Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 72

Thread: SawStop files petition with CPSC.

  1. #31
    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)

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Warsaw, IN
    Posts
    19
    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".

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    4,717

    Angry

    Thanks for bringing this to our attention. I sent them a scathing note yesterday revoking my support and interest in their product. From what I've read so far, the vast majority of folks like the technology but are peaved by the idea of a mandate. If that's the case, I suggest we all write them a little note to get them to back down. The mandate is primarily beneficial to their wallets.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Springfield, OR
    Posts
    122

    Thumbs down The short(er) version IMHO

    I think the issue of SawStop petitioning CPSC comes down to a commercially unsuccessful product trying to force itself on the consumer in the guise of safety in the public good. Remember how the mandatory seat belt issue evolved? Do we have to go through that again? Unfortunately, most of us keep our table saws longer than our cars. I hope the CPSC has the sense to distinguish true safety from the politics of greed. If the regulation is enacted, the "playing field" should be as level as possible to prevent SawStop from a monopoly and holding the consumer hostage.

    Ed Weiser

    P.S. I'm sorry my opinion here is so one-sided. As a physician and surgeon I understand the incredible value of avoiding life-changing power tool injuries. I just don't see that SawStop is doing this in the public interest much at all. If so the wording of their petition might have been quite a bit different...

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Granbury, TX
    Posts
    1,458
    I have very mixed emotions about this topic...

    On one hand...

    Personally, I think the Sawstop is a great idea. I think in a free market society, Sawstop should be able to produce its own line of tablesaws that incorporate their proprietory technology, then market them as "safer" tablesaws. (And in our society, they can.) Then they could charge whatever the market would bear. In fact, I thought that was what they were going to do. I thought I read somewhere that Sawstop was going to produce and market their own line of cabinet saws. I would have fully supported them in this effort, although I don't think I would have run out and bought one, as I already have a cabinet saw.

    On the other hand...

    It seems that Sawstop shopped its technology around, and no one bought off on it. So, in order to make money, they have decided to appeal to the government to FORCE people to buy and use their technology. I have a major problem with that. The talk about safety, but in my humble opinion, it is all about greed.

    Quote Originally Posted by scott spencer
    Thanks for bringing this to our attention. I sent them a scathing note yesterday revoking my support and interest in their product. From what I've read so far, the vast majority of folks like the technology but are peaved by the idea of a mandate. If that's the case, I suggest we all write them a little note to get them to back down. The mandate is primarily beneficial to their wallets.
    I think writing Sawstop would be useless. They don't care what we think. If they did, they would produce a saw, and then try to sell it to us. If we really want to make a difference, we need to make public comments to the CPSC. If a thousand woodworkers voiced their opinion that they don't want to be forced to pay an extra $400 next time they buy a cabinet saw, it might make a difference. I say might, because I am a little cynical when it comes to government. Personally, I think a lot of laws are made based on which lobbyist got to the guy with the swing vote. I am sorry I feel this way, but I think the founding fathers would not be pleased with how laws are made in this day and age.

    So, does anyone have the link to the public comments section of the CPSC website? I would look for it myself, but I just don't have time right now.

    Stepping off my soapbox...
    Last edited by Martin Shupe; 07-13-2003 at 1:07 PM.
    Martin, Granbury, TX
    Student of the Shaker style

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Kutztown PA
    Posts
    1,255
    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Smith
    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

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Farmington, AR
    Posts
    1,465
    Martin, I think you are exactly right. When I first read the Sawstop postings, they were met with some postiive and supportive comments. But they seemed to have an attitude that alienated other folks. It sounded like they really didn't care from the beginning what anyone thought of their idea. Maybe their posting person was just not a salesman, I don't know. But they got a lot of negative response THEN they went to the CPSC.

    It seems to me that government now listens most to those who can create a bandwagon to collect the most money. Things have change a lot in our system and not for the best IMO.

    So... does anyone believe that there is anything we can do to make a difference? I agree to trying to influence the CPSC.

    David

    ________________________
    I think writing Sawstop would be useless. They don't care what we think. If they did, they would produce a saw, and then try to sell it to us. If we really want to make a difference, we need to make public comments to the CPSC. If a thousand woodworkers voiced their opinion that they don't want to be forced to pay an extra $400 next time they buy a cabinet saw, it might make a difference. I say might, because I am a little cynical when it comes to government. Personally, I think a lot of laws are made based on which lobbyist got to the guy with the swing vote. I am sorry I feel this way, but I think the founding fathers would not be pleased with how laws are made in this day and age.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    New Orleans LA
    Posts
    1,334

    Reply to Patrick's Facts

    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.
    18th century nut --- Carl

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Springfield, OR
    Posts
    122

    Exclamation

    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

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    SE PA - Central Bucks County
    Posts
    65,688
    Quote Originally Posted by Ed Weiser
    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!

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Springfield, OR
    Posts
    122
    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

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Leesville, TX (San Antonio/Austin)
    Posts
    1,203
    I think the idea of the SawStop is probably a good one. I wouldn't have squawked if I had to pay another $200 for a new saw because JET decided to make it standard equipment, but I wouldn't have gone out of my way to put one on my existing equipment. The filing of this petition, however, will result in the SawStop people never getting one thin dime of my money...for ANY product they may be involved in.

    KC

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Just outside of Spring Green, Wisconsin
    Posts
    9,442

    Unhappy One problem, though...

    Some have mentioned writing to the CPSC. I for one already did just that this morning. Whether I'll be heard or not is anyone's guess, but if one were to go by the responses thus far, I'd say there are a LOT of folks who are apposed to this mandate. Here's the problem, as I see it: I just checked the stats and this thread has been viewed 888 times! Granted, some of those times will be repeat visits, but still, there are only 41 replies! I truly am hoping that this is not indicative of the type of action we can expect from our fellow WW's when the time comes to make our cumulative voices heard! Yeah, I'm sure there are many folks out there who already have their cabinet saws and think this will not affect them. But, won't it? Like many have said, "Where will it end?!" And, if OEM's are forced to apply these devices, who's to say they won't divide up some of the costs between their entire line of tools? Let's face it, an extra four bills or so, would put many people out of the running completely for a cabinet saw! So, for those of you who think this wouldn't affect you, think again. If we let this go through, Big Brother will most assuredly mandate something which will affect you too! Just another passing thought from one who wishes he had a cabinet saw.....
    Cheers,
    John K. Miliunas

    Cannot find REALITY.SYS. Universe halted.
    60 grit is a turning tool, ain't it?
    SMC is totally supported by volunteers and your generosity! Please help if you can!
    Looking for something for nothing? Check here!

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Sharon Center, OH
    Posts
    35

    Wow - I guess I really AM the only one to disagree!

    This must be a first for me I've read all the responses... I must say it is kind of odd to be the only dissenter.

    Mr Bill Grumbine: Well written words, although I am one of these "woodworkers everywhere" and I don't take their filing as a slap on the face. I don't think they are calling me a stupid ww'er that can't work safely! I think they are making this public for all the non-ww'er people that will see this and think, "wow, that really makes sense! - how come the tool companies haven't put this in their tools yet?" [P-R-O-F-I-T-S] My only other correction (if you can call it that) would be that I never wrote that companies having profits in mind was a BAD thing It's fully expected and understood. I think my point was that if business is moving along ok, redesigning their tools for a new safety device would cut into profits for only a certain (limited) percentage of users that would buy one. The safety equipment that came with my Delta contractor saw in 2001 is the same basic stuff that was issued at least 20, if not 40, if not 60 years prior. Yet we've seen a revolution in microchips and CAD capability that have left TS trunnions and 10" TS blades behind. Heck, between BP where this first reared it's head to now I would bet $50 that less than 20% of all the posters have written to say they would buy this *if it were an option*. It's a losing bet from the start! Safety always seems to be... how many people do we all think have dropped $400 for killer overarm guards? Not too many. So I must politely disagree with your assessment that these tool mfg's are implementing new safety equipment in their saws when it makes profitable sense to do it.

    Carl - I DO agree with you, I don't think the Corvair was unsafe. I wish more people had heard of oversteer, I really do! But it was a catalyst (by it's own fault or not) for safety change in the auto industry.

    I couldn't care less about SawStop's business tactics - tactics that are just like any other for-profit company, don't delude yourself. I want their technology in my saw for my own safety and the safety of other ww'ers. The actual end-consumer cost of it is negligible. If it's non-impacting (NOT like the super-safe GFI breaker in my box that pops when the wind blows wrong) then we should all be happy the technology is ready for the masses, and willing the plunk down the extra bucks when it comes time to buy a new saw.

    Just my opinion folks. I am still surprised to be the only dissenter. If you feel that strongly about this maybe it would help to take a sec and email one of the guys that's posted recently about losing a finger or three to the TS.

    BTW, I am really surprised that link is generating THIS much interest, response and paranoia about the government. The CPSC gets press but they don't really have much teeth when it comes to what consumers actually BUY. If you want proof just go look for all the non-compliant bunk beds you can still buy.

    Best regards,
    Patrick

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Columbus, Ohio
    Posts
    7

    Lightbulb Look for the New 13" Contractor's Saw

    Just a thought on how the woodworking industry might aproach the subject.

Posting Permissions

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