Sawstop Injury I didn't think this could happen.

[Carlos Alvarez]

Why in the world (other than while using a crosscut sled) would someone not use a riving knife, at a minimum, with their table saw?

Dunno, why would you? It seems to help nothing. I guess the moment I stopped is when I got zero-clearance inserts that didn't have the cutout. (Obviously yes I can add them, I didn't, and have gone years without any reason to.) I have an overheard arm with a crappy blade guard on it, so I can use the guard without the knife, when desired.

But I just ordered a Shark Guard primarily for the DC function, and it will come with a knife which must be used since it's also the support.

[Simon MacGowen]

Martin's way of saying this is a bit more provocative than how I would, but he's essentially right. People who design complex, potentially dangerous systems understand and assume in their engineering that components will fail from time to time, and operators will make mistakes or fail to perform to requirements from time to time. So in addition to the effort we put into making sure the technology is as reliable as we can get it, and people are well trained, to the degree possible, we design every process and it's associated toolset so that the failure of a component or actor won't result in catastrophic harm. That's how you minimize adverse outcomes - injuries, production failures, etc.

Which makes much of the discussion in this thread rather foolish itself. There are no silver bullets. If your goal is to minimize imjuries, you don't choose safe technique or safe tools, you focus on safe technique using safe tools.

But if Martin is fair in some sense in saying even in highly safety conscious and successful industries, like commercial aviation, people "don't trust" technology, it's a rather misleading oversimplification. We certainly rely on technology, albeit with a healthy understanding that we have to accommodate situations where it might fail. When our surgeons perform a robotic, laparoscopic surgery, they most definitely are trusting that the technology will work, and simultaneously trusting that we've got adequate fail-safe tools and procedures in the event it fails. That is, they do not perform every move in the surgery with a calculation of what they are going to do if the device doesn't behave as expected. They trust - assume - that it will. But they know that they and their team also know what to do if it today is the 1 in 100,000 or whatever when it doesn't.

I am surprised that you would rely on things or people that you don't trust.

If I don't trust an employee, I won't hire him or her. That doesn't not mean I have no checks and balances in place.

If I don't trust my surgeon and the technology he or she uses, I won't go under his or her knife. Period. The fact that every system or procedure has a back-up does not mean it is not trustful. I have candles and torches at home but I trust my power supply.

Looks like you are not much different in terms of trying to split hair, trying to defend the notion that even mature technology can not be trusted while continuing to rely on technology for a comfortable life. If you are not splitting hair, then you don't understand the basic concept of trust and the concept of backup.

Simon

[Mark Hennebury]

https://www.cnn.com/2017/12/13/asia/...ntl/index.html

Everyone will die, some just live longer. The choice is personal.

The only objection I have against people taking unnecessary risk is when their actions affect others negatively -- directly or indirectly. If they don't, be my guest. Lives are always full of risks and we can only try to manage the risks that we want to manage.

Simon

Hey Simon, you would have a hard time finding anything to do that does not carry some risk that could affect other negatively; Smoke, drink, exercise, don't exercise, watch too much TV, spend too much time on the computer. How about sports, totally unnecessary, simply for personal enjoyment, lots of sports related injuries i hear. Do you ski? totally unnecessary risky indulgence, you could wear a helmet, wouldn't stop you from breaking your neck and costing the health care system a fortune though would it. What about eating too much, are you over weight? because that could put a big burden on the health care system, and it would not be right to make others pay for your personal indulgence.

You would have to live a pretty exemplary life to not risk negatively affecting others.

Everyone picks their poison, but if any woodworker says that they prefer to remove the guards, they get bombarded with insults, called a blight on society and dumb morons that get what they deserve if they get injured.
If your liked to ski, how would you like to be called a dumb moron that deserves to break your neck for taking unnecessary risks that put a burden on society.

The fact is lots of people have worked for years without guards. They have right to work how they see fit. they are neither a blight on society, or morons.

[Simon MacGowen]

Hey Simon, you would have a hard time finding anything to do that does not carry some risk that could affect other negatively; Smoke, drink, exercise, don't exercise, watch too much TV, spend too much time on the computer. How about sports, totally unnecessary, simply for personal enjoyment, lots of sports related injuries i hear. Do you ski? totally unnecessary risky indulgence, you could wear a helmet, wouldn't stop you from breaking your neck and costing the health care system a fortune though would it. What about eating too much, are you over weight? because that could put a big burden on the health care system, and it would not be right to make others pay for your personal indulgence.

You would have to live a pretty exemplary life to not risk negatively affecting others.

Everyone picks their poison, but if any woodworker says that they prefer to remove the guards, they get bombarded with insults, called a blight on society and dumb morons that get what they deserve if they get injured.
If your liked to ski, how would you like to be called a dumb moron that deserves to break your neck for taking unnecessary risks that put a burden on society.

The fact is lots of people have worked for years without guards. They have right to work how they see fit. they are neither a blight on society, or morons.

I thought I was pretty clear about managing risks; I do not live with any illusion that there are no risks in life. Unnecessary risks are those that you can take measures to mitigate against them, but you simply ignore them. My choice is a SS as I know it reduces my chances of getting seriously hurt in a tablesaw incident.

If someone smokes in a designated smoking area and I do not become a second smoker as a result of their actions, it is their business not mine. I manage my risks by avoiding these people when they are smoking.

When I choose to engage in sports, I am confronted with calculated risks, not unnecessary risks and for calculated risks I take up measures to reduce them such as wearing my helmet. Unnecessary risks in sports are those when you bike or ski without using the proper safety gear. Taking part in sports is not unnecessary risk.

Burden on the healthcare system of course is a concern. That is why I support financial measures that reward those who live a healthy lifestyle such as lower insurance premiums for non-smokers etc.

Last, my position on the use of guards or no guards has always been clear: as long as one who doesn't use a guard on the tablesaw is confining the risk of injury to oneself, who cares? You can find a similar statement of mine in one of my posts. Abusive words like stupid, idiots, morons, dumb, etc. are used by those who can't debate with reasons or facts; I look down on those posts.

Simon

[Bill Dufour]

One thing about Alex is anyone can tell that what he is doing is not completely safe and he needs to be careful.. Someone cutting wood on a tablesaw may not realize the dangers and not know they need to take precautions.
My wife comments every time we go to Yosemite that those climbers could fall down. They have passed laws and they have to haul there own poop and pee up with them.
Bill

I wonder if you have to sign a safety wavier to stay at this hotel. Better not be a sleep walker.

https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/s...tel/index.html

[jack duren]

https://sawmillcreek.org/showthread....ss-Duke-it-out!

[Ron Citerone]

In my mind it comes down to the quality of the guard. The new SS guard that I've seen picture of look usable. I was forced to use a "mickey mouse" guard that came with the saw at work. The insurance company pushed the issue that it was required for all "through cuts." The problem was the splitter was so poorly designed wood was always getting jammed or rubbing against it so that I had to push hard to get the wood through. Crosscutting was difficult because the plastic part that covered the blade did not always go up smoothly and again feeding stock was difficult.....................The anti kickback pawls were another issue.

I used the guard because I did not want to lose my job, but I felt I was more likely to have an accident using the guard than not.

The issue wasn't that I wanted to work unsafely, but I felt no guard was better than that guard.

[Charles P. Wright]

Guards being used or not shouldnt be the point of this tread. Isn’t the exact purpose of the sawstop mechanism designed to account for stupid human error? The guy stuck his hand into the blade on accident and the sawstop didn’t perform as advertised due to the blade he was using which wasn’t rated to be used on the sawstop because of its design. If he used all of the safety equipment all the time then he wouldn’t need the sawstop. This guys situation is what sawstop guy always touts as why they own one. Now all I’m reading are guards and proper technique were the problem which is what anti sawstop guy has always said is the actual safety needed when operating a saw.

He got cut, and needed an ER visit; but he still has all his fingers. It's really impossible to know if that would be the case otherwise. This doesn't strike me as either pro-or-anti Sawstop, people will spin it either way they want.

[Michael Rector]

The argument seems to be between “gut” and “actuaries”. Which is really the problem with statistics and anecdotes, you can’t apply statistics to the individual only to a group.

If you have two groups, one that uses guards and one that doesn’t, the actuaries will tell you that the group as a whole who use guards has fewer injuries than the group who doesn’t. That’s why injury insurance costs are reduced by safety equipment.

However, none of this can be applied to an individual. You can’t say that statistics show that YOU are more likely to hurt yourself without a guard, only that the group you’re in is more likely to have injuries.

Now, going back to recommendations for collective you can say that woodworkers who use safety equipment are less likely to have injuries than those who don’t. Feel free to choose which group you’d like to be a part of.

[Steve Demuth]

I am surprised that you would rely on things or people that you don't trust. Simon

Simon,

I think you misunderstood what I intended. As I said, when Martin says we "don't trust technology" that is misleading. We do trust - rely on - technology, but we do it with the explicit understanding that it will in some rare cases fail. Same with people. So where life is at stake, we layer technology protection on top of people expertise on top of other technology guardrails. So we reduce the likelihood of an end-to-end failure to the smallest probability we can afford to achieve. In other words, we trust both technology and people to work, but we don't trust them to work perfectly. Nothing that is more than trivially complex ever works perfectly. Anyone who trusts a technology or a person to execute perfectly all the time is going to get hurt. If you layer them together, though, you can reduce the likelihood and severity of hurt.

The story in the video is a great example of multiple failure modes of even a fairly simple system: The guy 1) disabled one technology protection deliberately (no guard); 2) did something he knew better than (reached across and into the blade); 3) partially disabled a second technical guard either through ignorance or deliberate oversight (used a shouldered blade that makes saw stop technology much less effective). As a result he suffered an injury he shouldn't have had at all, and it was more severe than it should have been. On the other hand, it appears that his injury wasn't very severe in the big picture, because the saw stop technology mostly worked.

[Simon MacGowen]

[QUOTE=Steve Demuth;2784351]Simon,

I think you misunderstood what I intended. As I said, when Martin says we "don't trust technology" that is misleading. We do trust - rely on - technology, but we do it with the explicit understanding that it will in some rare cases fail.

My apologies for misreading your post.

Simon

[Marc Rochkind]

Actually, there's no proof that the SawStop technology reduces injuries to experienced, trained, and careful woodworkers. True, there are many reported cases where a body part touched the blade, the saw stopped, and the injury was minor or nonexistent. But that doesn't mean that there would have been an injury had a conventional saw been used.

[Added] SawStop technology might even increase other injuries, such as those from kickback, because of misunderstandings about what the technology can actually do and not do.

Until comprehensive data is collected about table saw injuries, complete enough so that variables can be controlled for (age, health, experience, time spent in shop, etc.), we won't know what the overall benefit of SawStop technology is.

If the woodworker is inexperienced, untrained, and careless (and has no business being in the shop at all), then I could see, even without data, that SawStop would reduce injuries. But how many Sawmill Creek members are inexperienced, untrained, and careless?

I think of it this way: Right now, I am extremely careful when making cuts, knowing how dangerous my saw is. Would I be that careful if I thought the saw was safer? Also, my shop is full of power equipment that doesn't have a SawStop equivalent, even if I wanted to buy such a thing. It's better to treat all power equipment the same: DANGEROUS.

This is sort of similar to a story I heard of a country intersection with no stop sign. Everyone in the county knew it was dangerous. After a stop sign was put up, accidents increased. The theory is that the stop sign encouraged drivers with the right-of-way to drive as if they had the right-of-way.

[Nick Decker]

You know the shortest debates I've seen here? Whether or not SawStops are high quality tools. I'm awaiting delivery on my second SawStop, both of which were purchased primarily because of their quality and the quality of the company's customer service.

[mreza Salav]

Would I be that careful if I thought the saw was safer?

Are you driving more recklessly now that the cars have a lot more safety features compared to 30 years ago? Anybody who does that is making a big mistake.
There are plenty of data out there regarding the number of amputations on table saws per year and it should be possible to find how many are just weekend worriers or hobbyist and how many are professionals. I suspect that a sawstop will not detect what type of user you are and the reduction will be equal for hobbyist and professionals :-)

[Martin Wasner]

You know the shortest debates I've seen here? Whether or not SawStops are high quality tools. I'm awaiting delivery on my second SawStop, both of which were purchased primarily because of their quality and the quality of the company's customer service.

Start another thread and I'll discuss that one with you.