Saw Stop Back in the News

[J. Greg Jones]

Anthony...........I suspect that was a "joke" on Chris's part.....He's a doctor.....the inventor of Sawstop is a lawyer....a prod on Chris's part, maybe?

I tried addressing Chris by Dr. once....he corrected me....

It might be more insightful to say that the inventor of the SawStop is a doctor that also has a law degree. Gass is a doctor also-holds a Ph.D in physics in addition to his Juris Doctorate. I would expect that his education in physics influenced his thinking on the SawStop technology more than his education in law did. Clearly his education in law has influenced his thinking on how to best capitalize on the SawStop technology.

[Chris Barton]

This has been an interesting thread to follow and a great bebate. One thing seems to stand out; most believe that the Saw Stop in its currently available form is a decent saw. The other thing that stands out is that most seem to believe that having regulations drive your future selection of table saws is not desireable. I wonder how this situation will play out in the market place? I know that several of the folks that posted positive things about the SS also own one (like I said from the beginning, it's a good saw). I wonder if all those that posted in support of potential regulation for such a device actually own a SS?

Remember "Big Brother" is just looking out for you and knows what is best for you.

[Jim Hinze]

I find this thread pretty amazing. If in 1999, Glass had come to an agreement with the other MFG'ers, I betcha there'd be a whole lotta new saws in our homes featuring his brake...

The bottom line is, it's good technology. It can prevent a ton of injuries (but not all obviously).

The government mandates all sorts of safety measures for us --> Airbags, minimum crash standards, seat belts, blade guards, splitters albeit all these items can be disabled or removed if we choose... so can this break.

I agree with Per and Brad, separate the polotics from the technology. Don't be as short sighted as the execs were when first introduced to the technology.

Just my humble opinion....

[Stu Ablett in Tokyo Japan]

Been away for a few day, so I'm coming in late on this.

A few points as I see it;

Comparing accidents with a TS to car crashes is not valid. I can be driving along, doing nothing wrong, and some guy runs a stoplight and kill me and my family.
An accident on a TS is not (usually) caused by someone bumping my hand into the TS, thus the regulations on seat-belts and airbags, as well as other safety features in transportation is something that the government got into. The thing is, the car makers now tout their safety features, as selling points. I know that I really looked at the numbers when we went to buy a new van for our family.

The idea that if other maker put a saw stopping device on their equipment, they would be open for litigation is, IMHO also not a valid point. I think the makers don't want to put the R&D into this device.

A better comparison would be ABS, and I'll apply it to motorcycles, as there are some very valid comparisons, IMHO.

When ABS came out, it was expensive, intrusive and heavy, it added a lot of weight to a motorcycle, most everyone who rode a bike DID not want it, but some did get it, mostly the touring kind of guys, where an addition of 10 or 15 pounds was not such a big deal, and the idea of ABS for safety on a large touring bike was welcome.

Over the years, ABS has become a lot better, the difference between an ABS and non-ABS bike, in weight was not much of a factor anymore and the price difference also had narrowed. Now, a lot of bike can come with ABS and it works VERY well, and it is getting lighter and cheaper all the time.

One day soon most bikes will come with ABS, and most bikers will want to have it. I've been in situations where the ABS on my buddy's bike saved my bacon, I've also crashed a few times when ABS would have sure been nice, is if perfect? No, it is not, but it is often a LOT better than a non-ABS bikes.

I've never heard of a bike maker being sued by someone because the bike was NOT sold with ABS brakes, so I do not see how a TS maker could be sued because they did not buy the saw with the saw stopping device.

I've never heard of someone suing the makers of cars what were built in the 60s for not having airbags etc, so retroactive lawsuits on saws made with out a saw stopping device, are not likely.

Well, for now, that is what I wanted to add.

Cheers!

[Kyle Kraft]

I'm with all the anti big government folks on this one. This type of regulation will simply boost the values of the pre-ban tablesaws just like the Brady bill caused pre-ban "assault" weapons values to soar. Listen, did you hear a can of worms being opened?

I always try to keep my fingers and other important body parts out of harms way. If in the future an unfortunate accident occurs, it is no ones fault but my own. I alone assume all risks involved in the execution of my hobby, just like any other high risk avocation.

[Rob Millard]

http://www.sawstop.com/how-it-works-overview.htm
Why would you look to the inventor rather than the manufacturer? If you're hurt in a plane crash, do you pursue the estates of Orville and Wilbur Wright?
No, but they can better that operator's odds against injury. Airbags aren't 100% effective in preventing injury (heck, in some cases, they cause injury). Does that mean we should reject airbags?

First let me say, I’m opposed to law suits against a manufacturer who brings a product to market and has it fail in an unforeseen way. Jack pot justice is a terrible burden on our system. The inventor by pursuing the devises installation by regulation is upping the ante.

Using the airplane and Wright Brothers as a comparison is hardly appropriate. Aircraft today bear only superficial resemblance to their airplane.

I don’t see the air bag analogy as any more on target. When I hit the road, I’m not in total control of the situation; other drivers "share" the road with various levels of competence and attention. On the other hand when I flip the switch on my table saw, it's all on me.

Rob Millard

[Robert Mickley]

Not to pick on Robert's recent posts,

Oh you can pick on me, I've been picked on by the best

but I am reminded that we, as in humans in general, are remarkably bad at assessing risk.

There ladies and gentlemen is the problem!!! Give that man a cookie!!!

Stu brought up ABS brakes
A year or so ago I read an article, Car and driver if I rember right. They took 10 people in their daily drivers andset up a road course with cones. Sent them around in their own cars. All was good. Then they sent them out in a variety of cares with non abs brakes. Every one of them spun out or overshot stopping points. Age range was about 25 to 60. some of those folks learned to drive on cars that did not have ABS.

Safety devices make people complacent. Then when they do something stupid they sue.

As foir that raise of hands, I haven't had an accident yet on the Table saw. Notice I said yet since anything is possible. I try to be very aware of what I'm doing.

In fact none of my corderd tools have bit me yet. Chisel's knives and other sharp ahnd tools on the other hand have bit me a few times. Hammers? I've had a few sore thumbs.

I'm not saying ABS is a bad thing, I'm just saying that because of it people have forgotten how to drive. In fact I would venture a guess it contributes to some accidents since folks with a certain mindset will drive more aggresively

[Sonny Porter]

It is highly unlikely that the CPSC would mandate Sawstops specifically. Far more likely would be a requirement for some kind of method of stopping a blade such as to minimize injury to flesh. That would certainly give manufacturers the chance to invent around Steve Gass' patents.

Totally disagree. If you know how legislation works, the company itself will be writing the rules. Further, SawStop has moved heaven and earth to assure that it owns a ring of patents all around the basic idea.

There won't be any other companies that qualify to meet the specs SAWSTOP itself will have bribed into existence. The whole history of special interest legislation runs in the opposite direction from choice. The idea of special interest legislation is that it should benefit the company paying for it.

[Stu Ablett in Tokyo Japan]

Stu brought up ABS brakes

Safety devices make people complacent. Then when they do something stupid they sue.

You ARE talking about the US, right

I'm not saying ABS is a bad thing, I'm just saying that because of it people have forgotten how to drive. In fact I would venture a guess it contributes to some accidents since folks with a certain mindset will drive more aggressively

I very much agree with that, I have taken a ton, as in near 20, Honda Motorcycle School courses, from the basics to advanced track riding (I'm 42, and I've been riding bikes since I was 8) and I still have stuff to learn, but I do work at it. My point to many friends about ABS bikes is that if it fails, or if they get on a bike without it, they are VERY likely to crash, where I train (emergency stops from 50 mph) regular like and I'll have a better chance..... sorry for the hi-jack

[Damien Falgoust]

Damien's numbers are wrong. A quick check of the list he published show over 900,000 cabinetmakers who are also in the "at risk" group.

Thank you for pointing out my error; I admit I just skipped down to the "woodworking" category and didn't look under cabinet making (the description was broad enough to encompass cabinetmaking, or so I thought).

Having said that, the stat "Cabinetmakers and bench carpenters" adds 120,000 workers to the group of professional woodworkers. Am I missing some other category that gets you to your 900,000 figure?

[Steve Schoene]

The TS manufacturers were very short sighted IMO - they could easily have incorporated the SawStop technology into new ranges of machines, raised the prices 25% (which we all would have paid) and paid Mr.Gass his 8%.
Dave F.

It is a major mistake to think that if prices increased that we all would pay it. And, the price increases wouldn't be a consistent percentage. The lower priced machines--the $350 entry level-- would disappear with the lowest price to play probably double that. And, with the risk of a $100 or more payout everytime the devise triggers (new cartridge and new blade) there could well be additional resistence to paying that price. The "new" Unisaw might only increase 25%.

The import machines that currently squeeze prices by using public domaine designs would also be forced to do the same new engineering with new castings as the larger players, with the added problem of patent compliance. The import manufacturers would then be put in the position of manufacturing significantly different machines for home market than for US export, if they are willing to undertake the redesign to begin with. Can anyone believe China or Vietnam or India or Korea are going to adopt the same safety rules as the US? Competition would decline as import sellers exit the US market. This would increase prices of all machines in addition to the costs of re-engineering and of the machine itself.

Used machines would be more valuable, and at the same time "junk" would be less likely to be scraped. The "have nots" might end up with greater risk of injury than now.

Especially since rules have already been issued mandating riving knives, table saws are already slated to become safer. Frankly, the risk of kick back seems much greater to me than running a finger or hand through the blade. And, I suspect that many of the "blade contacting body part" incidents are in fact triggered by kickback. Solving kickback would go so far to reduce injury that the rest would be too minor to requiring the mandate of spending billions on high technology solutions.

[Allen Bookout]

I say keep Big Government out of whatever you can. I hear that Mr. Brown of FEMA fame is looking for a job.

Is this what you really want?

[Damien Falgoust]

Totally disagree. If you know how legislation works, the company itself will be writing the rules.

This is regulation, not legislation, which means all the provisions of the Administrative Procedures Act apply. That means including public comment in the rulemaking process and maintaining a transparent set of procedures under which the final rules are set, among other things.

And while proposals are indeed sometimes drafted by the regulated industry, the ultimate text of the regulation will be decided by the agency itself.

I should know, I've represented my share of companies in regulated industries, and boy-o do they wish they could write the rules under which they operate simply by proposing new rulemaking. It'd certainly make their lives easier. Doesn't generally work that way, though.

And frankly, this is an odd point to raise. If you're really concerned about the venal nature of the political process, ask yourself this: who has more political clout, some rink-a-dink startup selling 3,000 saws a year, or a coalition of multi-milllion dollar manufacturers who've been around for close to a century?

[Damien Falgoust]

I say keep Big Government out of whatever you can.

And I say keep bumper-sticker slogans out of meaningful discussions.

You may not guess it from my participation in this thread, but I'm actually a small government, governs-least-governs-best kind of guy. But neither does my knee jerk at every proposal to cross a government agency's desk.

I would oppose a rule that mandates Sawstop-specific solutions to tablesaw safety. However, I think a rule mandating some kind of (unstated) mechanism to minimize damage when a hand hits a moving blade might be quite sensible. That way, the government isn't picking a particular technology as the winner, other manufacturers can elect to R&D alternative solutions rather than paying Sawstop LLC if they so desire, and consumers will get safer saws.

Not all regulation is terrible (though some is), and some of it is actually quite good. We should consider the specific proposal that the CPSC comes up with before we get up in arms.

[Ian Barley]

Thank you for pointing out my error; I admit I just skipped down to the "woodworking" category and didn't look under cabinet making (the description was broad enough to encompass cabinetmaking, or so I thought).

Having said that, the stat "Cabinetmakers and bench carpenters" adds 120,000 workers to the group of professional woodworkers. Am I missing some other category that gets you to your 900,000 figure?

Damien

I also included "carpenters" (and should have said so) on the basis that they were a group that was quite likely at some point in a working year to come into contact with a tablesaw of some description. The list shows 926,000 odd of them. Don't get me wrong - I support your basic logic but 1 in 5 just didn't go with my own knowledge of my own circle of contacts but 1 in 50 very easily fits my own real world experience. I am very willing to believe that if you put 50 random woodworkers in a room at least one of them would have a numerically smaller choice of which finger to use to pick his nose.