Latest from CPSC on the Tablesaw Issue

[David Kumm]

Yes John, manufacturers are in a bind when dealing with safety equipment. They can not offer it on certain machines or as options. It is all or none. Partial means you become your own worst witness. Not sensible but the way it is. Dave

[Greg Peterson]

The legal system protects the patent holder, in this case SS, from having their invention used without license, and it may ultimately be the legal system that mandates the SS technology. That and the manufacturer that fails to make it standard equipment on all their models is asking for trouble. So by not implementing the technology they are able to avoid lawsuits based on reasonable safety.

I recall reading at one time that Gass had been working the legal levers to get a mandate on the books, providing him with an upper hand in licensing negotiations. While this tactic is legal I also find it unethical despite the obvious benefit to all.

Kevin - The case you mention has many angles. The worker filed his own claim, but the company's workers' compensation insurer hired his legal team and joined the claim as a third party. Seems they were tired of paying out on these types if injuries, especially since there was technology that could have prevented such an accident.

But more to the point, SS and Ryobi had an agreement to implement the SS technology. According to Gass and the plaintiffs, the depositions from Ryobi representatives at trial pointed fingers at one another over why the contract was never ironed out and the technology installed.

In short, Ryobi could not offer a substantive answer in court as to why the technology they signed off on was never implemented. Ergo, Ryobi was negligent in that they did not make their saw reasonably safe.

Given the various technologies available, I can think of no reason why a table saw should be considered an inherently dangerous tool.

[Dan Friedrichs]

I thing the gov should stay the heck out of our lives. This is not their job. The technology is out there. If you want it you can buy it, if you don't you shouldn't be forced.

I want to buy a car without airbags and seatbelts! It's none of the government's job to say how safe my car ought to be! The technology is out there for people who want it.

(see how silly that sounds?)

[Seth Dolcourt]

Missing here is the fact that you (not you, personally, but the "royal" you) can turn off the flesh sensing technology on a Saw Stop, each and every cut, as Saw Stop provides a manufacturer approved method to cut wood that bypasses the brake. http://www.sawstop.com/documents/Con...e (Aug 08).pdf Your rebellion against government mandated safety can be effected, each time you power on the saw.

Royal You can drive without a seatbelt fastened, any time. Yes, you don't have to wear your seat belt. Though a sharp-eyed cop might suddenly take interest in any other violations you might be committing for an excuse to pull you over. Many thanks, because if the cop is engaged with you, the cop is not engaged with me. Oh, remember to argue with the cop...that keeps the officer off patrol for a little longer, further helping the rest of society to be free of the jack-booted tyranny of government.

Try this approach:

Dear CPSC,

Thank you for mandating that baby cribs meet certain specifications so that our children and grandchildren are not inconveniently made dead by falling out the of the crib if the drop-down gate unexpected drops, or by naughtily trapping their heads in between the slats and choking them, that the babies may grow up to adulthood, and one day protest against too much safety regulation.

Further, I'd like you to promote safety in woodworking machinery, so that woodworkers might use all 10 of their fingers (or however many are not otherwise engaged with their nose, ear, arm pit, etc.) to type emails to you protesting against too much safety regulation.

If disappointment is the greatest weapon a parent might use against their children, it's necessary that the government execute an action of irony against its citizens.

Thank You,

John Q. Public

Edit: http://www.cpsc.gov/cgibin/sect15.aspx

[Kevin W Johnson]

Someone else mentioned smoking....

It still boils down to the fact that the governments wish to make one "safe" ends where it collects money in the form of taxes. $2-3 billion in healthcare costs related to table saws? Whats the cost of smoking related healthcare? From a USA Today article in 2009.... "figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that smokers cost the country $96 billion a year in direct health care costs, and an additional $97 billion a year in lost productivity." For those slow in math, thats $193 billion. So, their first concern is table saws? Really? Now, don't get me wrong, I personally tripped a sawstop table saw at a demo at Woodcraft today. I think its a great safety addition. Can i currently afford one? NO. However, it should remain a choice if one chooses to spend the extra for a SS (or similar) equipped machine.

Now, if the arguement for mandating SS (or similar tech) on table saws because the yearly cost is $2-3 billion in injuries, then lets all request that our insurance buy us a SS and tell them just how much money we're saving them if they do.

[Kevin W Johnson]

Furthermore, manufacturers should be able to offer saws with and without such features, without the fear of being sued because one chose without and cut their fingers off. Lawsuits like the one above should never have seen the light in a courtroom, period. In this case, since it did, the jury SHOULD have been of his peers, WOODWORKERS. Woodworkers who would have had no pity on him for doing something so stupid.

[Steve Griffin]

I want to buy a car without airbags and seatbelts! It's none of the government's job to say how safe my car ought to be! The technology is out there for people who want it.

(see how silly that sounds?)

What sounds silly to me is comparing expensive sawstop technology to seatbelts.

I can think of hundreds of 1000 dollar safety features a car COULD have, like finger detection at each door to prevent smashed fingers. Did you know according to a report released by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, nearly 150,000 people in the U.S. are injured every year by closing car doors. Car door stop technology is the only answer, all other answers are silly.

[Henry Ambrose]

If a blade braking system shows itself to have real benefit it will find its place in the market, no help from government needed.
We don't need anymore nanny state regulations. Government "picking the winner" by providing regulation or law favoring one manufacturer or "technology holder" over others is corrosive and corrupting. Before too long the competition of the marketplace is replaced with the competition to hire the best lobbyist.

[Leo Graywacz]

I want to buy a car without airbags and seatbelts! It's none of the government's job to say how safe my car ought to be! The technology is out there for people who want it.

(see how silly that sounds?)

Doesn't sound silly at all. Back in the day when we didn't have then there were still accidents. But those accidents had benefits (believe it or not). When someone has a fatal car accident someone else, or possible several people will now survive. They were the people getting to organs that were harvested from the unfortunate accident victims. Now the hospitals are always scrounging for organs to transplant.

This was not mandated by the gov, it was mandated by the insurance lobbyists.

My mother still won't use a seatbelt. I don't know why, but she won't. She has still survived even though the gov put her off as a person with a death wish.

We have been making laws for over 230 years now. Don't you think we have enough?

[David Kumm]

I'm not sure it is fair to use babies to justify every regulation in the history of the world. Each must stand on its own. Some are needed, some are not. The mandate might help employers and schools to have a choice. Great old saws are thrown out and replaced with SS. At least some real production machines might be an option. It will be interesting to see if the job site saws get disabled and who will be liable then. At least until they quit putting staples in every 2x4 made. Dave

[Greg Peterson]

In a recent report on NPR, it was stated that many table saw manufacturers claimed the cost of adding the brake would cost between $100-$200. My hunch is this figure is probably somewhat inflated and that the scale of economy will eventually lower this expense.

I'm sure that anyone with an aversion to the technology, for what ever reason, likely has all ten digits. It is an antiquated, even quaint, notion that table saws are inherently dangerous. And how many that have posted here in opposition to SS already have a TS with no plans on upgrading?

During a trip the emergency room earlier this year to stitch up the aftermath of a utility knife gone wild, the doctor sewing me up was telling me about the disproportionate number of retired men he sees with table saw injuries. He did not go into extreme detail but did mention the wounds are gruesome messes. Lots of torn, mangled flesh and bone. Pretty nasty injury. I bet many of these patients would not choose to spend their golden years rehabbing from a TS accident.

There are millions of table saws in garages and shops that don't have a splitter or blade guard. Any hobbyist should have little problem buying a TS without the latest safety technology.

[Leo Graywacz]

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

[mreza Salav]

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

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).

[Howard Acheson]

>>>> How about slapping that hot dog down on the spinning blade at the speed of a slipping hand and see what happens?

That was done years ago. The hot dog was affixed to the end of a stick and couple of feet long as I recall. The dog was slammed into the spinning blade. A surgeon assessed the wound to require a couple of stitches to close with no damage to tendons or bones.

I believe the write up on this is on the SawStop web site.

[Howard Acheson]

>>>> 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

That has always been a point of contention. I believe that the cost of the components of the SawStop technology may be $55 but SawStop claims that you can't just install the components on an existing saw. The saw must be designed for it. The forces required to stop and lower the blade would damage saws not engineered to withstand those forces. The $1,000 could be the costs associated with the design or re-design of a saw.