - or, put another way, at my expense).


This whole discussion seems to miss the point that when government mandates something big like this, the economies of scale will drive the cost way down, and encourage much more innovation. That is an excellent role for the government to take.

[phil harold]

I am a big fan on safety,
I wonder how many people wet their finger and gently touch the saw when sawing?

I would actually like to see a dry turkey leg shoved into the saw

[jim mills]

Has there been any discussion on how safe the SS technology REALLY is? Sure, I've seen the hot dog slowly feed into the spining blade, and I've even seen the owner of the company touch the spinning blade, But what if I'm forcefully feeding a board because the blade is dull, and I slip and jamb my hand into the spinning blade? Is the SS technology still as effective? How about slapping that hot dog down on the spinning blade at the speed of a slipping hand and see what happens? Seems like a waste of my favorite food, but I wonder what the result would be.

[David Kumm]

I suspect that if the Government is this far into it, they will write some sort of rules. Good or bad we will get used to it. Don't think for a minute that the economics of scale will keep the improvements from raising costs. Fact of life. Companies use safety mandates as an excuse to raise prices for some period of time. They are dumb if they don't. As time progresses the cost of the technology will come down but pricing pressure we are all guilty of demanding will also bring down the quality of components to maintain the margin at as low a price as possible. That includes the outsourcing of labor and materials. I am fine with paying for improvements. Makes us think before setting mandates. Compensating by shifting labor abroad or reducing quality, or assuming we can have and eat cake, upset me more. Dave

[Bill Maietta]

Great discussion here. If you haven't seen FWW's piece today on this, check it out. An email exchange with Steve Gass of Sawstop. He and the FWW writer say, in part (this is just me paraphrasing what I read, not any direct quote):
• the cost of adding sawstop technology to jobsite saws is estimated at $55 (we'll believe it when we see it, but it's not $1,000)
• the next step is for manufacturers to give CPSC advice on how to achieve greatly enhanced safety
• standard is preventing serious injury if flesh moving at one foot per second contacts the blade
• manufacturers have had a lot of input already as CPSC has worked on this
• costs of injuries are $2 - $3 billion annually
• FWW writer seems to strongly support riving knives as the solution, but Gass says that misses the point of the bulk of the injury costs and of the CPSC's investigation

Now, on the economic and political aspects of the problem:
Free markets are great things, but they aren't perfect. They fail sometimes. When markets get bigger they fail more often and in more ways. Failing basically means someone imposes a cost on others without having to pay for it. This is classic Econ and the classic examples are pollution, accidents and monopoly or oligopoly markets (any time it costs so much to start a business that it is extremely difficult to enter the market).

We're lucky, or something, two of the three classics apply to our table saw problem (pollution, including smoking, doesn't exactly apply). The third failure applies since Sawstop's entry (against the odds) to this market changed the stakes in the safety discussion.

We do pay for some of the costs of table saw accidents... insurance premiums, tax subsidies for huge insurance companies and for medical institutions, to name a few ways we pay. There are others.

This is what happens when free markets fail, everyone pays.

And that is precisely when government should come in to help... NOT in any socialist way, but usually at the request of capitalist businesses trying to balance costs and payments for market failures. Remember, most all of our politicians are pretty darn rich and got that way in our capitalist system. Many pols go back and forth between business and government, and all of them deal with big money lobbyists.

The idea is to mitigate the costs to society at large from the table saw industry's market failure. It's a natural part of any modern capitialist economy.

We should be able to give input, as primary consumers of TS's. I'll bet there's a nice little chunk of the overall TS market here at SMC. This link may be at the start of the thread, but in case, here it is again:
http://www.cpsc.gov/volstd/tablesaws/tablesaws.html

CPSC asks for comments at cpsc-os@cpsc.gov. The more people who comment, the more likely it is the a big agency will take note.

We want to keep our country free. However, freedom is not just the absence of government. In some cases we are not free unless government intervenes. The less intervention the better, but the economics here seem to me to make a lot of sense.

And hey, thanks for all the info. I read SMC a lot even if I rarely jump in. You all are the experts.

Bill