All table saws to be SawStops?

[Greg Davidson]

For businesses and institutions, I think it makes sense, for the individual, not as cut and dried.
I certainly don't like how SS positioned themselves in the market with their enormous web of patents but they have saved many from serious injury.
I couldn't find the actual number but I have seen things like 6,000 fingers saved. Why are so many people getting so close to the blade? SS may have saved them but I would like to know what led to all those activation's. I would rather people go through a training course or take an operators test to show they understand how to use a TS safely, rather than only relying on the built in safety feature. Maybe a little knowledge could lower that number.

My position is that as long as the safety system doesn't impede the normal operation of the saw, why not. That being said, there are, IMO better safety systems than the hotdog sensing technology out there, Many have been around for years but with SS batting down everything that might even come close to possibly infringing on their turf, there's no point in bringing anything forward.

This is another reason I don't like the original SS owners point of view, SS may be good but you're effectively stifling innovation with your monopoly.

Altendorf and others have systems that are non destructive, meaning you don't have to buy cartridges and new blades after activation, you simply reset the system. While the cost of a blade/cartridge is a small price to pay to avoid injury, in the event of an accidental misfire with SS, you need to pay.

I also DO NOT believe that tables saws are inherently dangerous, this is anthropomorphisizing a piece of machinery. This applies to all human operated tools, hand or power, the operator and how he/she uses it, is what makes it safe or unsafe.
My table saw/s have never done anything to anyone, they are safe.

FYI, Sawstop did exactly what every company and individual business person does: fully publish their invention in exchange for a 20 year (less than that in practice) monopoly. This is what a patent is. It doesn't stifle innovation; it encourages it. Otherwise, companies would be encouraged to have trade secrets that never see the light of day, and the public would never be able to improve on a company's ideas. The fact that few other companies have come out with safety devices tells you something about the complexity of the problem, the perceived market value of such an invention relative to its cost, or both.

[Mark Wedel]

In terms of paying insurance for skiers, for now that is all pooled together. But there are certain high risk tasks (I think skydiving & rock climbing might be among them) in which the insurance explicitly does not cover injuries for those - presumably because the injury rate is so high and so costly that it is worth the companies to exclude it. Probably also that the number of people doing those activities is small enough that they can exclude it and no one care.

While one could imagine a 'fairer' health insurance system where ones activities are evaluated and appropriate higher premiums are done, this also adds a lot of complication (and hence costs) to the system to manage that. For home insurance, different risk factors are taken into account - the insurance rates are not the same across the country, even taking into account different construction costs. Houses in high fire risks pay more for insurance, if they can even get it at this point (and some things are just not covered, like floods, unless you buy specific flood insurance - hence paying more for the known risk)

[Richard Coers]

Just checked back in, I HAVE TO SAY I TOLD YOU SO. Even got a little name calling this time.

[Daniel O'Neill]

My health insurance has begun to offer incentives. Join our gym program and we'll give you points for stuff. Eventually they will track those who go to the gym and those who don't. People who don't meet their thresholds for health/activity will pay more. Folks who smoke already pay more because we know that collectively it's a dangerous hobby/habit. Life is dangerous and the insurance will pay out for accidents etc. They will however make you, as an individual, pay more if you knowingly engage in things that they deem risky behaviors. I don't like it but it will happen and probably sooner than we think.

Living is Dangerous,
the only way to be safe is to die, dead people wont get injured, all the rest of us are at risk, of sickness, injury and death. you want to ban all things that could possible injure someone, and dictate that people can only do things that are Safe. I would like that list. Everything you do has risk, from drinking a glass of water, breathing, swimming, taking a walk, jogging, riding a bike driving a car, don't even mentions sports or hobbies, or doughnuts or coffee, or god forbid, beer!

Get my point?

[Mark Hennebury]

So eventually the insurance companies will do a full-life risk assessment, where they need to know everything that you do, all day every day, and they will assign your a score and charge you accordingly, that of course would need to be updated daily, hourly, incase you ate two doughnuts instead of your daily reported one-a-day. Make sure that everyone is held accountable for any costs to the society. Great.

Insurance companies are in business to make money, not pay it out. They hire nice people to make promises and take your money, and nasty people to fight you if you try to get back what they promised to pay you. So two doughnuts would cancel your policy.
In fact they have whole bunch of tricks to deny, delay and make you go away. My guess is that they pay their employees bonuses based on how many claims they can get out of paying. Of course you can hire a lawyer and take them to court for a few years, before being forced to settle out of court for half of what you were owed.

Riding a bicycle on the road is far more dangerous than working in your woodworking shop with a regular table saw with no blade guard, in my opinion, but maybe not in someone else's.
Two people skiing down a mountain, same mountain, same skis, same boots and helmet, different skill levels, ones an Olympic expert, the other a novice should they both pay the same for insurance?
Who is going to assign a risk score to every thing that we do and every persons ability to do it?

My health insurance has begun to offer incentives. Join our gym program and we'll give you points for stuff. Eventually they will track those who go to the gym and those who don't. People who don't meet their thresholds for health/activity will pay more. Folks who smoke already pay more because we know that collectively it's a dangerous hobby/habit. Life is dangerous and the insurance will pay out for accidents etc. They will however make you, as an individual, pay more if you knowingly engage in things that they deem risky behaviors. I don't like it but it will happen and probably sooner than we think.

[James Jayko]

I think there should also be a distinction between 'things that are inherently dangerous' and 'things that are dangerous because you're being obstinate.' What, 99.999% of amputations on a table saw happen on saws with no safety devices. I'm sure there is the one joker who figures out how to, like, drop his Sawstop it on his hand and remove a finger...

[Bill Howatt]

Car insurance companies offer discounts to people who behave the rules of the road which is done by monitoring your car. So far, voluntary but with technology increasing like it is, monitoring might not be so far out in left field for lots of things. This is not intended to get into a "rights" discussion.

[Justin Rapp]

My health insurance has begun to offer incentives. Join our gym program and we'll give you points for stuff. Eventually they will track those who go to the gym and those who don't. People who don't meet their thresholds for health/activity will pay more. Folks who smoke already pay more because we know that collectively it's a dangerous hobby/habit. Life is dangerous and the insurance will pay out for accidents etc. They will however make you, as an individual, pay more if you knowingly engage in things that they deem risky behaviors. I don't like it but it will happen and probably sooner than we think.

I have a gym in my house, as do many people. During covid, companies like Peleton made out like mad, and a lot of people migrated to home workouts or outdoor activities. A lot of people have not return to gyms and levels today are still about 30% below pre-covid levels. So, I don't know how tracking a gym membership and gym usage can be a benchmark to rate insurance premiums.

[jack duren]

around and a round… kinda like musical chairs..

[Mark Hennebury]

Living is inherently dangerous.
Owning safety gear doesn't make you safe.

Screenshot_20221105_034609.jpgScreenshot_20221105_052911.jpgScreenshot_20221105_040403.jpgScreenshot_20221105_030405.jpg

I think there should also be a distinction between 'things that are inherently dangerous' and 'things that are dangerous because you're being obstinate.' What, 99.999% of amputations on a table saw happen on saws with no safety devices. I'm sure there is the one joker who figures out how to, like, drop his Sawstop it on his hand and remove a finger...

[mike stenson]

Living is inherently dangerous.
Owning safety gear doesn't make you safe.

Screenshot_20221105_034609.jpgScreenshot_20221105_052911.jpgScreenshot_20221105_040403.jpgScreenshot_20221105_030405.jpg

The pork chop guard really isn't a decent design.


I'm guessing that woodworking is the most dangerous activity most here actually do though.

[Michael Burnside]

Living is inherently dangerous.
Owning safety gear doesn't make you safe.

Screenshot_20221105_034609.jpgScreenshot_20221105_052911.jpgScreenshot_20221105_040403.jpgScreenshot_20221105_030405.jpg

Watch Jamie's videos. He wasn't doing something inherently dangerous, he was doing something he shouldn't. There wasn't a safety device there, the guard was NOT covering the blades, good grief, watch before you post something like this.

[Edward Weber]

FYI, Sawstop did exactly what every company and individual business person does: fully publish their invention in exchange for a 20 year (less than that in practice) monopoly. This is what a patent is. It doesn't stifle innovation; it encourages it. Otherwise, companies would be encouraged to have trade secrets that never see the light of day, and the public would never be able to improve on a company's ideas. The fact that few other companies have come out with safety devices tells you something about the complexity of the problem, the perceived market value of such an invention relative to its cost, or both.

I understand patents as you described but Mr Gass had such a number of them, described as a web of patents by some, that no other technology, no matter how different in approach or execution was able to survive.
You can't honestly think that in the last twenty years, no one has made improvements on stopping a saw blade, that's just not reality.
Others did have entirely different solutions, with their own approaches on the "complexity of the problem" as you put it but were sued out of competition, based on the plethora of patents in place, well above and beyond what is typical. Looking at the Bosch situation as a perfect example.
He basically made it impossible for anyone to offer any type of safety technology of any kind for a tablesaw.
This is not encouraging competition, this is using the law to keep yourself in your position.
JMHO

[Mark Hennebury]

I did watch, my whole point is safe practice is what makes you safe. Owning safety gear gives you a false sense of safety. There was a safety guard there, on all of the incidents, it simple wasn't functional, like a lot of them end up. But people get feeling safe, and don't pay attention and do shit that they should not do, like dragging their fingers over the side or back of the wood. They are dangerous practices. They don't have a safe working mentality. So eventually the safety gear will get removed or broken and they will get hurt. You have to develop safe working practices, of how to hold the wood, were to put your hands and fingers, were to put your feet, how to move and control the material, and to complete the pass, to focus on what you are doing, until its done etc... Basic rules of survival that you don't deviate from, you have to pay attention to where your fingers are, going over the cutter or near it.

Watch Jamie's videos. He wasn't doing something inherently dangerous, he was doing something he shouldn't. There wasn't a safety device there, the guard was NOT covering the blades, good grief, watch before you post something like this.

[Patrick Varley]

I understand patents as you described but Mr Gass had such a number of them, described as a web of patents by some, that no other technology, no matter how different in approach or execution was able to survive.
You can't honestly think that in the last twenty years, no one has made improvements on stopping a saw blade, that's just not reality.
Others did have entirely different solutions, with their own approaches on the "complexity of the problem" as you put it but were sued out of competition, based on the plethora of patents in place, well above and beyond what is typical. Looking at the Bosch situation as a perfect example.
He basically made it impossible for anyone to offer any type of safety technology of any kind for a tablesaw.
This is not encouraging competition, this is using the law to keep yourself in your position.
JMHO

He didn't make it impossible. He made it difficult for people to do so without compensating him for his IP. If you want to talk about a chilling effect on product development and free markets, then not protecting people's IP is a bigger problem. We aren't talking about patent trolling (though people often mistakenly refer to this situation in that way)


As I posted earlier in the thread, apparently Bosch came to a licensing agreement with SawStop that would have allowed them to sell theor saw in the US. But they chose not to do so.