SawStop vs Non SS Table saws poll....Accidents and accidental firings

[Neil Brooks]

Awww.

I didn't get a chance to harangue Van about the "worthlessness" of HIS poll ??

I'm hurt

[ian maybury]

I don't want to get involved in controversy on this topic either, or get diverted into arcane arguments about whether or not terminology means one thing or another (practically speaking it means whatever the perceiver believes it means - there's no single right or wrong answer) - but I have been keeping an eye on the voting in the poll given the rumblings regarding the possibility of legislation to make compulsory this or a similar technology.

There are certainly problems in comparing Saw Stop users with non-Saw Stop users' numbers given the different ownership periods and and population sizes, but if the voting Saw Stop user group alone is reviewed we have 31 'never fired' versus 5 'injury preventions' versus 24 'accidental firings'.

As before I find those numbers pretty worrying for a technology that is being pushed as the basis for a possible national standard, in that 24 accidental firings seems one heck of a high number versus 5 injury preventions. It's also worrying that at least 40% (24/31+24+5) of the voting owners have experienced accidental firings.

Somebody said earlier that you can't consider cost (or something like that) when preventing injury. As a sentiment it has a certain politically correct appeal, but it's unfortunately and demonstrably untrue. First off it's impossible to eliminate all risk of injuries, but secondly our societies and economies would instantly grind to a halt if that same trade off wasn't made (and a practicable balance of risk vs. cost found) in businesses, agencies, private lives and more all over and every day.....

ian

[John Coloccia]

I don't want to get involved in controversy on this topic either, or get diverted into arcane arguments about whether or not terminology means one thing or another (practically speaking it means whatever the perceiver believes it means - there's no single right or wrong answer) - but I have been keeping an eye on the voting in the poll given the rumblings regarding the possibility of legislation to make compulsory this or a similar technology.

**snip**

Then don't. I'm going to do everything I can to keep bickering out of this thread because I would like to see this thread survive and see how things change as time goes on. I'd ask that if anyone has anything they'd like to discuss about the relative value of various technologies, start your own thread instead of derailing this one.

[Paul McGaha]

One thing that stands out to me is of the 228 (so far) non sawstop owners that have voted, 40 have had an injury on the table saw, about 17.5%, roughly 1 out of 6 users.

I dont have any information to compare that to but is a higher rate than I would have guessed.

PHM

[Carl Beckett]

Of course I will chime in with an opinion

I have a traditional saw, and a thumb that clicks every time I bend it. But I like that thumb and am happy they got it all back together to where it stayed on.

The next category of the poll might be:

"For those of you who have experienced and injury, does this make you more likely or less likely to consider safety for your next saw purchase". Safety could include SS technology, riving knife, overhead arm, etc etc.

Because for me the answer is YES, after experiencing an injury I am much more conscious of the safety features on the tablesaw. Being a machinist and lab tech for years, I was already pretty respectful but it bit me anyway. Accidents do happen. And as it turns out they happen to me. So if I can do something to improve my health and safety - even if its not a 100% guaranteed slam dunk prevention - I like to give it strong consideration.

Am thinking... .if we merged this thread with a thread about dust collection and which bandsaw to buy, we would get the mother of all threads.......

[Glen Blanchard]

<snip> Saw Stop user group alone is reviewed we have <snip> 24 'accidental firings'.

While this is true, I think it important to note that some (many?) of these were due to operator error (such as mine). There have been a number of firings for "unknown" reasons as well. The latter should indeed be a concern in regards to the technology employed, the former should not.

[johnny means]

As before I find those numbers pretty worrying for a technology that is being pushed as the basis for a possible national standard, in that 24 accidental firings seems one heck of a high number versus 5 injury preventions. It's also worrying that at least 40% (24/31+24+5) of the voting owners have experienced accidental firings.

Somebody said earlier that you can't consider cost (or something like that) when preventing injury. As a sentiment it has a certain politically correct appeal, but it's unfortunately and demonstrably untrue. First off it's impossible to eliminate all risk of injuries, but secondly our societies and economies would instantly grind to a halt if that same trade off wasn't made (and a practicable balance of risk vs. cost found) in businesses, agencies, private lives and more all over and every day.....

ian

Ian, I would consider that ratio very cost effective and would be very pleased with those types of numbers. Very likely those 29 firings, having an upward cost of $5000, save our society millions in shared cost due to medical expenses.

[Mike Heidrick]

Reading the 24 accidental firings number makes me want to see the number of non-SS users with trimmed miter gauges.

[Mike Henderson]

Somebody said earlier that you can't consider cost (or something like that) when preventing injury. As a sentiment it has a certain politically correct appeal, but it's unfortunately and demonstrably untrue. First off it's impossible to eliminate all risk of injuries, but secondly our societies and economies would instantly grind to a halt if that same trade off wasn't made (and a practicable balance of risk vs. cost found) in businesses, agencies, private lives and more all over and every day.....

ian

Of course cost has to be considered whenever any safety device is used. If you read the CPSC filing, that's one of the major issues raised by the commission in their debate on whether additional safety devices should be required. The cost of the table saw injuries was so high - actual medical cost, not things like loss of ability to work - that it's pretty easy to justify the addition of a safety device of the SawStop type.

Mike

[ian maybury]

Just to be clear - I'm not unduly concerned about the issue, and for sure it's only a straw poll.

That said there's a gazillion things we get up to as societies that probably an even more powerful anti case can be made against on economic grounds - speculative banking activities, smoking, alcohol, sports, risky food additives, poor dietary habits, gambling with climate, biospheric and environmental risks to name but a few.

I doubt that politically the average Joe would be very happy to accept that level of false firings (for which he gets to pay) for the greater good.

There's also the little problem of moving goalposts - as discussed before when you dumb down things people proportionately drop their awareness to the level of risk they perceive as being personally acceptable. With the result that accident levels tend to remain constant.

Not to mention that rules tend by definition to target extreme behaviours at the expense of the majority that behave reasonably.

Add the fact that every time we run with rules that we tend to mobilise a whole slew of competing vested interests. Once implemented and staffed we've very definitely created a pro lobby that mostly doesn't care about the rights and the wrongs - and the lesson of successive societies is that reversal becomes almost impossible.

Worst of all this same self interest means that organisational systems in general never truly solve problems when a lack of care for self and others is at their root - the best they can hope for is to achieve some sort of temporary stasis.

Meaning that while it's tough to argue for the complete elimination of regulation it's dodgy territory needing a lot more care than the usual camel type solutions the dog fight tends to deliver...

ian

[John Coloccia]

This is precisely why I get on everyone about the poll and it's purpose. It's because this thread will rapidly turn into a bickering match and will rapidly get nuked, like all such threads. I'd rather it just exist so that people can continue to vote if they wish to, and everyone can draw their own conclusions. If someone wants to argue about regulation, insurance, what they think is reasonable or unreasonable, etc, please start your own thread and feel free to reference this one, but I just ask that we all keep the philosophy out of this one so it doesn't go off the deep end and disappear.

[Harold Burrell]

Just to be clear - I'm not unduly concerned about the issue, and for sure it's only a straw poll.

That said there's a gazillion things we get up to as societies that probably an even more powerful anti case can be made against on economic grounds - speculative banking activities, smoking, alcohol, sports, risky food additives, poor dietary habits, gambling with climate, biospheric and environmental risks to name but a few.

I doubt that politically the average Joe would be very happy to accept that level of false firings (for which he gets to pay) for the greater good.

There's also the little problem of moving goalposts - as discussed before when you dumb down things people proportionately drop their awareness to the level of risk they perceive as being personally acceptable. With the result that accident levels tend to remain constant.

Not to mention that rules tend by definition to target extreme behaviours at the expense of the majority that behave reasonably.

Add the fact that every time we run with rules that we tend to mobilise a whole slew of competing vested interests. Once implemented and staffed we've very definitely created a pro lobby that mostly doesn't care about the rights and the wrongs - and the lesson of successive societies is that reversal becomes almost impossible.

Worst of all this same self interest means that organisational systems in general never truly solve problems when a lack of care for self and others is at their root - the best they can hope for is to achieve some sort of temporary stasis.

Meaning that while it's tough to argue for the complete elimination of regulation it's dodgy territory needing a lot more care than the usual camel type solutions the dog fight tends to deliver...

ian

Dude...I'm thinking that just for reading that post I should get some kind of college credit.