View Poll Results: Where do you fall?

Voters
489. You may not vote on this poll
  • SS Owner: brake has never fired and no injuries

    49 10.02%
  • SS Owner: I've been injured

    5 1.02%
  • SS Owner: Brake fired accidentally

    37 7.57%
  • SS Owner: Brake fired and prevented an injury

    8 1.64%
  • Non SS Owner: I've been injured

    69 14.11%
  • Non SS Owner: no injuries

    336 68.71%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst ... 2345678 LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 109

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

  1. #76
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Kapolei Hawaii
    Posts
    3,236
    Quote Originally Posted by Van Huskey View Post
    This reminds me of a "simple" poll I put up one time just trying to get an idea how many people made part or all of their living via woodworking, I ash it and use the word "pro" to signify those who made their living working with wood. It became a huge discussion about professionalism and I suppose some people got their feelings hurt when their idea of "pro" was being reduced to anyone that did their type of work, not just ones that rose to the level of craftmanship they felt they exibited....
    I think I remember that poll. It amazed me how many people rant on and did not even read the O.P. that clearly defined "pro". If they disagree with the definition of "pro" they should start another poll....

  2. #77
    Thought I'd qualify my vote as SS owner with 2 accidental firings. Both were operator error, me and an employee. Both were a miter gauge contact.

  3. #78
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Northern Colorado
    Posts
    1,884
    Awww.

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

    I'm hurt
    He's no fun. He fell right over !

  4. #79
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    'over here' - Ireland
    Posts
    2,532
    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
    Last edited by Dennis Peacock; 03-29-2012 at 8:24 AM.

  5. #80
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    6,670
    Quote Originally Posted by ian maybury View Post
    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.

  6. #81
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Wake Forest, North Carolina
    Posts
    1,981
    Blog Entries
    2
    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

  7. #82
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Conway, Arkansas
    Posts
    13,181
    Non-SS tablesaw here. Been using non-SS since the 1970's. Still have all digits (I am a musician ya know. ) and I'm also a woodworker. No injuries...but I have had ONE piece of wood kicked back....SS doesn't fix kickback.
    Thanks & Happy Wood Chips,
    Dennis -
    Get the Benefits of Being an SMC Contributor..!
    ....DEBT is nothing more than yesterday's spending taken from tomorrow's income.

  8. #83
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    MA
    Posts
    2,253
    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.......

  9. #84
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Prosper, Texas
    Posts
    1,474
    Quote Originally Posted by ian maybury View Post

    <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.
    Regards,

    Glen

    Woodworking: It's a joinery.

  10. #85
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Baltimore. MD
    Posts
    19
    SS Owner...Brake fired...likely prevented injury. Doing a narrow rip, (too narrow for the blade guard) I stupidly attempted adjust the path of the cut between the blade and the fence without using a push stick. The back of my knuckles touched the side of the spinning blade and the brake fired so fast it scared the stuffing out of me. I likely would have brushed the back of my hand against the carbide teeth of the blade as I instinctively pulled my hand away after the touch, but the blade was already stopped and below the table insert. I was amazed that I was unharmed, and amazed at how stupid I had been after working with table saws since I was 16. What was I thinking?

    I had a new brake cartridge on hand so I was back in business after a few minutes. It ruined a good glue-line rip blade...but better than losing my hand. I previously used a circa 1958 Shop smith as my table saw (combined with a 1976 Craftsman RAS). Both were death traps because of the lack of blade guards (none on the SS and a bad one on the RAS). Luckily, no accidents. The SS is by far the nicest, smoothest, most accurate TS that I have ever used. I wanted a 12" saw, but went for the SS. No regrets. I have had it for about a year. I use it constantly. BTW I have "tuned up" the RAS and use it for some cross cuts, dado's and cuts into green lumber that might trigger the SS brake.

  11. #86
    Quote Originally Posted by ian maybury View Post
    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.

  12. #87
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Bloomington, IL
    Posts
    6,009
    Reading the 24 accidental firings number makes me want to see the number of non-SS users with trimmed miter gauges.
    Glad its my shop I am responsible for - I only have to make me happy.

  13. #88
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Central WI
    Posts
    5,666
    I'm not sure it is fair to diss Ian for discussing the problems with the poll and let others use it as a platform to justify the SS technology. It is what it is- interesting info but not meant to be more than that. Dave

  14. #89
    Quote Originally Posted by ian maybury View Post
    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
    Go into the world and do well. But more importantly, go into the world and do good.

  15. #90
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    'over here' - Ireland
    Posts
    2,532
    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

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •