Latest from CPSC on the Tablesaw Issue

[Leo Graywacz]

All you are talking about is the brake cartridge. There and many mechanical aspects to the SS machine that normal machines just don't have. How do you suspect my Unisaw will lower itself in the split second that the SS does? It is not capable of doing that, it is locked into the gear system and nothing you do will let it drop that fast. The SS has an override mechanism that performs that action. And as to field saws, the same thing. They are not designed to operate in this fashion.

[Bill Maietta]

That $55 figure was not about retrofit. It was an estimate for adding flesh sensing to future job site saws designs. It's from the FWW email exchange with Sawstop's Stephen Gass. I'm still not sold it could be that cheap. Who knows? Innovation is a beautiful thing. Speaking of which, what will table saws look like in 50 years? In 100? 500? How safe will they be then? Is it possible that increasing safety could be the best thing for the long term health of machine makers? Remember that this CPSC process is as much a business endeavor as it is government bureaucracy. We always want to pit the two against each other. I blame 24-hour news networks for that. The reality is, not much difference between the two. Often same people changing hats and seats over time. Government working with business to rework regs to promote innovation?? Crazy.

[Neil Brooks]

A few months ago, I dragged out my tired old "I want a cabinet sawwwwwww" song and dance -- same one I've been doing, on and off, for a few years.

My brother is a woodworker, and -- for years -- was the rep for MagSwitch. Industry insider. He's also ... ahem ... verrrrrry politically conservative.

I asked him ... "So ... if you were going to plop down the money for a 'buy once, cry once' cabinet saw, what would YOU buy ??"

He scratched his head ... hemmed and hawed ... and said ... "I guess I'd have to buy the SawStop, because of that darned braking technology." You could tell ... it killed him to say that

I've said it many times before: I ride a motorcycle, but with ATGATT (All The Gear, All The Time), and a bicycle (with a helmet). I wear my seat belts, and have air bags. I'll buy me some insurance, if/when the price is right.

I have my issues with Gass's approach, and my suspicions that they could -- in the end -- backfire on him, if only in part.

But ... guess what's sitting in crates and boxes ... in my garage ... until we finally move ? Give you a hint: it's 220V, 1ph, 5HP, and ... rhymes with JawSlop

And I get giddy when I peek out at it. Current shop is in the basement, though. No 220V, and NO desire to get 700lbs down AND up, in a span of a half year It's much more fun to just sit, and listen to the gentle sounds of the saw depreciating, but ... I don't care ... since I ain't never gonna' sell it

[Greg Peterson]

Yep, pretty sure the SS would prevent these injuries. They would look at the price of the saw and say I can't afford that and find a different hobby

I say that now about any professional grade cabinet saw.

If I had a choice between a modern table saw with or without a SS braking system, a 5%-8% difference is not a deal breaker. I would absolutely choose the safer of the two. $200 wouldn't even cover the deductible for the emergency room visit.

If there is a technology that reduces serious injuries, frees up medical resources and decreases medical expenses to all, I think there is an obligation by industry to implement that technology.

Delta can put all the bells and whistles on their Unisaw, but failing to implement a braking technology on their latest product indicates what they think of their customers.

[Stephen Cherry]

My brother is a woodworker, and -- for years -- was the rep for MagSwitch. Industry insider. He's also ... ahem ... verrrrrry politically conservative.

I asked him ... "So ... if you were going to plop down the money for a 'buy once, cry once' cabinet saw, what would YOU buy ??"

He scratched his head ... hemmed and hawed ... and said ... "I guess I'd have to buy the SawStop, because of that darned braking technology." You could tell ... it killed him to say that

Neil, I think you are missing the point- your brother is talking about his own personal choice, not the choice made by a beurocrat who may have gotten a call from a representative, who was "influenced" (remember the 50 K dollars) by a lobiest because a manufacturer of a product did not want to compete in a free market.

Your brother was taking about choice for his needs, but how about someone who works mostly on pressure treated wood? Or the person who dosen't really differentiate the dryness of wood. Don't these saws fire off on pressure treated? I know one thing for sure, if this technology is mandated, and then sold at a "satisfaction gauranteed" store, the returns are going to be astronomical, and may even sink a few ships.

All with good intentions, plus a little non-competative greed. Remember greed? The thing to remember about greed is that greed is good when both parties of an exchange enter at their own free will. Buyer and seller are both winners. Anything else could be characterized by theft.

All I can say is that if this technology was so great, it wouldn't need to be crammed down anyones throat.

[Greg Peterson]

...how about someone who works mostly on pressure treated wood? Or the person who dosen't really differentiate the dryness of wood. Don't these saws fire off on pressure treated? I know one thing for sure, if this technology is mandated, and then sold at a "satisfaction gauranteed" store, the returns are going to be astronomical, and may even sink a few ships.

All with good intentions, plus a little non-competative greed. Remember greed? The thing to remember about greed is that greed is good when both parties of an exchange enter at their own free will. Buyer and seller are both winners. Anything else could be characterized by theft.

All I can say is that if this technology was so great, it wouldn't need to be crammed down anyones throat.

The brake can be disabled by the user.

There are some very good legal reasons why the technology is not available. Ryobi learned the hard way that they needed a better reason for not installing the technology than they gave in court. The technology is proven but the manufacturers likely don't want to pay the licensing fee. And then there is the matter of whether they have a legal obligation to make it standard equipment on all their models.

Perhaps you would be willing to sign a waiver on your health insurance so that any table saw accident you experience will not be covered by your policy?

The 'free market' has as much in common with a fair market as the justice system has with the legal system. Why not at least let the 'free market' operate in the way it always has and deliver a consumer friendly technology?

[Stephen Cherry]

The brake can be disabled by the user.

Perhaps you would be willing to sign a waiver on your health insurance so that any table saw accident you experience will not be covered by your policy?

The 'free market' has as much in common with a fair market as the justice system has with the legal system. Why not at least let the 'free market' operate in the way it always has and deliver a consumer friendly technology?

This is my point:


1. if the thing worked, it would not need to be disabled. When it is disabled, who would be responsible for the users safety?
2. My health insurance is between me and my insurer, and really not for you to tell me what waiver to sign (nothing personal, just making a point) Plus my table saw is worlds better than any sawstop. With a format style saw your hand is nowhere near the blade, and you have a good overarm guard, good workholding, and a real riving knife, and dust collection that is something more than an afterthought. But sawstop is paying the lobyist, so that is what will be crammed.
3. The free market is actually working, there are contractor saws, cabinet saws, the sawstop, and the eurosliders. Something for everyone. So what you (nothing personal) consider safe is already here. What this thinking will end up doing is making a contractor who works in wet wood buy technology that he does not want or need. It is not economically efficient. And if it is any value to you, it erodes your personal freedom and replaces it with an arbitrary decision of a beurocrat to benifit a company that desired not to compete in the marketplace.

Basically, there are two types of people in the world,
1. those who want to make their own decisions, and respect others to make decisions for themselves; and
2. those who want someone else to decide for everyone

[Greg Peterson]

if the thing worked, it would not need to be disabled. When it is disabled, who would be responsible for the users safety?

I guess your definition is 'works' is an absolute without variance. I'll settle for the unit working with low moisture wood. As for who is responsible for users safety when the unit is disabled, that is an interesting question. I would assume that the user is responsible. SawStop can not be held responsible for accidents where the unit was disabled. There are simply situations that are beyond the present technology of SS to address.

Basically, there are two types of people in the world,
1. those who want to make their own decisions, and respect others to make decisions for themselves; and
2. those who want someone else to decide for everyone

I think this is a pretty broad brush you are using. But I will agree there is a very vocal minority that embrace a hierarchy and authoritarianism.

[Mike Henderson]

This is my point:


1. if the thing worked, it would not need to be disabled. When it is disabled, who would be responsible for the users safety?
2. My health insurance is between me and my insurer, and really not for you to tell me what waiver to sign (nothing personal, just making a point) Plus my table saw is worlds better than any sawstop. With a format style saw your hand is nowhere near the blade, and you have a good overarm guard, good workholding, and a real riving knife, and dust collection that is something more than an afterthought. But sawstop is paying the lobyist, so that is what will be crammed.
3. The free market is actually working, there are contractor saws, cabinet saws, the sawstop, and the eurosliders. Something for everyone. So what you (nothing personal) consider safe is already here. What this thinking will end up doing is making a contractor who works in wet wood buy technology that he does not want or need. It is not economically efficient. And if it is any value to you, it erodes your personal freedom and replaces it with an arbitrary decision of a beurocrat to benifit a company that desired not to compete in the marketplace.

Basically, there are two types of people in the world,
1. those who want to make their own decisions, and respect others to make decisions for themselves; and
2. those who want someone else to decide for everyone

Remember that the ANPR does not specify the SawStop technology. What companies implement will be up to them so any arguments about the advantages and disadvantages of the SawStop technology are not germane to this discussion.

Plus, there is a third type of person - a person who wants to minimize the overall cost to society.

Mike

[Neil Brooks]

Neil, I think you are missing the point-

Not really, Stephen.

More like ... ignoring the most hacked-away-at topic in woodworking: the politics of SawStop.

Besides ... I figured I'd try to create at least one post that the moderators could leave behind, after they purge this thread of all the political (against the Terms of Use, for SMC) stuff

[Kent A Bathurst]

That might be a good thing depending on how you look at it; there are many people who shouldn't be using some tools (lack of proper training).

Fair enough. So then, who gets to cull the herd on what technology each person is allowed to buy?

[John Coloccia]

Part of the problem is Gass politicized the issue by seeking legal and regulatory remedy to his vision of the world. I have a SS but it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. How do you separate the issues when they've become so intimately intertwined. I'll say this. My SS contractor saw is far and away the best contractor saw I've ever had the pleasure of using. The saws themselves are world class, and it's a shame that they couldn't just leave well enough alone.

[Dan Friedrichs]

2. My health insurance is between me and my insurer, and really not for you to tell me what waiver to sign (nothing personal, just making a point)

If you believe that to be true, you have a very specious grasp of how insurance works. If you and I are policyholders of the same company, your risk-taking directly translates into my premiums.

[Kevin W Johnson]

Just as your risk taking affects his. Yet he can't tell you not to smoke, or what car you have to drive based on crash ratings, or what food you can or cannot eat either.

[Kevin W Johnson]

As for who is responsible for users safety when the unit is disabled, that is an interesting question. I would assume that the user is responsible. SawStop can not be held responsible for accidents where the unit was disabled. There are simply situations that are beyond the present technology of SS to address.

I can tell you who's gonna lose that lawsuit, the manufacturer. The guy in this case buys or uses a table saw bought knowing that it didnt possess a "flesh detecting device", the fool not only doesn't use the guard, but doesn't even use the fence while attempting to rip a board, injures himself, and wins a lawsuit.

NO ONE should be allowed to even file such a lawsuit when they could have bought a saw with such a feature or device and didn't. Period.

The manufacturer will once again be under the gun when someone injures themselve in bypass mode. The arguement will be that it should have been designed as such as to not have to bypass it.....or one of a thousand other excuses why its someone else's fault that someone hurt themselves.