To be fair, you will never get into my shop with that attitude.
I, too, am a safety freak. I guess I got that way growing up around stupid people who were NOT safety freaks and hurt themselves on a regular basis. I just looked at them and said that I was going to be different.
Yes, there are those freak accidents that happen from time to time. But the occur in many places, not just shops.
I have taken a number of injured people to the hospital. In every case, they screwed up. And most of them knew it too. Interestingly enough, some people learned from this experience. and some did not.
Keep in mind that some injuries require multiple operations to repair.
My neighbor, who lost two fingers to a table saw had one restored, but after two years had it re-amputated as the previous operation(s) were not adequately successful.
I would think that only a small number of table saw injuries result in a personal injury claim being filed, if you mean lawsuits, more if you mean workman's comp and still more if you include health insurance claims. E.g. a home-user who removed his guard is not likely to even consider suing.
Surgeon specialists can do a lot of work. When my father had bypass surgery it was his surgeon's thrid operation of the day, and it was only mid-afternoon.
I amskeptical of that number if if refers only to table saw injuries. It is borderline believable that a hand-surgery specialist would perform 1000 surgeries per year for power saw (of all sorts) injuries. It is entirely beleiveable that she would have a thousand face-to-face, or face-to-hand visits for saw-injuries if you include simple stiching, pre-surgical consultation, and follow-up.
Suppose ahand-specialist performs an average of five operations a day, five days a week, (allowing two days for consultaion, doing rounds etc). That's
1250 operations a year. Unless she is a table-saw- injury-hand-surgeon specialist that seems unrealistic.
The statistic that I do believe is ZERO tramatic amputations or other injuries from contact with the blade when using a guard.
Problems with poorly designed or utilized guards can cause kick-back but it is pretty hard to imagine one that brings a body-part into contact with the blade.
BTW, The Cleveland Clinic does research on animals and so has some veterinarians on staff. For restoring traumaticly amputated fingers, it was routine, and may still be routine, for a verterinarian surgeon to assist as he was _really_ expert at working on a small scale.
Likewise, I have seen, and the evidence is certainly contained in the archives of this group - that being a safety freak in no way ensures safety. This group is full of stories about incidents in the shop where all of the safety gear was in place. It is full of stories from "safety freaks" who put pieces of wood through walls, into body parts, who posted pictures of stiches, etc. Being a safety freak does nothing to ensure you will not be hurt. The post by zap was a collection of freak accidents that didn't even correlate to the discussion at hand.
And you point is?
Ummmmmm... of course they screwed up. And the point is?
Not accurate. Cases are filed, just not necessarily won. Manufacturer has the obligation to "Guard and Warn" failure to do either puts them in a bad position in an action.
That is why when other service part tooling for obsolete tools was discontinued after a long period of limited demand, guard tooling, warning label art work, and warning printed matter was preserved forever, at least while I was active.
In my area they see patients for three days a week and do elective surgery on one day. My wife was a recent patient for CT. There are obviously emergencies, however, I question the volume.
Additionally, if you multiply the claimed number by the number of hand surgeons in the U.S. the number would be well over a hundred thousand table saw hand injuries a year. My local woodwoking club has had none in the past ten years, so you other guys must be real careless.
How about another similar bone-of-contention for some years back- seat-belts in cars. In that case, too, the unexpected happened very quickly, leaving you no options. Even using them, you still have to drive reasonably; in neither case could you be said to be recklessly risking yourself in traffic.
Seat belts are probably a bother and a nuisance to some, for a while. My sons were gotten accustomed to them from their first ride, and feel very exposed now, in their twenties, without being buckled in. One of them is alive because of using proper restraints; the other escaped possibly major injury.
If you're going to be involved in sports-car competition, you will have an approved 5-point harness strapping you in. No discussion.
If I use proper safety-equipment and procedures on t/s, I can make my probability of amputation be zero. Saves cleaning up blood-spatter too.
The OP stated "I've probably cared for close to 1000 table saw injuries in my career". Career... not in a year. If he has been practicing for 10 years, that would only be 100 a year...
I didn't deny that cases are filed or won. I speculated that a home-user who removed his guard is not likely to even consider suing. That implies that such suits would be rare, not nonexistant, although no one in thid thread has presented an example of such a suit--yet, despite the fact that we have had examples of accidents presented.
Yes, that is one reason why I expect that most people who injure themselves after removing their guards never consider suing. They may not have been smart enough to avoid injury but maybe they are smart or honest enough to realize that if they ignored the manufacturer's warnings and removed the manufacturer's safety device, they don't have a case.
Another reason may be that most of the injuries that do require professional treatment are (hopefully) relatively trivial--mere stitches required.
Kep in mind that there is a reason why you see news items about people winning seemingly trivial suits--they are rare. If they were commonplace, they wouldn't be newsworthy.
And I would contend that your speculation is in error.
And I would contend that you are in error with this statement also. I've served on the liability committee of a fortune 100 company (not the woodworking machinery company) and can assure you that the vast majority of cases are settled without going to court simply because it cost the defendant less to do so, win or lose. The vast majority of those potential cases were without merit.
When I cut sheet goods I use a guard that I made from plywood that encompass the blade and that is attached to a section of 1-1/2" pipe, which is connected to the dust collector. It is suspended from the ceiling over the saw.
This is a great comfort, particularly when cutting MDF, as the flow from both above and below takes away most of the offending dust.
When I cut solid stock, particularly "interesting" stock that may be reaction wood and needs a bit of visual monitoring, I take the guard off.
I also do not use hearing protection when doing this.
I want to see and hear and feel how that piece is going through that saw.
If the accumulated wisdom of my senses tells me to bail on that cut, I want to be able to shut that saw down with a clear understanding of the problem that made that necessary.
I, like you, have been running equipment for about forty years.
This is my choice of how to get by with good results, both from the safety and the production end.
I have, as do all of those that I respect, all of my digits.
The mind is the best and most appropriate safety device.
I understand that when talking on the Wreck we are addressing multiple understandings of the process and multiple levels of experience.
I would simply like to preach the gospel of mind as the premier safety device, as slavish dependence on contrivances does not answer fully.
But you actually discuss a matter not dispositive as to the question of what proportion of the injured sues or seriously considers suing.
It is not that your comments are wrong or even questionable, they just don't address that particular question.
I didn't argue that meritless (dare I say fraudulent) suits are not an expensive problem, only that it is rare for a plaintiff to win one that actually DOES go to trial.
That the vast majority of cases are settled out-of-court does not address the question of what proportion of the injured has (seriously) contemplated suing. For every meritless suit there may be ten or more equally injured people who lack the chutzpah to sue.
Despite having Usenet access I still think that decent (even if careless) people are the majority.
OK please tell me how that matters. If most are trivial or without merit and most are settled by paying off the those intitiating the suit, how does that matter whether it goes to trial other than semantics.
I prepared a point by point response to your post, but then thought about those papers I signed about conflict of interest, release of sensitive or damaging information, etc. etc. Since it is a gray area and this is Usenet and not worthy of taking a chance, I deleted it all. However, my opinion, formed as an individual who ran an operation that made a high volume of table saws, remains the same. And your opinion is based on.......
(snip) I disagree completely. I think a lot of accidents in the shop happen to people who are knowledgeable and aware, but whose attention slips briefly at just the wrong moment.
I have to disagree with your disagreement. To operate table saw safely it requires the operators full undivided attention. If someone is not disciplined enough to give it their full attention, there is a good chance that there will be an accident in their future with or without a guard. As an example, if you get American Woodworker mag, check out page 28 in this months issue. The owner of a small woodworking shop and operator of a new SawStop says he was in a hurry batch cutting stock when his finger went under the blade guard and hit the blade. Of course the brake saved him for major injury, but, as you noted, accidents can happen when attention wanders even briefly. This is the part of running a machine that takes discipline. IMHO, if one can give their machine their full undivided attention at all times, the chances of an accident are small. BTW, I do not think I'm invincible or anything because I can run a table saw comfortably with no guard, or believe for a second that an accident could never happen to me. I run a table saw almost daily and am disciplined enough to not let anything distract me while I'm running it. Regardless of whether or not it has a guard, MY fingers are at stake here, and the saw has my full undivided attention at all times. This has played the key role for me in keeping all 10 intact. I do think, however, that it is very possible that people who do use a guard may get a false sense of security and may become a little more relaxed with regards to giving their undivided attenion to the saw during a cut. With that said, I certainly don't recommend anyone remove their guard but to run their table saw as if it wasn't there at all. The guard is merely to HELP prevent accidents, not eliminate them. Safe use of a table saw still lands squarely on the operators shoulders. --dave
"Doug Miller" wrote in message news:ABI%g.17457$ snipped-for-privacy@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
: When I cut solid stock, particularly "interesting" stock that may be : reaction wood and needs a bit of visual monitoring, I take the guard : off.
But this is irrational. Reaction wood is dangerous because it can twist and bind against the blade and/or fence, and cause kickback and kickup. With a splitter and guard you have protection against this. Whithout them you just plain don't.
: If the accumulated wisdom of my senses tells me to bail on that cut, I : want to be able to shut that saw down with a clear understanding of : the problem that made that necessary.
You don't seem to understand how rapidly kickback occurs, when it does occur.
: The mind is the best and most appropriate safety device.
No one is saying it isn't. Just as it's the most appropriate safety device when driving. That doesn't negate the actual, verifiable safety advantages of wearing a seatbelt.
: I understand that when talking on the Wreck we are addressing multiple : understandings of the process and multiple levels of experience.
: I would simply like to preach the gospel of mind as the premier safety : device, as slavish dependence on contrivances does not answer fully.
Sure. But you're solving the equation wrong. Attendant mind + guards/igs/splitters outsafties attendant mind alone.
You sound like one of those people (and I've known a bunch) who don't wear seatbelts in cars (they want to, variously: be able to get to the other side to avoid a side collision; get out of a burning car; be thrown free [through the windshield] instead of stuck in a wreck), and don't wear helmets on a motorcycle (they impair vision!!!).
HomeOwnersHub website 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.