Saw Stop Back in the News

[Chris Barton]

Mr. Barton,

You use some rather strong and negative words in there like "extort" and "toll" and "sham". It is Capitalism at its finest--defer to your Liberty on that! Freedom in the market allowed him to pursue this avenue and if he becomes obsecenely wealthy because of it, then so be it. Do you feel similarly about Bill Gates, maybe Steven Jobs (Apple guy), or any other wealthy Capitalistic opportunist? For a "sham", his TS sure is a nice piece of equipment! Have you seen or used one at all?

Hi Mr. Padilla,

I am always open to a lively debate, I find them refreshing. Words can neither be "negative" or "positive," they should only have the meaning that is associated with them from their definitions. I stand by my choice of words and prefaced them as my opinion. I never asailed Mr. Gass' right to do what he did. I did however, question his motive. Being forced to use a safety device is inherently anti-free market. Both of the examples of the "obsecenly weathly" you used don't have their products mandated by the federal government. I don't think Mr. Gass' saw is a sham, just the establishment of his company selling saws. I don't believe selling Saw Stop table saws is his real intent and I said so. I have seen and used the Saw Stop at my local Woodcraft. It is a very nice machine. It is also a machine that should rightfully compete based upon its merits in a market driven economy, not mandated by code or regulation.

PS: it's Dr. Barton...

[Lee DeRaud]

Freedom in the market allowed him to pursue this avenue and if he becomes obsecenely wealthy because of it, then so be it. Do you feel similarly about Bill Gates, maybe Steven Jobs (Apple guy), or any other wealthy Capitalistic opportunist? For a "sham", his TS sure is a nice piece of equipment! Have you seen or used one at all?

Chris, his right to make a profit and become wealthy selling saws is not at issue here. What is at issue is his attempt to have the federal government force his competition to use his device and pay him for the privilege.

Since you brought up Gates and Jobs, consider this. A lot of people feel that Mac O/S is much better than Windows. So...would you have a problem with Steve Jobs asking the government to (1) require all computers sold in the US to come equipped with Mac O/S and (2) require the manufacturers of those computers to pay Apple 8% of their gross revenue to do so?

Winning in a free market is one thing, gaming the system is something else altogether.

[tod evans]

the technology is cool, a good thing. bucking for federally mandated marketing is the most uncool thing i`ve heard of in the woodworking tool industry, on par with "cloning" others designs. i`m going with a hillbillys sence of "ethical" business here, i`m to the point in life that i could give a rats behind if it legal or not, right is right and wrong is wrong and trying to force industry or the consumer to purchase your product with legislation is flat out wrong......02 tod

[Mike Henderson]

Let me modify the question somewhat. Ignore the SawStop patent and licensing issue - pretend it doesn't exist.

With that assumption, what's your opinion about a safer table saw? Do you think that the technology available in the saws now is sufficient, or are there safety enhancements you'd like added to a saw?

Second question - Should saws with enhanced safety features be required in places like woodworking schools and production environments where the people using them cannot choose the saw?

Final qustion - If you answered "Yes" to the above question, should those safty features be required for hobby saws as well?

I'm just interested in what the group thinks.

Mike

[Geoff Barry]

I have mixed feelings about Glass's approach, but not about the CPSC action. Nothing in life is black and white - it is possible to have good results from actions driven by less than pure motives, just as one can have bad results from actions driven by "good" motives. As I see it, there are two separate issues: 1) the CPSC action, and 2) Glass.

The CPSC: I'm all for the CPSC taking some sort of action. The reason we don't have any similar safety devices available on table saws today is a hard, cold calulation by the manufacturers -- offering such an advice risks liability for saws not offering such devices. They don't care how many folks loose fingers o rhands, as long as they're not liable. As long as no saw has such a device, it's easy to convince many courts (though not all) that any injury is not the responsibility of the manufacturer, as saws are "inherently" dangerous. However, the "danger", once again, is not black and white. At one end, you have the reality that you can't cut wood without a sharp, moving metal blade that surely will cut through flesh. On the other end, though, you don't have to accept that reality as an excuse to accept the sale and use of unguarded shiny spinning blades. A guard makes it less dangerous to use, a splitter makes it less dangerous, a riving knife even safer, and a blade sensor even more so.

Now, in a perfect market economy, everyone would have the ability to select the level of safety that they were willing to pay for, and everyone would bear the cost of their own injuries. Unfortunately, we don't live in such a world. First, many people use equipment purchased by employers or schools. Second, no manufacturer makes a saw with a blade sensor and the reason they don't is tied to their concerns over liability, not their concerns over market acceptance. If they were concerned about market share, you would think that they would notice the waiting list of folks willing to pay $3k for a cabinet saw with a blade sensor. But offering such a saw, at any price, would affect the liability issue, so no matter how many people might want such a safety device, no manufacturer offers such a device.

So, as here is a situation where the market does not work to the consumers' benefit, and not all people are not able to choose to protect themselves. The issue is not whether saws are dangerous becasue they can cut, but whether such danger can be reduced in a cost-effective manner. And as for the abstract desireability of goverment regulation, well, look at industrial working conditions at the turn of the last century and today, and tell me you think that workers were better off in 1900 . . . It's an issue of degree. Some government regulation is necessary, some is a good idea, and some clearly is too much. Where a particular issue falls on that scale says as much about the observer as it does about the government.

Now, the CPSC action is to begin a rulemaking procedure. While a decision to act would result in the requirement for some sort of blade sensing device, note that the CPSC does not have to "adopt" the SawStop mechanism. And, indeed, as it is in the business of performance vice design standards, I doubt it will adopt any particular mechanism, but rather, if it chooses to act, will require the use of a device with a certain response time. And such a recommendation would not come for several years, after a fairly extensive investigation and set of hearings. For all the doom sayers, I'd ask: can you think of any products that were driven out of existence or suddenly priced out of reach becasue of unrealistic CPSC requirements? I mean, other than the Johnny Torch halloween costume kit . . .

Glass: Glass, and his various efforts, are a separate issue. Once again, I think it is possible to have mixed motives. He may very well believe in the need for increased safety, and he may also want to personally benefit from such a need. At a minimum, I credit him with pushing this debate forward. Without him, we wouldn't even have the option of an expensive SawStop saw, let along the possibility that other manufacturers might find it necessary to come up with their own blade sensor devices. That being said, I don't like that his petition was narrowly drafted to encourage selection of a method covered by one of his patents, especially when coupled with his hope for an 8% royalty rate of the entire saw. As a licensing attorney, I have seen a variety of royalty rates, but I would expect a rate of 6-8% on the cost of the patented mechanism, or a much lower rate on the overall cost. But, as I said above, it is possible for people to have mixed motives, and while I hope his patent plan fails, I hope his safety campaign succeeds.

{sorry for such a long post . . .}

[Chris Barton]

Geoff,

That was a great and well thought out reply. I too, am ready for improvements in all power tools that also result in added safety. But, let me chose them and pay for them out of my own free will and wallet. This debate springs up here at least once every 6 months or so. And generally, the camps seem to be devided into 2; safety at all costs and keep the government out of my saw and my shop. However, as an attorney, what risk management liability does the creation of such a device pose for shop owners and schools and the like where there is something that approaches "public access" to these devices? My own feeling is that this technology should compete in the market place to survive. However, I also see the logic for the need for such safety devices especially in something like a shop class and would think that every school district in the nation would be driving just such market decissions because of the added risk management benefits.

On the other hand (I still have 5 fingers on both ) what about the weekend woodworker that has a $200 borg bench top table saw that would triple in price if it were to be required in all table saws? Do we eliminate an entire segment of the market as well as put multiple manufacturers out of business because of the "greater good" of the society? It is clearly a conundrum.

[Cliff Rohrabacher]

Do you think that the technology available in the saws now is sufficient, or are there safety enhancements you'd like added to a saw?

Any so called enhancements should be at the option of the purchaser not the government.

Second question - Should saws with enhanced safety features be required in places like woodworking schools and production environments where the people using them cannot choose the saw?

Ahh an "American as Apple pie and Motherhood" question.
Well no I think that kids need to learn things. Insulating them from everything wee possibly can is madness. What will we have prepared them to accomplish? Maybe better class management and smaller classes is the better course.

Final qustion - If you answered "Yes" to the above question, should those safty features be required for hobby saws as well?

I answered no to both.

[Allen Bookout]

Mr. Barton,

You use some rather strong and negative words in there like "extort" and "toll" and "sham". It is Capitalism at its finest--defer to your Liberty on that! Freedom in the market allowed him to pursue this avenue and if he becomes obsecenely wealthy because of it, then so be it. Do you feel similarly about Bill Gates,

Boy!!!!! You hit that one right on the head about Bill Gates.

[Dave Fifield]

Wouldn't it be ironic if the expected SawStop sales of 3000 units in 2006 is actually larger than all the other TS manufacturers combined (anyone know the TAM numbers for the TS market?)?

If I were Mr.Gass, I'd be doing exactly the same things he's currently doing. Safety is an appropriate thing for the government to legislate IMO. Where would we be on the roads were it not for vehicle safety standards?

If I were a TS manufacturer, I would have signed Mr.Gass up to an exclusive deal immediately. The TS manufacturers are being childish about the whole matter IMO. Classic NIH syndrome.

"Let the market decide" - indeed it will. I know where my $$ are going.

Dave F.

[Frank Hagan]

Most of these things have someone pushing them who will benefit, so there's no surprise in that. What will probably happened has been mentioned earlier: the standard will not specify the patented Saw Stop technology, even though that's what Mr. Gass wants. The standard will probably be worded such that manufacturers can come up with other ways to protect the user. Meeting the standard probably won't have to be as dramatic as nicking a hot dog and destroying a blade and special cartridge.

Those of us old enough to remember the air bag controversy in cars remember that the standard called for either automatic seat belts or air bags. Many cars were produced with automatic seat belts, designed by a someone from the Marquis de Sade School of Engineering ... they were miserable things, but they satisfied the standard. Airbag technology became cheaper than the auto seatbelts, and consumer demand for vehicles that would not strangle them helped.

I couldn't find verification of the numbers on Saw Stop's site ... they say the CPSC reports that there are 60,000 table saw injuries each year, with 3,000 amputations and over $2 billion in costs. The CPSC has initiated changes to products for far less injuries.

If manufacturers can show that most of those injuries happen with a saw without a guard, they simply have to make saws with non-removeable guards (designed, I'm sure, by that Marquis de Sade alumni). Then there will be a better solution, like a good overarm guard that doesn't get in the way, that cuts power when touched for people who fall into the guard, etc.

[Chris Barton]

I wondering, does anyone beside engineers or lawyers see mandated, codified regulations as the best solution to this situation?

[Lee DeRaud]

I wondering, does anyone beside engineers or lawyers see mandated, codified regulations as the best solution to this situation?

Anyone besides engineers and lawyers?!? I haven't checked the occupation of every poster to this thread, but of the ones I know, the one lawyer says "no" and the engineers are split about evenly.

[Chris Barton]

Anyone besides engineers and lawyers?!? I haven't checked the occupation of every poster to this thread, but of the ones I know, the one lawyer says "no" and the engineers are split about evenly.

Hey, your right Lee. I take it back...

[Douglas Robinson]

OK.

1) I think Mr Gass's idea is neat and admire the patent.

2) Many regulations came from someone's self-interest, e.g. the entertainment industry is trying to promulgate the broadcast flag rule and has pushed for repeated extensions to the termof copyright.

3) I don't know if the regulation was passed, whether Sawstop would stop manufacturing, but it would make good business sense. If they had no product they could not be found to infringe someone else's patent.

4) Why isn't someone pushing for mandatory quality riving knives?

5) While regulations can be good, the government usually does a bad job enforcing them and wastes a lot of taxpayer money.

6) I think the helmet laws and seat belt laws are bad comparisons. There are MANY more drivers of cars and motorcycles than there are woodworkers. The impact on society is much greater with regards to insurance and taxes.

7) If Mr. Gass was solely concerned with the public's welfare than if he is successful in making the Sawstop concept mandatory he could offer royalty-free licenses or dedicate the patent to the public.

8) Finally, maybe some form of regulation would spur other manufacturers to develop other saftey features to compete with his.

Just my 2 cents.

Doug

[Damien Falgoust]

Any comparison between mandatory SawStop technology and mandatory helmet/seatbelt usage is totally ridiculous. Consider the relative number and severity of the injuries concerned: are tens of thousands of hobbyist and semi-pro woodworkers dying or ending up in wheelchairs or on life-support from TS accidents? Don't think so.

It isn't a ridiculous comparison because there are many millions more drivers than there are woodworkers. You can't compare absolute numbers; you have to compare accident rates.

There are around 100,000 professional woodworkers in this country, plus some unknown number of hobbyists. Compare that to 199 million drivers.

In 2004, there were 2,594,000 injuries attributable to traffic accidents, 33,134 of which were fatal. That's about one accident for every 76.7 drivers.

Sawstop claims the CPSC reports 60,000 table saw accidents per year. Let's say the number of hobbyists are double the number of pros, just to be generous. That's one accident for every 5 woodworkers.

Now, obviously we can speculate on the severity of these injuries: neither set of statistics tells us much about that, except that we have fatality information on the traffic stats. And sure, I doubt there are many fatalities from table saw injuries, though it isn't inconceivable (working alone, pass out from blood loss, etc.). But losing a hand or most of your fingers is a pretty damned serious injury. These aren't paper cuts we're talking about.

None of that necessarily means the CPSC should necessarily issue regulations in this area. It does mean, however, that the case for regulation is hardly frivolous, and that the seatbelt/airbag analogy is perfectly apt.