CPSC Proposes New Safety Rule for Tablesaws

That's completely irrelevant. Right or _wrong_, the USPTO is considered the expert. The judge having ruled on it, seals it as fact. It will take every nuke in the world to budge the courts.

When reading patents, forget everything but the claims section. Often what is actually being patented has nothing to do with the discussion that precedes it. I don't know which patent you're referencing but I've pulled a lot apart that aren't at all what people think they are.

That's the worry. Not sure how valid it is at this point. Insurance is a more lasting force.

Reply to
krw
Loading thread data ...

Maybe this is a start?

formatting link

Or:

formatting link

Reply to
Gordon Shumway

Don't get it.

Good idea but it's not a circular saw.

Reply to
krw

What do you expect for only a few minutes work?

Reply to
Gordon Shumway

Fair enough.

Seriously, people do some incredibly dumb stuff with circular saw, like cutting off their leg. They need government to protect them!

Reply to
krw

I imagine it is being worked on. Same idea but it has to be made smaller but it certainly won't be on thr $29.99 model.

Reply to
Ed Pawlowski

The actual proposal:

formatting link
, dated January 17,2017.

Quote: "CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

16 CFR Part 1245 [RIN 3041-AC31] Docket No. CPSC-2011-0074 Safety Standard Addressing Blade-Contact Injuries on Table Saws AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety Commission. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission has determined preliminarily that there may be an unreasonable risk of blade-contact injuries associated with table saws. In 2015, there were an estimated 33,400 table saw, emergency department-treated injuries. Of these, CPSC staff estimates that 30,800 (92 percent) are likely related to the victim making contact with the saw blade. CPSC staff?s review of the existing data indicates that currently available safety devices, such as the modular blade guard and riving knife, do not adequately address the unreasonable risk of blade-contact injuries on table saws. To address this risk, the Commission proposes a rule that is based, in part, on work conducted by Underwriters Laboratories Inc. The proposed rule would establish a performance standard that requires table saws, when powered on, to limit the depth of cut to 3.5 millimeters when a test probe, acting as surrogate for a human body/finger, contacts the spinning blade at a radial approach rate of 1 meter per second (m/s). The proposed rule would address an estimated 54,800 medically treated blade-contact injuries annually. The Commission estimates that the proposed rule?s aggregate net benefits on an annual basis could range from about $625 million to about $2,300 million.

Quoting further:

"SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background On April 15, 2003, Stephen Gass, David Fanning, and James Fulmer, et al. (petitioners) requested that the CPSC require performance standards for a system to reduce or prevent injuries from contact with the blade of a table saw. The petitioners are members of SawStop, LLC, and its parent company, SD3, LLC (collectively, SawStop). On October 11, 2011, the Commission published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) to consider whether there may be an unreasonable risk of blade-contact injuries associated with table saws. 76 FR 62678. The ANPR began a rulemaking proceeding under the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA). The Commission received approximately 1,600 public comments. The Commission is now issuing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) to address an unreasonable risk of blade-contact injuries associated with table saws that would limit the depth of cut to 3.5 mm or less when a test probe, acting as surrogate for a human body/finger, contacts the spinning blade at a radial approach rate of 1 meter per second (m/s)."

I've read only a tiny portion of the 431 pages, but have not yet seen any mention of restricting the sale or use of existing saws.

Reply to
Larry Kraus

On 05/24/2017 9:01 AM, Larry Kraus wrote: ...

Well, I've not read it all but there are two copies in slightly differing formats so it's "only" about 200+ pp...

AFAICT, this isn't actually the rule; just the background to try to justify making one.

The rule being proposed appears to just be the hotdog test must be

Reply to
dpb

They won't bother the consumer, but workmans comp insurance companies have been pressuring commercial shops for a few years already.

Reply to
Ed Pawlowski

VERY true. I had a talk with my insurance guy that handles my commercial a ccount, and he told me that "IF" I had a table saw, that didn't have "blade stopping technology", I might be facing higher premiums. Not a problem for me since no one works out of a shop with my business.

But my cabinet man at the time told me his insurance went up because he did n't have any blade stopping mechanism.

My buddy that teaches industrial arts (shop) was required by the district t o get a SawStop saw about three years ago. The other saws were deemed to d angerous. Not a bad idea around 15-18 year old knot heads. I had secured the purchase of the existing Delta saw, vintage mid 60s, for a couple of hu ndred bucks. It was a rebuild in every sense, but I have couple of connect ions for that. In the end, they didn't sell it to me, but sold the whole t hing to a metal scrap yard. The purchaser for the district told me they di dn't want the implied liability of selling a tool so dangerous that they we re required to get rid of it.

Sigh.

Robert

Reply to
nailshooter41

On 05/23/2017 11:32 AM, Leon wrote: ...

From the CPSC document directly one finds:

"Specifically, the proposed rule would establish a performance standard such that table saws, when powered on, must limit the depth of cut to

3.5 mm when a test probe, acting as a surrogate for a human body/finger, contacts a spinning blade at a radial approach of 1.0 m/s."

The FHB blurb is

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

Can't really blame the FHB person here; the verbiage on cut depth is identically quoted; just removed "surrogate" as probably being out-of-depth for the audience... :) and threw in the hotdog; it doesn't show up anywhere in the CPSC convoluted description of a "test probe".

Reply to
dpb

Jeez! You have to wonder why there needs to be a regulation on blade depth height for demonstration purposes, The brake works at any depth.

Maybe some blades are flying apart during the demonstration and keeping the blade low in the cabinet lessens the chance of shrapnel flying out and hitting some one.

Reply to
Leon

There have been 32 post to this thread.

Have any of you expressed your concern where it would count?

As posted earlier in the thread:

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

Yeah, 32 comments whining about a like or dislike is probably not going to do any good.

Reply to
Leon

On 05/24/2017 3:47 PM, Keith Nuttle wrote: ...

Well, not just off-the-cuff, no.

OTOH, I have started to read the proposal in depth and have begun looking at some of the numbers used to justify the conclusion...I have some concern that they glossed over what looks to me like a pretty good downward trend in numbers/rates that they claim isn't a trend; I've yet to have time to dig into how they finagled the statistical test to conclude it isn't significant where it looks very much so at first blush.

I'll work on other sections as get to them so that when do comment it has some substance, hopefully, rather than just "I don't like it!" that isn't likely to have much influence as Leon says.

If you had time to make serious comments already, "good on ya'!"

Reply to
dpb

Maybe I'm missing something but I took the words "depth of cut" to be the depth of cut on the surrogate finger before the blade stops. 3.5mm is only 0.138". That's not even a tooth above the table.

Reply to
DerbyDad03

When I added mine, it became the 11th total.

Reply to
J. Clarke

On 05/24/2017 5:32 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote: ...

...

It is; Leon's just funnin' ...

And, of course, it's the retraction of the blade that stops the injury progression, it doesn't stop until it hits the brake (which on SS is just a chunk of pretty soft Al that the teeth gouge into.

Reply to
dpb

Hope there are more posts to the site. It is easy to do. I can tell you a ll that someone listens to these sometimes, but if you don't voice your opi nion, it will be assumed that the issue is of no importance to you. I woul d like to have had a bit of time to edit this, but I saw that the surroundi ng issues around this proposed regulation had already been closed to commen ts. I wanted to get on it and get it out before I forgot or was too busy.

Here's what I posted:

I have been in the construction trades for 40 years off and on. I have bee n an owner operator of a small carpentry and woodworking business for about 35 of those years. In my experience there is a great deal of similarity i n the observance of safety issues between the home shop worker as well as t he professional. In short, the similarity is that both casual user and pro fessional need training and education, not additional safety appliances or devices added to tools. Some of the appartus required over the years have a valid place in both the home shop as well as in a professional setting, b ut others are removed, ignored or not maintained at an operational level.

I truly believe based on my own personal experience of instructing and over seeing employees and job sites that the saw brake devices will be disabled or wired around to make the saws work without them. Anything that would st op work that would be attributed to the saw brake would cause it to be disa bled in some fashion. Doubtful that it would be reset and rearmed for prop er function after a job stoppage. Also, the loss of a blade that could cos t as much as $300 from the mechanism firing would certainly make any small business man think about rearming the saw brake device. Besides the down t ime on the job, a firing of the device will require that a qualified techni cian of some sort reinstall the replacement firing mechanism of the brake. Additionally, there will be a need to purchase and have on hand another fi ring device, adding not only to the expense of the saw brake device, but pu tting the contractor at risk of not being able to locate a replacement whic h would cause more job site down time. NO doubt that occasion would cause the contractor to "wire around" the problem. IF the device ever fired off by accident or by a bad reading, a contractor will be looking at the purch ase of a new blade, a new brake stop firing device as well as all the down time for (possibly) several employees while the machine is reequipped and r eset. If there is ever a false positive, then certainly a contractor will work hard to permanently disable the saw blade brake. I strongly believe t his additional device that adds to the cost of a saw will be seen by most p rofessionals as not only unnecessary, but as an irritant to be disabled at the first opportunity.

My experience with homeowners/non professionals and their saws is different . Almost all home accidents come from an occurrence known as "kickback". This happens when a saw is used incorrectly. The wood being cut is put in a position that binds the blade against the guiding device (a "fence" or "m iter gauge") or the wood is no longer fed in a straight line into the blade causing the saw to aggressively grab the wood rather than cut it. This gr ab will cause the wood to be removed from the operator's grasp and will oft en "kickback" the wood towards or into the operator or off the table of the saw. The saw makers and the government have provided different devices to help mitigate this problem, but I very rarely go into a home shop where th e recommended table saw safety devices are being used, or used properly. Kickback is a technique issue and rarely happens with proper use of the tab le saw. it is important to note that a saw braking mechanism will NOT prev ent or mitigate the occurrence kickback in any way.

I rarely see hands or digits cut by table saws in a home or professional en vironment. Very rarely. Most people that use them have a healthy respect for the tool due to its size and power, and using the tool give ther operat or a tremendous sense of its power. Almost all operators have a very healt hy respect for this tool and use it carefully. I truly believe that if the re was an effective blade braking device attached to a table saw then most operators would become overconfident and lazy, knowing that if they have a lapse of judgement of concentration, they wouldn't suffer any risk of injur y. In the particular case of the table saw, a very healthy fear of the mac hine is a great thing and does more to prevent injury than any attached dev ice.

In closing, I hope you can see that while some safety devices are good idea s, the idea of a saw blade brake is not. Not for the hobbyist or the profe ssional. Although for two very different reasons, neither would benefit f rom it. This is an issue that has been around for years now, and while the saw blade brake technology certainly has its place, most are overwhelmingl y against it, and mandating it would be of little or no value to table saw users.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Reply to
nailshooter41

Yeah, I either meant "before the blade retracts" or "before the blade stops cutting".

I don't remember which. :-)

Reply to
DerbyDad03

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.