SawStop files petition with CPSC.

[Patrick Smith]

I hope everyone takes this post as worth what you paid for it.

I agree with their petition. I think they are right on track and will support them 100%. So what if trunnions need redesigned? They've been the same for 60 years. So what if cartridges cost $60? The surgery on your finger cost 5 grand. I even hope they come out with one of these for my router, because freehand routing scares the S**T out of me and I sure don't want to be like the stories I read here.

The fact is, if tool companies were honestly concerned about safety they would have picked up on this right away. Or better yet they would have designed one of these on their own! But they haven't - their concern is profits, which is understandable. But sometimes when new technology, or new ways of doing things (or saving fingers) comes along, it TAKES regulation and mandates to force companies to actually care about safety enough where it impacts their bottom line and the consumers wallet, too. Think of the Corvair and how it started the wole industry of automobile safety, and how much safer our cars are now. Same mentality (people were mad about new ways of doing things) and it definitely has made vehicles much more expensive. How I dream about a $4000 Corvette that I will never see. But I don't ever need to think about being impaled on a chrome dashboard in my new Honda.

The other fact is that every company in the world has an agenda. The mfg's (Delta, other tool makers, even Saw Stop themself) interest is profits. The accessory companies (as mentioned those that make guards, etc.) have a big interest in keeping everything the status quo. This device would turn everything on it's ear. I don't see that as being a bad thing, even if someone says I can't buy a new table saw without one.

You are all entitled to your feelings and opinions on this. I respect that totally. My summed- up opinion is, if there is no usability impact to this technology I'll pay the extra money for it gladly, and saw my projects stress-free for the rest of my days.

Best regards to all.
Patrick

[John Miliunas]

Patrick, while I can agree on the safety end of it, I'm really thinking that many of the previous posts are leaning against such a mandate, not for just this one petition. If you read between the lines on many of the posts, it's not just about SawStop, but more so, it's about mandates, in general. It's starting to look like the "Big Brother" syndrome. Where does it stop? You yourself mention the router and your feelings regarding its safe operation. Well, let's take it a step further. No, let's take it *many* steps further: Just about *any* tool that you plug into a 110-240v outlet carries some risk(s) or danger of injuring the user. Look at any one of the user manuals which come with these tools. I'll bet each and every one of them is prefaced with a multitude of warnings and precautionary notes. They're typically scattered about within the context of the remaining manual, as well. These warnings are there for a reason. And, it doesn't end with tools. As mentioned in my previous post, stairs are a leading contributor to personal injury. So what should be done about them? Outlaw them or mandate air bags be designed into them to cushion the fall? (Gee, I hope I didn't give some wiseguy a "bright idea" there!

Again, I'm not saying the proposed device, in itself, is a bad thing. Safety is of paramount importance and we have a very large audience here who, I'm sure, would not argue that. But *mandating* such a product, particularly when the proposal has the designer of said product doing the cheerleading, is just wrong on many levels! Instead, I'd personally like to see the government press the OEM's a bit into doing research and developement for similar safety products. I could even *almost* agree with the government pushing OEM's into developing more safety peripherals, BUT, those peripherals should then be offered to the customer as an *option*. NOT something immediately built into the machine with a corresponding price increase. As it stands now, the petition brought forward has a main purpose of making the manufacturer and/or patent holder very rich. And, at the taxpayers' expense, no less! I mean really, when's the last time you saw an advertisement for their product? If this petition became law, not only would their profits soar, but they would be doing it with NO advertising! Some folks may call this very resourceful. I call it pretty low rent!

I too, respect your feelings and opinions on this matter. My opinion is that we *already* have the Government trying to run our lives in too many ways! I sure don't want them trying to run my shop, too! OK, stepping down off the soapbox now.

[David Rose]

The worst injury I have had from tools in 33 years of gunsmithing and two years of hobby woodworking was from a screw driver. There was nothing permanent as I missed a tendon, but it entered my hand nearly an inch. I am so glad it wasn't a nice sharp chisel! The wound might have been cleaner but much deeper. I knew at the time that I was in an awkward and hazardous position. I took a shortcut and took a chance and paid for it.

My point is that any useful tool can be hazardous if incorrectly used. Some can do more damage than others granted, but I really feel the way to deal with the problem is training. I do not own a table saw, but if I did, I think I would like this type safety device. I probably would not buy theirs on principal, but that is my principal not everyone's. But I would hate for others who do not want it to have to pay for it. If it could be sold as an option, I think it would be great. Generally, I like safety devices. Sometimes I peel them right off.

I probably use a router more than any tool in wood working. I very seldom make a climb cut because I was taught (books and online) that was normally the wrong way to do the job. Some guys can do it well and safely. Most of the time I think about the job I am doing and observe the potential problems. As is often said "the best safety mechanism we have is our brains".

Stay sober, stay alert, don't push yourself beyond reasonable limits or leave and come back to the shop another day.

David

[Carl Eyman]

The Corvair was not an unsafe car. About the time the last one was manufactured the National Trafic Safety Board (have I the name right?) declared it to be no more unsafe than other cars of its class. This is little known since by the time it came out The corvair was no longer news. Ralph Nader's lies however had made him millions of dollars and, IMHO, made no one the safer. It is just as Adolph Hitler said it was - Lie often enough and loudly enough and a lot of people will believe you.

[Ed Weiser]

Bill Grumbine is, I believe, quite correct. The SawStop petition is directed at consumer products, not industrial. The petition seeks to place the device on 12" and smaller table saws. I suspect they did not want to take on the furniture and other wood product industries, just consumers and "mom and pop" operations. The issue, therefore, of "workplace safety" should not play a role, assuming the CPSC members understand the issue before the ruling is made.
I normally don't jump on bandwagons but I see this as an incredibly important issues for woodworkers. Other that electrical code conformity and the like I am unaware of any time the Federal Government has gotten involved with our area. The voice needs to be loud and clear (and heard in multiples) that woodworkers do not wish government supervision or regulation (if in fact that is so.)

Ed Weiser

[Jim Becker]

The SawStop petition is directed at consumer products, not industrial. The petition seeks to place the device on 12" and smaller table saws.

Yes, it would not effect "industrial" users, but it would effect just about every cabinet shop, carpenter and other trade professional as well as "consumers/hobbiests". '12" and under' covers almost the entire market for stand-alone table saws!

[Ed Weiser]

Yes, Jim, I agree, but these are perceived as individuals of limited political voice. Clearly, the SawStop lawyers and marketers have thought this through (or at least think they have.)

Ed Weiser

[Ken Salisbury]

This thread has migrated to a political debate which is in violation of the Sawmill Creek Terms of Service. Therefore I have closed the thread to further posting.

"Your Friendly Moderator"

[Ian Barley]

Reading back over my post I'm not sure I fully expressed my point.

Like Patrick, I don't have any great problem if a safety device which makes sense is made mandatory. The problem is when a safety device that operates under a commercial protection which makes it immune from competition is made mandatory.

To take the automobile example, in Europe fitting seat belts in cars was made mandatory over thirty years ago. The laws that made them mandatory defined the performance levels that those seat belts must meet but they didn't say "And you can only buy them from Bob's seat belt company".

We have a requirement under Health and Safety legislation that says that the blades on machines like circular saws must come to rest wirhin seconds of being switched off. The logic is that a near silent running blade with 90% of the energy of a noisy running blade is more dangerous than a noisy one with 100% of the energy. This is usually achieved with DC electric braking. The law that requires it doen't say how it has to be achieved or from whom the technology must be purchased. It makes sense and competition exists to drive down the price. You can now retrofit this technology to an old saw for about thirty pounds ($50ish)

[Jim Martin]

So where do we stop Patrick? I see you have kids that you proudly picture. I propose that the government ban rap music, censor cartoons and do a background check on you to see if you are fit to raise the children. How about a $400 surcharge on twinkees and all other fattening snack foods? Finally, if your children join the swim team as they grow I propose that life jackets be mandatory on all competitors. After all, just what is your child worth to you?

All this is said tongue in cheek, but I would be willing to bet there are supporters for all of the things I said to one degree or another. I agree with most here that the sawstop requirement would smack of "big brother".

[Bill Grumbine]

The fact is, if tool companies were honestly concerned about safety they would have picked up on this right away. Or better yet they would have designed one of these on their own! But they haven't - their concern is profits, which is understandable....

...The other fact is that every company in the world has an agenda. The mfg's (Delta, other tool makers, even Saw Stop themself) interest is profits. The accessory companies (as mentioned those that make guards, etc.) have a big interest in keeping everything the status quo. This device would turn everything on it's ear. I don't see that as being a bad thing, even if someone says I can't buy a new table saw without one.

Patrick

Hi Patrick

I think you make some valid observations, but I would like to politely disagree with your conclusions. You are right when you write that tool companies are interested in profit. That is how the business end of our society works. A person, or people provide goods and services and make money doing so. There is nothing inherently evil in doing this. To say that the tool companies are not interested in safety because it would cut into profits (a little WW humor there) is inaccurate. The tool company will do anything it can to enhance its profit margin. If a safety feature means they will sell more saws with more profit, they will jump right on it. Tool companies are constantly working on new and improved versions of their tools. If they don't, the competition leaves them behind.

The Saw Stop is a good idea, but it is not a panacea for table saw safety. Kickback is much more likely to occur than getting one's fingers in the blade, even though most of us know someone who has had that happen (I know several). The inventors shopped their concept around, and found no takers. Apparently they do not have the investors needed to go into business on their own. This safety device doesn't add enough of a safety margin to be desirable, so they are going to the place of last resort, and attempting to force us to buy it through the brute power of the federal government. And if someone writes and says if it saves just one finger, it will be worth it all, I will barf right on my keyboard.

Let's say the guy is successful, and gets a government mandate that all the table saw companies have to buy and install his product. Now that he has a guaranteed and captive market, and a monopoly to boot, what is his motivation to improve or even maintain his product? Who cares how, or how well it works? It is now law that people have to buy it.

The other thing I would like to address is your comment about the interests of the saw and accessory companies. I think it is a real stretch to accuse these companies of operating in some sort of collusion to maintain a status quo. Remember, most of these companies are out for the same market. Anyone who buys a Delta saw is NOT going to buy a Jet, or Powermatic, etc. If and when any of them come up with an edge, they don't call up the other guys and say "hey, we need to keep this under our hats so it doesn't upset the apple cart". They get it into production, and try and take as many people out of the market by selling their tool as fast as they can. If the Saw Stop was as good as its inventor claimed, someone would jump on it as a way to get an edge.

Then there is the law of unintended consequences. You cited automobile safety. I do not remember the name of the study I read, but I remember reading that all of the safety devices which have been mandated over the years for cars have really done nothing to reduce injury or death. People are still killing themselves wholesale, because as the safety features have increased, so has reckless and irresponsible driving. People come to depend on the device to preserve them rather than exercising common sense, and devices are even more fallible than the human mind. You can bet that if this Saw Stop comes on the market, you will see an increase in other types of TS injury because it will endow people with a false sense of security, and people will do even more stupid things than they are doing now.

The last thing I would like to say is this. This action of the Saw Stop company is a slap in the face to woodworkers everywhere. They are essentially saying we are too stupid and unsafe to take care of ourselves, or to make appropriate decisions where those decisions impact our safety. I know the fall back position, which is what about all those poor people who work in shops where they are forced to use an unsafe saw? I say phooey to that. I worked for a company that insisted on putting me in an unsafe environment every single day. It got to the point where I quit. I have a family, and we needed my income to get by, but I quit because I refused to risk my safety and even my life for a company that really didn't care about me. My well being was more important to my family than my paycheck. In our society, no one can compel anyone else to do something they don't want to do, except by using the force of the Federal Government, and that is exactly what the Saw Stop people are trying to do.

Bill

[Bill Karow]

The fact is, if tool companies were honestly concerned about safety they would have picked up on this right away.

Patrick, I have to respectfully disagree with you. In our excessively litigious society, perhaps the worst position manufacturers could be in is to tout a new safety feature that protects users in this way. They would in effect be telling purchasers that it's OK to ignore basic tablesaw safety. All this is well and good, but when the first SawStop malfunction happens - and it WILL happen - and results in severe injury to someone who had relied on the promise of protection, well, that company will at minimum have a new owner.

I agree safety breakthroughs should be considered by all reasonable folks. I also prefer that they be available aftermarket so I'm able to choose for myself. But for someone in a monopoly position to attempt to legislatively mandate use of their technology, which has been rejected by manufacturers on grounds of cost and the liability issues I mention above, I'll do my best to ensure the SawStop petition is rejected.

[I hope this is not too strident, and if it is, I encourage the moderator to delete it.]

Thanks-
Bill

[Robert Waddell]

I'm just curious! What is it about this anti-hotdog slicer that he tool mfg's don't want. I would think that a product this revolutionary they would be running over each other to get it first. There must be something wrong with it or the inventors are a bunch of jurks asking for too much money.

[Jim Becker]

I'm just curious! What is it about this anti-hotdog slicer that he tool mfg's don't want. I would think that a product this revolutionary they would be running over each other to get it first. There must be something wrong with it or the inventors are a bunch of jurks asking for too much money.

1) Requires complete redesign of the arbor/trunnions
2) Replacement "Cartridges" are expensive...$60-80 a "pop". Literally. One your trip it, you have to replace the mechanism...it cannot be "reset".

[Robert Waddell]

1) Requires complete redesign of the arbor/trunnions
2) Replacement "Cartridges" are expensive...$60-80 a "pop". Literally. One your trip it, you have to replace the mechanism...it cannot be "reset".

Thanks for the info. Jim. I wasn't aware of the replacement cartridges. But even with this information it still points in the direction of they want too much money and are willing to do what ever it takes to get it or the design has not been fully developed. Replacing the cartridges should never happen and if it does IMHO I think a finger is worth more than $80. I think what we have here is a case of greed plain and simple.