SawStop?

Page 6 of 7  


How about:
Guard rails Accessible exits Limits on noise exposure Limits on exposure to dangerous volatile chemicals Eye and face protection Guards around belts and pulleys Disconnect (panic) switches Saw guards Limit to number of hours worked and mandated breaks
You find a lot more at:
<http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owastand.display_standard_group?p_toc_le vel=1&p_part_number10>
Specific woodworking machine requirements are at:
<http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=STANDARDS & p_id˜37>
It's reasonable to assume that many if not most of the regulations are there because some shops or manufacturers were not meeting the standard. I think it's easy to look at things the way they are now and assume that they've always been that way or would have happened without being required.
As to whether any particular thing does not improve safety, I'd be surprised if there weren't some. What do you have in mind in particular?
--
Hank Gillette

Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Hank Gillette wrote:

Guard rails for _what_?

Necessary to get stuff out when you go to deliver it. I've never heard of exiting from a woodshop being any kind of problem.

ROF,L. You've never actually watched "safety engineers" work, have you? I remember a couple of them spending about $15K out of my budget to tell me that I didn't need a $20 set of earmuffs.

So to which "dangerous and volatile chemicals" is the exposure in a tyhpical wood shop "limited"?

See "noise exposure" above.

I don't recall there being very many unguarded belts and pulleys anywhere that anybody was likely to bump into them before OSHA. Somebody getting caught in the machinery generally caused a work stoppage and spoiled whatever work they bled all over, so there was an economic incentive to do this.

Again, I don't recall any paucity of big read buttons before OSHA.

Ditto.
That's funny, I thought the _union_ got _that_.

Which doesn't tell us that they've changed anything, just that they've justified their existence by releasing a flood of paper.

More paper. Paper doesn't impress me.

It's reasonable to assume that most of the regulations are there because some bureaucrat, possibly one who had never been within 50 miles of an actual working shop, decided that they were a good idea.

My favorite, in a different context, was a big press at a Fortune 500 aerospace contractor. It was installed before WWII, and there had never been an injury associated with its use. Nonetheless, the safety people decided that it needed a guard to comply with OSHA regs (the same safety people that spent $15K to save the cost of a set of earmuffs). So they put a guard on it, approved by the safety people. In the next year there were four injuries caused by the guard.
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I've certainly heard of deaths in factories because the emergency exits were locked.
--
Hank Gillette

Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Factories or woodshops? Legal or illegal labor? I've heard of deaths in nightclubs...
-j
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
A lot of safety issues were brought about through union demands. The government bowed down to labor and legislated safety as an afterthought. (and no! I am not a union man)
Grant
"J. Clarke" wrote:

Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Grant P. Beagles wrote:

Is safety legislation in fact the result of lobbying by the labor unions? Usually they handle things by contract.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 11:17:00 -0500, "J. Clarke"

the results.

Untrue. The public had a growing demand for seatbelts, both as after market equipment and installed in cars. Later the Naderites used Ford's marketing failure to claim that people wouldn't buy safety equipment unless the government forced them to.

Ford sales went down because the 1956 and 1957 Fords were outdone by their rivals from GM. They were essentially early-50s concepts and GM had already shifted to late-50s style. Also Ford was in the middle of one of its periodic spells of ineptness. After it was all over a few people tried to excuse Ford's failures by claiming 'safety doesn't sell'. Considering what was going on at Ford this was lame at best.

http://www.lovefords.org/56ford/options.htm
The main benefit of the legislation was that it speeded up the general adoption of seatbelts by a few years.

I think you're generally correct there.
--RC
Projects expand to fill the clamps available -- plus 20 percent
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

All of them. In fact, what the Germans and the Japanese did with FM radios as standard equipement in automobiles is precisely what would have taken place with airbags and seatbelts. They would have introduced them to their "niche" crowd as standard equipement, they would have been recognized as value added, and the American automotive industry would have followed suit to remain competitive. The market would have succeeded again - without government help.

Not true. It just takes recognition that there is a market.

About as much as there is now. A good deal of what is thought of as government regulated safety is government regulated hassle. Not to scoff at safety, but the government gets a lot of credit for things it did not bring about. The government is much better at creating cumbersome regulations than it is at really effecting safety.
--

-Mike-
snipped-for-privacy@sprintmail.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mike Marlow writes:

And the small commercial wood shop often uses very little in the way of safety devices. If they even have table saw guards, they have trouble finding them. Dust collection is minimal. Noise reduction is haphazard.
Sounds a lot like my non-pro shop, in fact, where OSHA doesn't reign (the oft used Oh, Shit, Here Again doesn't apply very well for small shops that often come in under regulatory radar).
Charlie Self "He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire." Sir Winston Churchill
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 04:11:35 GMT, "Mike Marlow"

US corporations get credited for things that were rammed down their throats, including seat belts, passenger compartment protections, and disc brakes. Claiming that seat belts would have become standard issue in a few years without gov't intervention is good old Soviet-style revisionist history.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
GregP wrote:

Huh? Who "rammed disk brakes down their throat"? There is no government regulation requiring disk brakes, at least not in the US.

Really depends on whether people wanted them or not. If people bought cars with them in preference to cars without them then they would have eventually become standard across the board. If people went the other way then they would not. What is your objection to letting people decide how much safety they want in their lives?
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I've also not heard of disk brakes being mandatory. There are handling and engineering reasons to prefer them; less unsprung weight and rotating mass, easier servicing, and probably lower cost as well. Common in the 1960s at least on some makes.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 13:13:45 -0500, "J. Clarke"

None. I object to people pretending that US auto manufacturers would have made them standard in automobiles any time soon.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

And your proof that they would not have become standard is. . .?
Again, disc brakes were well on their way to becoming standard because they offered significant design advantages, no appreciable increase in cost and they had a very positive public image.
While manufacturers undoubtedly do take credit for government mandated safety features, it is a fallacy to conclude from that that such safety features would not exist without government intervention.
--RC
Projects expand to fill the clamps available -- plus 20 percent
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 03:39:22 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@TAKEOUTmindspring.com wrote:

I didn't say that they would not become standard, only that it would be a long time before they would have, as opposed to the idiotic claim that they would have been within 2 years.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 03:39:22 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@TAKEOUTmindspring.com wrote:

Disc brakes "were well on their way to becoming standard" because of the European manufacturers. The Detroit folks dragged up the rear as usual.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Yep. Competition at work. Ain't it wonderful?
Actually both European and American automakers were pretty much isolated from each other during the 40s and the 50s and both of them produced sub-optimal products as a result.

That perception is the result of a limited (American-centric) perspective. In the 60s and 70s there was a lot of cross-fertilization as imports on both sides of the Atlantic opened these worlds to each other. Cars all around the free world vastly improved as a result.
I remember reading in the British press in the late 60s wondering articles about American engines that could cruise 'flat out' all day without seizing up or overheating. That was an exaggeration, of course, but the fact is that British and European engines benefited enormously when the public in those countries were exposed to American technology.
Sadly, we lost a lot of that in the 1970s and 80s when American government regulation pretty much closed the US market to European cars not specifically designed for export to the US.
--RC
Projects expand to fill the clamps available -- plus 20 percent
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 13:13:45 -0500, "J. Clarke"

I apologize, I mixed that up with something else.

I do think that parents should be required to seatbelt their children.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
GregP wrote:

When you start requiring school bus drivers to do this (and don't give me that crap about how the buses are designed to not hurt the kids when they run into a bridge abutment), then perhaps you'll find people other than professional busybodies agreeing that parents should be required to do it. Of course the professional busybodies have an effective lobby and so parents are already required by law to do this and a good deal more, some of which is intended to protect the kids in their government-approved child safety seats from the government-required airbags which, when they strike a child in such a seat, with deplorable regularity kill him.
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 20:19:04 -0500, "J. Clarke"

You are a prime example of why we have seat belt laws for kids.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.