CPSC Proposes New Safety Rule for Tablesaws

Loading thread data ...

I saw that too. I don't have any objections to having safe table saws. I just cannot figure out how they could require a patented product for this s afety. A device with no patent, like seatbelts when they were required in the 70s or whenever, sure. Or airbags and anti lock brakes. Yes, no paten ts when required. But a patented product while it is still under patent? Unless the safety requirement would remove the existing patent and make it free for anyone to use.

Reply to
russellseaton1

If they mandate a "safer" saw the population will build a better idiot. It's a miracle our forefathers survive?

Reply to
Gordon Shumway

woodchucker wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@ptd.net:

Summary: CPSC wants new table saws to stop the blade upon contact with flesh.

Response: A nice idea, but its time isn't here yet. SawStop's tech is protected by patents and there's no other competitors right now.

Actually, the free market might sort this out if the patent system actually works. SawStop's patents will eventually expire (I hope!) and the technology will be freely available. It's a very desireable feature, and new saws will be built with it as sawmakers try to compete.

Puckdropper

Reply to
Puckdropper

Gordon Shumway wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

Some of them didn't. We started seeing reasonable safety measures to keep more people alive. The biggest mistake you can make safety wise is forgetting or ignoring how the human creature works! Make the thing look scary and dangerous if it is! Humans will react without even realizing they did it. Making something dangerous look safe actually increases the danger.

Puckdropper

Reply to
Puckdropper

Great, this bullshit again. Would the Earth please open up and swallow Gass and his company?

The official NPRM can be found at and you have until July 26 to comment.

Reply to
J. Clarke

They don't require a patented product but right now nothing else exists. What should take place is the other saw makers get together and find another method. If they pool resources they may all benefit.

Reply to
Ed Pawlowski

What am I missing?

The proposed ruling is only for demo purposes, not actual use, NO?

What was written,

The proposal requires that table saws limit the depth of cut to 3.5 millimeters when a stand-in for a human finger (a hot dog is commonly used) contacts the spinning blade while approaching at 1 meter per second.

I think the author missed the point, I read this as a guide line for demonstration purposes only.

Reply to
Leon

I did not see that at all. Not that many deomos going ot to prevent injuries mentioned: The CPSC says the new rule is necessary to prevent the nearly 55,000 blade-contact injuries that require medical treatment and could save consumers anywhere from $625 million to about $2.3 billion in reduced medical payments, insurance claims and lost wages. The agency is soliciting comments for 75 days before taking further action.

Reply to
Ed Pawlowski

Once again, piss poor writing and expression are at fault. When I read wha t you post, I re-read the article posted as appearing in Fine Homebuilding once more. I can easily see how it could be read that the proposal is for demonstration purposes only.

But reading the draft of the proposed regulation, it is obvious that the ho t dog method is used as a base line testing mechanism, /simulating/ a finge r or other human flesh contact. Fine Homebuilding's sloppy ambiguity is ju st laziness.

However, all should read the reference to the proposed regulation as suppli ed by J. Clarke. It is comprehensive, considered, well written and seems t o cover all aspects of the arguments for and against.

It discusses the notorious Mr. Gass, the length of time on his remaining pa tents, Bosch and the Axis solution, the lack of competition for this techno logy, the effects of requiring such technology, and its effect on the table saw market. It addresses Gass' lawsuit against Bosch, unfair advantage wi thin the marketplace since there is actually only one undisputed device tha t performs a blade stopping action, and even the idea that installing these devices could make the average table saw user more sloppy in his safety pr actices. And much, much more.

To the point, further explanation within the body of the proposed regulatio n clearly (to me) spells out the hot dog as the universal test medium used to determine effectiveness. As for the article in the magazine, it was pro bably put together by the National Enquirer staff.

Robert

Reply to
nailshooter41

Understood but the author right off the bat indicated that the proposal was for how high the blade must be when using a stand in, a hot dog, in place of a human finger.

Another case of never letting the facts get in they way for a fantastic story. And or not proofing before publishing.

Reply to
Leon

Idiots!

Yes! Click on the links to get to the actual proposal. The author put the actual proposal as a foot note and not as the thesis of the story.

Reply to
Leon

It was poorly written in that part. Even the proposal is. They do not state if the hot dogs can be or should be natural casing. If the test is done on the Sabbath is an all beef dog required? Lots of detail left out.

Reply to
Ed Pawlowski

Lots of detail left

I know, right?

Reply to
Leon

Capacitance sensing of contact is NOT a new technology - it is simple and ancieant electrical knowledge. The judge who issued the ruling of "patent violation" is too technically ignorant to be allowed to judge anything.

That makes as much sense as the Patent Office giving a patent to wheelbarrow design when someone designed a new type of dump handle for the wheelbarrow - yes, they did that.

The judge and the SawStop attorneys should be found in contempt of the Court of Common Sense and their sentence is 90 days sawing old oak with a handsaw.

Sounds an awful lot like corporate payments twisting judicial opinion to get forced purchase of a patented device with only one source.

Reply to
ads

On Tuesday, May 23, 2017 at 12:23:13 PM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote: .

OK, Ed. Calm down over there. I was surprised that the proposal was as we ll written as it is now. I have a guy that I smoke cigars with that is a p rofessional "writer" (policy, instruction leaflets,) that expresses other p eople's thoughts for government dissemination. He can barely spell his own name correctly two times in a row, much less determine what makes an instru ctive piece.

And if you read between the lines on that piece, there is credit given to a nother govt panel for determining the successful testing criteria... the F' in hot dog Gass has been using for years!

Robert

Reply to
nailshooter41

Instead of talking about these stupid proposals, use the time that you take to write to this newsgroup and send the message where it will do some good.

formatting link

In the case of this proposal enter into the search window and complete number in the search window. CPSC-2011-0074 to get the comment form for this proposal.

There are enough people reading this newsgroups and their friends that if every one of you sent a comment through the above link it would make a difference.

I just submitted my comments, will you?

Reply to
Keith Nuttle

if they really stood behind the product and technology they would use their finger

this hot dog thing tells us that the tech is not 100 percent

and yet again we get toward the papa state

that is laws and technology to prevent one from thinking and where does it get humanity when so many are incapable of thinking for themselves

but no doubt it sells more saws so that is the prime objective

but how long will it be until table saws are obsolete

see my previous post but i suspect not too long as cnc is much cheaper than it was as the motors and servos and computers are vastly improved and the single board computers are well supported and widely available

also as i get older i start thinking more about a cnc setup in this regard and would not invest in sawstop

if i screw up i can be far away and just shut off power to cnc

Reply to
Electric Comet

The pertinent patents don't have much longer to run (the broad ones run out in 1999 or 2000, IIRC). It's going to kill the low-end saws but I no longer see a big issue with "woodworker's" saws. Time heals all Gass. ;-)

Reply to
krw

What are they going to do about circular saws? Bandsaws? Box cutters?

Reply to
krw

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.