All table saws to be SawStops?

[Mark Hennebury]

if Sawstop states that they saved 100 fingers a month and the reality is 90 of them wouldn't have happened on a regular saw, they have still saved 10, it's all good. don't have a problem with Sawstop. I am just a believer that knowledge is the best way to stay safe overall, it gives you the ability to understand what you are doing, how to plan and make the right decisions on handling materials and machining them. Human nature comes into play even with people that know, shortcuts, in a hurry etc, thinking about the next task, not the one that your on. I don't like the destructive nature of the sawstop, but it was a genius advance in tablesaw safety, the Altendorf version is very interesting, but the price is out of reach for most. The big problem still is that anyone can buy machinery anywhere without any knowledge whatsoever, tablesaws, chops saw, bandsaws, jointers, chainsaws etc. Friend of mine chopped a toe off with his lawnmower, I guess fipflops are not the recommended footwear for mowing lawns.

[Jim Becker]

The point isn't, should there be tech to help avoid injuries.
The point is, should there only be SawStop tech on saws to avoid injuries.

SS is trying to litigate, again, still, that their tech should be the only AIM safety device.

Do keep in mind that there are already other methods on the market. While they are higher end...Felder and Altendorf, for example...they are different than the SS technology and from each other. SS's method might be quicker to implement for North American style saws should the industry move forward, but we can hope there is the ability for others to innovate without having IP issues with current patents. I do agree that it would be "not a good thing" for a specific solution to be mandated.

[Edward Weber]

Do keep in mind that there are already other methods on the market. While they are higher end...Felder and Altendorf, for example...they are different than the SS technology and from each other. SS's method might be quicker to implement for North American style saws should the industry move forward, but we can hope there is the ability for others to innovate without having IP issues with current patents. I do agree that it would be "not a good thing" for a specific solution to be mandated.

T know, this is the problem.
They kept any competition from entering the market for 20 years and they're trying to keep it that way.
We will never know what other types of systems and/or the price of implementation could have been because of this.

The companies you mention are only able to develop their technology and bring it to market is because of the country they're located in and it aint here.

[Steve Demuth]

The point isn't, should there be tech to help avoid injuries.
The point is, should there only be SawStop tech on saws to avoid injuries.

SS is trying to litigate, again, still, that their tech should be the only AIM safety device.

If that's true, then they're in the wrong. But I doubt there is much to it. Sawstop's letter to the CPSC in December basically said that all the patents required to meet the CPSC's proposed rule have expired (they actually, said, "with one exception," but the exception they noted is also expired). And as I noted elsewhere, we're within a year and a few months of the date of introduction of the original PCS into the market, after which date, assuming the Sawstop meets the CPSC's rule, it's game over for patent protection blocking other manufacturers from making a saw that works close to identically to the Sawstop tech.

[Steve Demuth]

if Sawstop states that they saved 100 fingers a month and the reality is 90 of them wouldn't have happened on a regular saw, they have still saved 10, it's all good. don't have a problem with Sawstop. I am just a believer that knowledge is the best way to stay safe overall, it gives you the ability to understand what you are doing, how to plan and make the right decisions on handling materials and machining them. Human nature comes into play even with people that know, shortcuts, in a hurry etc, thinking about the next task, not the one that your on. I don't like the destructive nature of the sawstop, but it was a genius advance in tablesaw safety, the Altendorf version is very interesting, but the price is out of reach for most. The big problem still is that anyone can buy machinery anywhere without any knowledge whatsoever, tablesaws, chops saw, bandsaws, jointers, chainsaws etc. Friend of mine chopped a toe off with his lawnmower, I guess fipflops are not the recommended footwear for mowing lawns.

Got it. So we don't really disagree very much at all.

[Mark Hennebury]

Most of don't, if we understood what each of us actually meant. Lots get confused in interpretation.

[Larry Frank]

Most of don't, if we understood what each of us actually meant. Lots get confused in interpretation.

I have no idea what you meant..???? I have reread your posts and tried to figure out what you are trying to say. For example, you wrote..

My guess would be that most accidents have nothing to do with the unexpected. My guess is that they have more to do with not following procedure. That is not a mistake. That is a lack of discipline, arrogance, complacency, whatever.

This is your guesses. Without an analysis of accidents one cannot understand an accident. I have been in many accident investigations and it takes a lot more than guesses to understand the underlying causes. There is typically several contributing causes to an accident. How many formal accident investigations have you been involved with?

I am now no longer involved in this thread...

[Mark Hennebury]

Come on Larry, make a post like that and run for cover, what a wuss.

If you want to discuss lets discuss.

Most of the accidents that I have seen or watched videos of or read about or been involved in, most are caused by people, not catastrophic, unexpected machine failures.
They are caused by people f*cking up.

People have accidents on jointers, from hanging their fingers over that back of the wood. That's human error.
People having kickbacks on tablesaws, from not pushing the plywood all the way past the back of the blade or tipping it into the blade, human error.
People crosscuting against a rip fence , human error.

That is no guess, that is fact.

Machines rarely jump up and grab the wood, most of the time the operator sticks the wood into the saw in the wrong way, doesn't keep control of it, doesn't feed it properly.

Show me some accidents and we will do an investigation to determine the cause.

Even when ripping stock, kickback happens slowly and requires you to let it happen.
If the wood starts to close at the back of the blade, pull the wood forward and start again. or rip it on the bandsaw.
The wood doesn't instantly grab the blade and shoot back at you, that requires you to ignore what's happening and to continue when you know its wrong.

Human error, in my opinion is far more to blame for accidents than the rise of the machines.

[Doug Garson]

Even when ripping stock, kickback happens slowly and requires you to let it happen.
If the wood starts to close at the back of the blade, pull the wood forward and start again. or rip it on the bandsaw.
The wood doesn't instantly grab the blade and shoot back at you, that requires you to ignore what's happening and to continue when you know its wrong.

I agree with most of what you said in this post except this part. In my 50 odd years in this hobby, I've had a few kickbacks and I don't recall any of them happening slowly. I agree, in each case I made a mistake and there may have been some clues I missed but the kickback itself happened so fast that there was no way to react and avoid it.

[Mark Hennebury]

I agree that once it's start there there is no stopping it, it gains momentum way to fast to react.

I agree with most of what you said in this post except this part. In my 50 odd years in this hobby, I've had a few kickbacks and I don't recall any of them happening slowly. I agree, in each case I made a mistake and there may have been some clues I missed but the kickback itself happened so fast that there was no way to react and avoid it.

[Brian Holcombe]

I don't have a lot to contribute here other than the idea that understanding best practice is one way to avoid accidents. I teach beginner woodworking and teach that it's important to understand best practices and avoid ignoring those practices. Mainly I agree with Mark and believe that he is making this point in that there is no substitute for application of best practice.

As example, its best to avoid sweeping dust off your machine tables when the machine is running. If you ignore that best practice then you run an exceptionally high risk.

I tend to like safety gear, but I don't rely upon it as a primary measure to prevent injury. It's good to have some redundancies, for that reason I maintain guarding and have the necessary 'oh shit' switch on every piece of equipment. I also prioritize keeping things in good working order so that you aren't running into easily avoided unexpected issues when running things.

I don't desire to work in the dark dusty past with exposed open gearing or belts, but I also don't feel the need to have government continuously apply its force to everything. As example, the EU has banned the use of dado blades, yet I've used them for years. I'm not sure how they are more dangerous than a grooving tool. There needs to be a better balance struck here as they're often delving into the land of the arbitrary or where consumer choices will guide the path.

[Rich Engelhardt]

As I understand it - it isn't the dado blade itself that's banned - it's the requirement that the blade on a table saw come to a stop in so many seconds that makes it close to impossible o achieve if a dado blade's added mass is involved.

Anyhow - IMHO, somebody nailed it earlier. It isn't so much the technology as much as it's the mandate that gets people riled up.

[Bill Howatt]

... It isn't so much the technology as much as it's the mandate that gets people riled up.

Nothing like being, "Dead right" .

[Edward Weber]

If that's true, then they're in the wrong. But I doubt there is much to it. Sawstop's letter to the CPSC in December basically said that all the patents required to meet the CPSC's proposed rule have expired (they actually, said, "with one exception," but the exception they noted is also expired). And as I noted elsewhere, we're within a year and a few months of the date of introduction of the original PCS into the market, after which date, assuming the Sawstop meets the CPSC's rule, it's game over for patent protection blocking other manufacturers from making a saw that works close to identically to the Sawstop tech.

My "prediction" is that SS will continue to fight tooth and nail.
Not only do they regularly clash with the trade groups and the CPSC, they also bring suits against them.
After having their antitrust case against some other saw makers was dismissed, they didn't miss a beat.
About a year and a half ago they appealed the court for extensions. https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-o...22_2003622.pdf
This is not the action of going away quietly

While any number of injuries is too many. according to the CPSC's own data, in 2021, out of every 10,000 tablesaws in use, there is an estimate of 29.9 blade contact injuries.
That being said, trying to lobby to get your technology to become standardized accross the industry, is an uphill battle when you're talking about .3%.
https://www.federalregister.gov/docu...-on-table-saws

[Jim Becker]

The companies you mention are only able to develop their technology and bring it to market is because of the country they're located in and it aint here.

I don't follow Altendorf, but Felder is most certainly actively marketing their machine with their solution here, AFAIK. 'Costs a bundle, however, because it's only on the top-of-the-line saw.