And So it begin,s

[BobSch]

Will we agree that the best safety tool in the shop is the brain?
.

The problem is a lot of those appear to be defective.

[cabinetman]

The problem is a lot of those appear to be defective.

Time for another recall.
.

[natausch]

Lets also not forget that SawStop does not offer a comparable product. The price tag of their contractor saw with mobile cart comes in around $1,800 and weighs 4x as much as the portable Ryobi, Ridgid, Hitachi, DeWalt, PC, etc "contractor" saws.

If they sold a truly portable saw then maybe the argument would be valid, but until then there is no saw, including theirs, in this class that has this safety feature.

[Stytooner]

Ummm. I don't really have a horse in this particular race, but do bet at the same track. Lawyers, Jury, Greed, Conspiracy theories aside, The man purchased something, neglected (that is a big word IMO) to heed any of the safety recommendations and got hurt. Not an uncommon scenario here.

He could have gotten injured the very same way on a Saw Stop had he disengaged the safety for a cut. I am pretty sure the SS manual says to hit that button only when you are certain of the outcome or something to that effect. That right there would involve skimming through the manual to at least see how it worked for that function.

How can a Man in court honestly sit there and place blame on someone else for his either lack of reading skills, lack of will to read the safety precautions, general disregard for safety or a moment of inattention to detail. Especially so true when it is a table saw. It is blurringly apparent to anyone with eyes and ears that these things can hurt you. Not to mention his shopping skills that might have alerted him to a new type saw safety device.

I just find it hard to understand what type things folks get comfortable with these days. I don't find it hard to figure out when there is money involved though. I understand the purpose and benefit of suits. I too get the irrationality of many of them. This can only get worse.

The entire reasoning behind this suit is at best, lame.
Why buy a saw anyway?
Lowe's or HD will cut the stuff for you. Now that there is innovation.

[Stytooner]

Disregard that last line.
http://www.forums.woodnet.net/ubbthr...lapsed&sb=5&o=

I haven't read the whole thread, but greed may be involved here as well.

[Eagan]

If I could get one of these for 699, I'd jump all over it. I'm a programmer and I need all my fingers in place, not to mention how attached to them I've become - heck, they've been with me all my life.

I'm looking at an old article stating Sawstop would release a contractor model of the saw for 699. Regretfully, it never materialized.
http://www.finehomebuilding.com/how-...revisited.aspx

http://www.inc.com/magazine/20050701...ptor-gass.html

I keep hearing that it would cost less then $100 to include saw stop in the design for a new saw. I admit that this would kill the 99 dollar table saw.

I find this an interesting discussion for people that discuss the advantages of leaving your saw guard off the saw.

I also find this an interesting discussion because it is occuring now. This has obviously been coming for how many years? Black and Decker saw it coming in 2000.

[gjat]

Reading the articles, it's obvious how much the lawyers are into it for the money. For lawyers, it's buying scratch off lottery tickets on credit until they win. If Gass wasn't a lawyer, he could be content to market it to the saw makers, but the disagreement is about % royalties and product liability. In the end, it's about money and lawyers.

Think about it. Now that it's in production, how expensive could it be? If he's charging $1,600 for a contractor saw that could sell for $800 (according to Consumer Research), the manufacturing cost of the SS can't be more than $200 a unit. I'm sure $500 is strictly for current and future lawyer fees.

Lawyers have created a self digesting monster. If it wasn't for crazy law suits paying idiocy, there wouldn't be the tremendous liability in providing a product like Saw Stop. There's sure to be some idiot who cuts a nerve or gets a cut infected and loses a hand and sues SawStop for a defective product.

[cabinetman]

Lawyers have created a self digesting monster. If it wasn't for crazy law suits paying idiocy, there wouldn't be the tremendous liability in providing a product like Saw Stop. There's sure to be some idiot who cuts a nerve or gets a cut infected and loses a hand and sues SawStop for a defective product.

I'm surprised some idiot hasn't sued Saw Stop because it wouldn't cut a simple thing like a hot dog.
.

[JimD]

Problems:

1) A lawyer controls the patents to the technology and is clearly more interested in how much he can make than in safety of woodworkers. He wants 8-10% of the price of devices using his technology just for license fees. On top of that the manufacturer would need to build the device probably adding a similar amount. The license fee is very large. I don't blame him for wanting something but a fraction of a percent would permit the technology to move forward and still make him very rich over time.

2) Our legal system is nearly broken. There is no concept of personal responsibility any more. This suit amount to saying "I didn't follow the manufacturers recommendations nor did I use common sense and I hurt myself using their product. They could have raised cost 25-50% using unproven technology and possibly made it safer so it is their fault." These plantiff attorneys do not care what real truth is, they only worry about what they can get a jury to believe.

3) I would kind of like to have this technology but just having it on my table saw at substantial cost doesn't seem like a "deal" yet to me. I could afford it but the only power tool that has injured me is my biscuit joiner. To really protect us, you would need something like this on CMSs, RAS, handheld circular saw, and routers. For that to happen, the cost will need to come down a lot. It appears there is no chance of that happening while the patents are controlled by this lawyer.

4) A court would recognize as a technical expert somebody trying to make money by forcing manufacturers to buy their relatively unproven device by these sort of lawsuits.

Jim

[germdoc]

To really protect us, you would need something like this on CMSs, RAS, handheld circular saw, and routers. For that to happen, the cost will need to come down a lot.

Jim

I think that eventually we may have similar technology on all power tools, including chainsaws, etc.

However, there is a difference between the above tools and the table saw. Other than a stationary router, the table saw is the only tool where you are consistently moving your hand TOWARD the blade. All it takes is a momentary lapse or accident to throw your hand into the spinning blade. With a CMS, RAS, etc. you are holding your hand stationary and moving the blade. Unless you use extremely faulty technique, you can position your hand well away from the path of the blade.

[BigguyZ]

I'd like to hear Rod's take on this.

Ed

Well, I'm definitely NOT Rod. But, I recently almost lost a finger myself- and an important one at that. Sure, it was on a router table and not a TS, but it's made me think more about these things. And here's my thoughts:

I think there are many more power tools users than there are those that severely injure themselves. I don't think a $1000/ saw increase would see a net savings overall.

However, I think that the Sawstop technology is definitely a good idea. If I had the $$ to buy one, and wanted to upgrade, I'd get one. As it is right now, I'd probably get a Grizzley Cabinet saw for $1200 before a Sawstop contractor's saw for $1800 or whatever they run. Even with my injury, I don't think that something like this should be mandated in this way. If anything, why not update the UL certification standards for 2015 or later to include a requirement for a Sawstop or similar technology. That would provide time for manufacturers to research their own ideas while still pushing change and an improvement in the safety of our tools. An example of this is the riving knife. New saws have to have them. Now, blaming old saws for not using Riving knives is silly.

I think that a lot of beneficial things are only here because of it being mandated or legislated. However, these lawsuits around a technology that's neither required or available (for older saws), are rediculous. I think it's a backdoor way to frighten saw makers to incorporate the Sawstop technology, and it's BS (that's not to mean Band Saw, I'm referring to the other meaning for BS) .

So, yeah. Good technology. I think that additional safety features should be pushed, at least on saws costing over a certain amount. However, I'm not a fan of having one person control a technology singularly and push it's adoption via lawsuit or legislation.

[os1kne]

There's an expression that comes to mind, the gist is something like "if you stick yourself in the eye with a screwdriver, you should be more careful - not sue the company that made the screwdriver." No matter how many safety precautions are taken, there is inherent risk in certain activities that can never be removed.

[Gator95]

Wouldn't be suprised if we'll start to have saw-stop type devices on all but the cheapest saws in another 12 years once the SawStop patents expire.

Looking forward to it personally.

[phi1l]

Wouldn't be suprised if we'll start to have saw-stop type devices on all but the cheapest saws in another 12 years once the SawStop patents expire.

Looking forward to it personally.

Agree..

After reading that INC article. I have little sympathy for the guy. It only took him 2 weeks & a used TS to come up with a working model. He really doesn't have much in the way development costs to re-coup from the actual invention. He is pricing it now at a perceived value of a finger, not the actual cost of development & manufacturing of the device. I expect if he had marketed the device more reasonably all TSs sold over the last 5 years or so would have these devices on them. Also, if the SawStop saws were priced more reasonably, it would now be the market leader. And That is what the manufactures are really objecting too.

[mpc]

One of the things that irritates me about the auto industry safety laws is how most are written: something akin to "manufactures must have item xxxx on all cars by 2012." I.e. some technology or design method is made law. One of the more recent additions is based on European regulations: the pedestrian impact safety laws. That's why all new car designs have a much flatter shovel-face: the law basically says the impact forces must be spread vertically as much as possible along a pedestrian's legs. No more old-style bumpers concentrating the force at one height. Okay, makes sense - I understand the intent of the regulation. It's like hitting a person with the flat face of a shelf board probably will do less injury than hitting them with the edge of that same board - just spreading the impact forces out as much as possible. Part two of those regulations: the hood must have 4 inches of "crush space" between it and any "hard points" of the engine, suspension, etc. so the impacted pedestrian will land on a "soft" hood. Again, good intent - have some "give" to the hood (and room for it to "give") to lessen the peak forces on the pedestrian as he/she falls onto the hood. (at least that's how I understand the laws, I haven't read the actual wording.)

That law is an example of mandating "how" to achieve a safety goal - saying "you will include item xxxx in your design" instead of mandating "manufacturers must design bumpers, front ends, and hoods to limit impact forces to ##.#### pounds when hitting a 6 foot man, 2 foot child, etc. at yy.y MPH" In other words, provide design GOALS and let manufacturers develop methods/technology to achieve those goals. Maybe a different front end and/or hood material could provide equivalent cushioning with only 2 inches of "give" space - thus lowering the hood 2 inches relative to today's law. That could make the difference between seeing the kid that just ran out in front of you or not seeing him at all - and maybe by seeing him you'll avoid hitting him in the first place. Years ago, when "passive restraints" became law, the law was written in a more goal oriented manner: manufacturers must provide safety items to restrain front seat passengers that work without the passengers having to do anything (i.e. they don't have to "buckle up" or anything else - these new gizmos must work on their own). Two technologies met the criteria: airbags and the "moving mouse" style automatic seat belts used by Toyota and Mitsubishi (and maybe others) for a while. Airbags became the public's preferred choice and that's all we see now. "Moving mouse" automatic belts were a more mature technology than airbags at the time and could easily have been mandated... and airbags would likely not exist as a result. Mandating the "goal" proved to be a better legislative method.

The US Federal Regulations (and the equivalent regulations/laws in most other countries as well) for commercial aircraft design are (mostly) written in this "goal" oriented manner. This allows technology to develop and new ideas to be implemented. What if somebody has a new idea that is 10% better than "item xxxx?" Under the "you will include item xxxx" method, the manufacturer is faced with having BOTH items installed (expensive for both the manufacturer and consumer); probably doubling the cost for 10% safety improvement... if the new idea can even be implemented concurrently with "item xxxx" that is. But if the law were goal-oriented, that new idea could be implemented instead of "item xxxx" improving safety 10%. Consumers can then chose what appeals most to them. Moving mouse belts vs. airbags.

This guy pushing SawStop as a required technology is a "item xxxx" safety approach rather than pushing for GOAL oriented safety legislation. THAT'S WHAT OFFENDS ME most besides his attempt to line his own pockets. For a SawStop style example... what could we do? Goal-oriented safety requirements might be written as:

* The saw shall incorporate some method to detect when any portion of the operator is within dangerous distances and will provide some method to either divert the operator from danger (i.e. something beyond today's blade guards) or will have some method to "safe" the blade - i.e. stopping it, and/or moving/retracting it to inside the tool body, or the saw will be designed such that the operator can not physically contact the blade while the saw is powered.

SawStop "safes" the blade by stopping it and using its own angular momentum to yank it into the saw case so it implements BOTH potential methods to "safe" the blade in my example legislation - good. How does it detect the "unsafe" condition? - I don't know for sure. I think it does it by detecting conductivity from the blade to the operator if I understand it correctly. That requires actual contact, right? Does a SawStop operator have to have a wire connecting him to the saw someplace so that contact with the blade can then be detected- forming a closed loop/circuit? If so... what's to prevent an operator from just leaving that wire off - that's no different than tossing blade guards aside - it won't protect operators that are sloppy/lazy and bypass the safety systems. Instead of detecting continuity, another method is to turn the operator into an antenna of sorts: connect a wire to the operator that broadcasts a radio frequency signal. The saw blade is then used as the receiving antenna... if the operator gets too close the blade will pick up a larger signal. Once the signal reaches a certain threshold the saw can say "too close" and take action... an electrical solenoid can fire, pulling a pin. Without this pin, a big spring yanks the saw blade into the saw body. This would be pretty darn quick; probably nearly as quick as the SawStop method. Or I can design a table saw like a thickness planer: the blade is deep inside the machine where the operator's hands can't reach. Instead I'd put reference lines on the edges of the machine to know where it's going to cut, etc. Such a tool probably wouldn't be as versatile as a table saw... but maybe somebody will have an idea that is as versatile.

mpc

p.s. edit: I work in the commercial aviation world which is why I'm familiar with those regulations... and I'm a car nut so I follow those regulations to a lesser extent. The FAR regulations are amazing in how much they cover in not many pages of regulations... that's a benefit of goal oriented safety regulations. Airplanes would probably be a lot less safe, and a lot less efficient, comfortable, etc. if we had "use item xxxx" safety laws.