SawStop

Greetings and Salutations...

On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 19:43:29 -0600, tzipple wrote:

Well, this has been chewed over a number of times, and, I have to say that my feelings about it have not changed, having read the fairly detailed review in the Tools and Shop issue of Fine Woodworking. I still think that it is something that should not be "required" by law at all..and if they can sell saws with it installed, more power to them.

Well, there are a lot of "ifs" there. Actually, I will be interested to see if the company survives the first lawsuit that comes when the thing fails and one of those several thousand amputations occurs anyway. It is a pretty good bet that whoever sues them will end up owning the company, considering their advertising copy. Another design change that they have slipped in, that lowers it in my eyes, is that the cartridge stop has apparently changed from plastic to aluminum. While I am sure that this improves the ability of the device to freeze the blade, the fact that this process not only stops the saw, but, "welds the stop to the blade", destroying the blade in the process is NOT a happy thing. It is bad enough to have to replace a $50-$90 cartridge, but, the idea of getting to replace a $125 sawblade, or a $200 dado blade set is just NOT a good selling point to me. The bottom line is that the only way that a table saw can be a "safe" tool is for the operator to remain alert and slightly nervous about the consequences of a screw-up. Having this sort of thing on the saw will cause the operator to get overconfident, complacent and sloppy. It is just human nature. While I don't want to be flippant about the injury rates listed in the article, I DO want to point out that there are likely millions (or tens of millions) of usages of saws every year in the USA. While taken out of context, the idea of thousands of accidents seems like a lot, in context of the total number of times a table saw is used, it is a drop in the ocean. It would also be interesting to know how much training the injured operators had before their accident. I suspect that it was minimal. The bottom line for me is that I would not buy a saw with this technology installed, and, I really think it is a bad idea to get the government involved in forcing me to buy one. Regards Dave Mundt

I agree. It's a dangerous tool, and you have to be careful using it. But then again, I feel the same way about other legislation that gets in my life, like helmet laws and seatbelt laws. You can't save people from their own stupidity. I would wear a helmet if I rode a motorcycle, and I wear a seatbelt in the car, and I would probably buy a saw with this feature if it were a free or reasonably price option, only because accidents do happen. But I resent the fact that I'm told that it's mandatory by a bunch of lawyers and politicians that want to make it look like they're doing something for their money.

Larry Jaques wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

• the cartridge, but a recent chisel accident to save .00 cost me .00 in emergency room fees.. :)

Alan

I ain't selling it...

F> tzipple wrote:

According to the article in fine Woodworking, kickback as a source of injury seemed to be about twice as common as amputation.

By the way, the SawSt> philski responds:

An old discussion and a slippery slope. Should "buyer beware" apply to all merchandise including food & drugs? All services including banking, insurance, etc? Usually, we are pretty selective about what protections ittitate us. Seatbelt requirements in a car are a big deal, but no one revolts regarding seatbelts on airplanes, for example.

The fact is n>>The bottom line for me is that I would not buy a saw with

now this sounds interesting. we may finally have a US source for riving knives for taiwan unisaw knockoffs.

I mostly agree with you're take on the legislation of safety products except for one thing. It isn't only the victim that has to pay for their mistakes. It's society that pays for the medical cost of repairing your injury and pays for the long term rehabilitation that people need because they weren't smart enough to wear a seat belt, helmet or other safety device. You might claim that not using those devices often results in death and society won't pay much in that regard, but the reality is that more individuals end up loving and need radically expensive long term therapy that's a constant drain on the resources that our collective society provides.

As far as I'm concerned, it's human nature for people to attempt to get away with whatever they can and that instinct needs to be contained in some way. Show me a way to do that without legislation and I'll consider it. Until then, legislation is mostly the only way to stop much of our society from becoming a drain on itself.

Dave Mundt notes:

snip of sensible responses

That's an absolute.

My big gripe is the use of the word "amputations" in place of injuries. I'd also know where they get their statistics. I sure haven't found them. Of course, I don't have a marketing impetus to actually spend money looking, but if I had cites to back up such claims, I think I'd make them available. So far, I've seen nothing but claims.

Most of us who have been fooling and fiddling with tablesaws over the years have received injuries of one sort or another, everything from blade-changing knicks to kickback bruises the size of a draft horse's shoe and, very occasionally, something more serious. If we're at all wise, we learn from the smaller incidents and remain slightly in awe of what the tablesaw can do to us if our attention wanders. If we're not particularly wise, we continue to use unsafe working methods and eventually get hurt worse. It may not catch up to the inattentive user today, tomorrow or even next year, but it will catch up.

Charlie Self "Health nuts are going to feel stupid someday, lying in hospitals dying of nothing." Redd Foxx

tzipple responds:

I think the irritation is not with the inclusion of the seat belt, or the availability of the safety helmet for motorcyclists, but the making of the use a legal requirement. I use seatbelts. Back when I was still riding motorcycles, I used helmets and at least three times, the helmet saved my life, or my ability to walk. At that time, neither was a legal requirement. I still use seatbelts every time I use a vehicle, but it is NOT because the state and the feds tell me I have to.

Possibly my biggest objection to these legalities is the way they grow. A few states will make, say, helmets mandatory. Survival statistics improve in those states. The Feds then get a toe in, making state reception of certain road funds dependent on their having helmet use laws that fit a new Federal standard. Whoops. A bit further down the slippery slope to big government, de facto Federal control of a Constitutional state function, using the big stick called bucks.

Charlie Self "Health nuts are going to feel stupid someday, lying in hospitals dying of nothing." Redd Foxx

tzipple states:

I haven't. This is a woodworking area, both personally and professionally, with three furniture factories (small) in town, and what used to be more (Lane) 40 miles away, and most of the U.S. furniture industry within about three hours easy drive. There are some amputations around, but far fewer than you'd expect. I've seen a lot more stub fingers on farmers than I have on woodworkers, and, while I've seen plenty of both, I've seen a lot more woodworkers.

Charlie Self "Health nuts are going to feel stupid someday, lying in hospitals dying of nothing." Redd Foxx

Probably more common than that.

Yes. That and the European crown style guard would help one helluva lot, at very low cost to the manufacturers. It's not perfect, but what is? I don't understand why the manufacturers go on producing overly complex and expensive guards that are more of a problem than a safety feature. It may be a legal thing, but that doesn't seem likely. Maybe it's time someone asked all the tool makers that question out loud. A simple change. A one time change in tooling and assembly line needs. Over and done with. A major, unspecified, reduction in kickback problem and in blade injuries, at a probable introductory cost per saw of under five bucks (less when you figure in the ability to scrap making the old guards, with their excessive complexity and materials amounts).

Charlie Self "Health nuts are going to feel stupid someday, lying in hospitals dying of nothing." Redd Foxx

I'll agree with that. And seatbelts on airplanes always seemed kind of ridiculous. I personally feel kinda naked without my car seatbelt on, but I guess you don't care as much because they're usually loose, they're just a lap belt, and they're not uncomfortable. Just useless.

So what is a riving knife?

After the first couple of times, I think I'd decide to use a knife to slice the wieners for the beanie-weenies

Tom Veatch Wichita, KS USA

At first glance, and with respect to high angle ground impacts you are probably right that a seat belt isn't going to make a lot of difference.

But, airplanes are much more affected by air currents than are automobiles. When the aircraft suddenly and unexpectedly encounters a several hundred foot per minute downdraft, you'll be glad the seatbelt is cinched down good and tight. Especially if you happen to be the pilot and are holding the control yoke when the overhead whacks you on the top of the head. I won't start the engine until all aboard are well belted in.

Tom Veatch Wichita, KS USA

I don't believe that govts should be able to require adults to wear seatbelts in autos, though I've always worn them, but I do see the point in requiring them on commercial flights: you might not care about whether the person next to you gets hurt because he is loose, but he may do a job on you or, say, the little kid on the other side of the aisle, while he's tossed around because he's unbuckled and the plane has hit a pocket or the pilot has to make an emergency maneuver. Crashes are quite rare but incidents are much less so. I fly a fair amount and I've been in three situations where things in the4335921047&rd=1> cabin went flying.

fair enough.

you gotta balance that with corporate greed. sawstop has the patents for their product, which requires a saw built especially for it- it doesn't work as a retrofit. they tried to make their product mandatory by lobbying for new laws. this would have put all other table saw makers out of business in the US. this for a product that has no track record.