Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 32

Thread: Embeded in link is comment that sawstop is going to have a 400 dollar version.

  1. #16
    I notice that my own aversion and objections to Saw Stop have waned in the wake of the inevitable. And there are other
    "flesh sensing" safety products that have been used a long time and rolled out on the reluctant. So the precedent is there.

  2. #17
    Well if it makes you feel any better I bought a Bosch reaxx mainly because I got a great deal on it but partly because I don't like gass. I'm pretty sure the sawstop is probably a better Jobsite saw but I was relived when I found this reaxx hat I didn't have to buy a sawstop just yet.

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Upstate NY
    Posts
    2,834
    Quote Originally Posted by keith micinski View Post
    Well if it makes you feel any better I bought a Bosch reaxx mainly because I got a great deal on it but partly because I don't like gass. I'm pretty sure the sawstop is probably a better Jobsite saw but I was relived when I found this reaxx hat I didn't have to buy a sawstop just yet.
    So you have an inferior saw, when Gass neither knows nor cares. I am not sure you thought that out adequately.

  4. #19
    Only problem Mike is that it's not a $300 upgrade. It's more like $1000 upgrade.

    And, even the $100 el cheapo depot saws without seeing tech can be used safely and without injury if used properly. They have been used as such for over a century and the overwhelming majority of users NEVER have an accident. The numbers aren't even debatable. Pretty much every endeavor has risk. Autos have all kinds of saftey and tech do dads yet thousands are mamed and killed each year yet we still drive "inferior" and "unsafe" cars everyday. And this despite government mandates. Couples still have children despite the fact that childbirth is still risky and a certain percentage of mothers still die during childbirth. Even with high standards of care , machines and tort system losing over everyone's shoulder.

    Yes it's unfortunate that people die and get hurt doing everyday pursuits, but you have no god given right to personal saftey best I can tell. Gun laws are stronger than ever now yet people still get shot and killed every week. Cocaine and Meth are illegal yet people still induldge and kill themselves or create serious health issues.

    At some point you have to look in the mirror a take responsibility for your own well being. Stop relying on mommy or nanny (state) to do it for you.

  5. #20
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Darmstadt, Germany
    Posts
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by Wade Lippman View Post
    So you have an inferior saw, when Gass neither knows nor cares. I am not sure you thought that out adequately.
    Wrong.

    SawStop vs Bosch Reaxx Lawsuit

  6. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Sabo View Post
    Only problem Mike is that it's not a $300 upgrade. It's more like $1000 upgrade.

    And, even the $100 el cheapo depot saws without seeing tech can be used safely and without injury if used properly. They have been used as such for over a century and the overwhelming majority of users NEVER have an accident. The numbers aren't even debatable. Pretty much every endeavor has risk. Autos have all kinds of saftey and tech do dads yet thousands are mamed and killed each year yet we still drive "inferior" and "unsafe" cars everyday. And this despite government mandates. Couples still have children despite the fact that childbirth is still risky and a certain percentage of mothers still die during childbirth. Even with high standards of care , machines and tort system losing over everyone's shoulder.

    Yes it's unfortunate that people die and get hurt doing everyday pursuits, but you have no god given right to personal saftey best I can tell. Gun laws are stronger than ever now yet people still get shot and killed every week. Cocaine and Meth are illegal yet people still induldge and kill themselves or create serious health issues.

    At some point you have to look in the mirror a take responsibility for your own well being. Stop relying on mommy or nanny (state) to do it for you.
    So let's say that it's a $1000 upgrade. The saw is going to last for a while so the cost is spread over a number of jobs. But let's say that it adds $100 to the cost of each job. That's still cheap "job insurance" compared to losing a finger or the use of a hand. In any case, the insurance company is going to charge you more if you have a non-flesh sensing saw so you're going to pay that $1,000 one way or the other. And if one of your workers has a serious accident, you could wind up paying a lot more. Even if you have Workers Comp your rates could go up significantly.

    You can argue all you want that SOME people don't have accidents but if one of your workers has a serious accident, it can cost you a lot of money, as well as affecting you emotionally as you ask yourself whether you're somewhat responsible for that accident because you could have provided a tool that would have prevented the accident.

    Mike

    [And just remember, if you get sued by a worker who cut off his/her finger, the jury sees a person who will have to live with a disability for the rest of their life, and the members of the jury don't have to pay the judgment - you do. They tend to favor the injured party.]
    Last edited by Mike Henderson; 08-12-2017 at 7:02 PM.
    Go into the world and do well. But more importantly, go into the world and do good.

  7. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by keith micinski View Post
    Your argument somehow has a perfectly functioning table saw with no defects, but not no flesh sensing technology, being compared to bald tires and bad brakes. Interesting.
    Both are inherently dangerous. In fact, prior to flesh sensing technology, that's how saw manufacturers used to dodge responsibility for injuries. The successful argument was that saws are inherently dangerous and therefore the user accepted the risk of using the tool. But once flesh sensing technology became available, that argument was voided. A table (or job site) saw was available that was not "inherently dangerous". If a worker was forced to use an inherently dangerous saw because that's what was provided, the company and the saw manufacturer could no longer use the "inherently dangerous" defense because flesh sensing was now available.

    You might equate that to a truck with bald tires and bad brakes - it's inherently dangerous and the company can provide a truck that is not inherently dangerous. In fact, has a duty to provide a truck that is not inherently dangerous.

    Mike

    [The loss of the "inherently dangerous" defense against accidents was one reason the saw manufacturers did not want to license the flesh sensing technology. They recognized that once fleshing sensing was available their defense was lost.]
    Last edited by Mike Henderson; 08-12-2017 at 7:00 PM.
    Go into the world and do well. But more importantly, go into the world and do good.

  8. #23
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Darmstadt, Germany
    Posts
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike Henderson View Post
    You might equate that to a truck with bald tires and bad brakes - it's inherently dangerous and the company can provide a truck that is not inherently dangerous. In fact, has a duty to provide a truck that is not inherently dangerous.
    I think that is a bit of a stretch. In your example, the company has an obligation to provide a truck that complies with the law and safety regulations. As a former CDL driver, I was never under any obligation to take a truck that did not pass the daily inspection. If I did, then I was liable for anything that happened as a result of the faulty equipment.

    Until such time as the SawStop technology becomes law, the lawyers will likely duke it out in court. For what it's worth, over on this side of the ocean among my construction friends, the entire SawStop issue is a source of mild humor. The Bosch Reaxx isn't even sold here because there is no market for it.

    In the unfortunate circumstance when a worker is hurt on the job, the Health and Safety folks review the personnel training and equipment inspection reports as a routine part of the investigation. If the worker was properly trained, as evidenced by the personnel files, and the equipment was in good working order at the time of the incident, then the employer is covered. However, it can get ugly if there is no record of training or the equipment was faulty, excluding sudden and unexpected failures.

  9. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike Kreinhop View Post
    I think that is a bit of a stretch. In your example, the company has an obligation to provide a truck that complies with the law and safety regulations. As a former CDL driver, I was never under any obligation to take a truck that did not pass the daily inspection. If I did, then I was liable for anything that happened as a result of the faulty equipment.

    Until such time as the SawStop technology becomes law, the lawyers will likely duke it out in court. For what it's worth, over on this side of the ocean among my construction friends, the entire SawStop issue is a source of mild humor. The Bosch Reaxx isn't even sold here because there is no market for it.

    In the unfortunate circumstance when a worker is hurt on the job, the Health and Safety folks review the personnel training and equipment inspection reports as a routine part of the investigation. If the worker was properly trained, as evidenced by the personnel files, and the equipment was in good working order at the time of the incident, then the employer is covered. However, it can get ugly if there is no record of training or the equipment was faulty, excluding sudden and unexpected failures.
    This thread is not a discussion about truck liability but the laws of the United States appear to be different than in Germany. In the US, the company cannot pass liability to an employee. If the employee took an unsafe truck, the company is still liable.

    The employee may be liable in other ways, such as for a version of manslaughter (if someone was killed) because they were aware that the truck was unsafe and still drove it, but civil liability will remain with the company - and the employee may have some civil liability, also. Usually, the employee does not have any significant assets so the claims go against the company.

    Mike
    Last edited by Mike Henderson; 08-12-2017 at 8:12 PM.
    Go into the world and do well. But more importantly, go into the world and do good.

  10. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by Wade Lippman View Post
    So you have an inferior saw, when Gass neither knows nor cares. I am not sure you thought that out adequately.

    Ha, he might not know that I didn't buy one of his saws but he would have known if I did by being 1300 richer and that's more then good enough for me.

  11. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike Henderson View Post
    Both are inherently dangerous. In fact, prior to flesh sensing technology, that's how saw manufacturers used to dodge responsibility for injuries. The successful argument was that saws are inherently dangerous and therefore the user accepted the risk of using the tool. But once flesh sensing technology became available, that argument was voided. A table (or job site) saw was available that was not "inherently dangerous". If a worker was forced to use an inherently dangerous saw because that's what was provided, the company and the saw manufacturer could no longer use the "inherently dangerous" defense because flesh sensing was now available.

    You might equate that to a truck with bald tires and bad brakes - it's inherently dangerous and the company can provide a truck that is not inherently dangerous. In fact, has a duty to provide a truck that is not inherently dangerous.

    Mike

    [The loss of the "inherently dangerous" defense against accidents was one reason the saw manufacturers did not want to license the flesh sensing technology. They recognized that once fleshing sensing was available their defense was lost.]

    So, now not only is a table saw without flesh sensing technology, bald tires and bad brakes, the companies designing these evil monsters are "dodging responsibility" for user using the saw improperly BUY STICKING THERE HANDS IN THE BLADE. I guess the old saying "you can't argue with stupid" really is accurate.

  12. #27
    Being that there's been a glut of people being dumb with sharp spinning objects lately, it got me thinking how to quantify the number of cuts I've made in my career, versus the number of injuries more serious than a bandaid.

    I've been hurt pretty good twice. Once with a bandsaw being stupid and cut into my thumb and earning a half dozen stitches. The second time was with a tablesaw and while I really mauled my thumb, there was no point in going to a doctor. They weren't going to do anything I couldn't do, and weren't going to tell me anything I didn't already know.

    I've been at this for nineteen years. Day in, and day out. Most of that has been while self employed. I work way more than 40 hour weeks, but I'll just use 40 since that's probably an accurate number for in shop hours. So 2080 hours per year times 19 years for a total of 39,520 hours.

    While it really depends on what I'm doing, there's almost no chance I make less than 20 cutting operations in an hour. In some cases I'm betting it's more than 200 per hour on the high end. To be conservative, I'll just use 60 as an average.

    At sixty cuts per hour over the course of 39,520 hours, that's 2.37 million cuts in my career between tablesaw, cut off saws, panel saws, rip saws, jointers, shapers, etc. 2,370,000. With two significant power tool injuries. Those are educated guesses on the number of cuts, but it's gotta be in the ballpark. Say it's half and 1.19 million. That's a .00000168% failure rate. Go with the original number and it's .000000843%

    I'll take those odds.

    I don't use guards on a tablesaw
    I believe push sticks to be dangerous and a last resort.
    I don't use a splitter
    I don't use a riving knife

    I adhere to strict operational guidelines and maintain a razor sharp focus. Why? Because that tool cuts through wood like butter, and won't even notice my meat going through it.

    Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Flesh sensing technology isn't making you safer, it's allowing you to slough off adhesion to safety and making you complacent. Sorry, but only you are responsible for you and I'm not trusting a widget.

  13. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by keith micinski View Post
    Your argument somehow has a perfectly functioning table saw with no defects, but not no flesh sensing technology, being compared to bald tires and bad brakes. Interesting.
    What do you expect from a guy who hides behind his dog?
    Anything is possible when you don't know what you're doing.

  14. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by keith micinski View Post
    "you can't argue with stupid"
    Sigh... Yes, that's very true.

    Mike
    Go into the world and do well. But more importantly, go into the world and do good.

  15. #30
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Darmstadt, Germany
    Posts
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike Henderson View Post
    This thread is not a discussion about truck liability ...
    You introduced the corporate truck with bald tires and bad brakes. I didn't realize I wasn't allowed to expand on the topic.

Posting Permissions

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