SawStop technology mandatory?

[SwingKing]

Interesting article in Design News about the history of the SawStop technology and the inventor (former patent attorney Stephen Gass). Most of this is stuff we've discussed before, but the interesting bit is that Gass has succeeded in getting the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission to consider making changes to the mandatory safety features of all table saws.

Here's the blurb from the article:

Acting on a petition from Gass, engineers at the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission recommended that the government begin a “rulemaking process” that could result in mandatory safety standards for table saws. Days later, the agency’s commissioners shocked the power tool industry by concurring with the recommendation.

What do you think? Should all saws be required to have something equivalent to a SawStop detection mechanism?

The full article can be found at: http://www.designnews.com/article/CA6360672.html

-- Ken

[Ken Massingale]

Absolutely Not!
Mr. Gass and the government can stay the blazes out of my shop and my life. I wouldn't be surprised to see something like this happen in the EU countries tho. I believe already TS arbors there can't accept dado blades.
ken

[Russianwolf]

Good thing I already have a saw that I like and will last me a couple decades.

[os1kne]

The technology behind the SawStop is great. However, SawStop's strategy stinks. They've had their product on the market for a few years and have become a fairly well-known name, but I don't think that this has translated to great sales. IMO, trying to get sales through legislation is underhanded - basic economics, supply and demand, if there is little demand in the market for your product at the price that you charge you should either change your product, change your price or change your target market. Getting laws made that mandate features that are only available on their saws will severely limit the number of saws available on the market and increase the cost of starting woodworking as a hobby.

I think that the price of their saw is a bit prohibitive to most newbies or recreational woodworkers, most of the others are using saws that they've had for many years. If I was in the market for a comparable saw, I would consider their saw for peace of mind.

[vaking]

I can offer a compromise:
Every table saw with MSRP over $3000 should have it. Below that number it is optional. Comparing the sawstop to other high end saws it looks like this feature raises the price by about $1000. Requiring a $1000 feature on a $300 saw sounds ridiculous. It will eliminate the whole class of products.
Another option to consider is to factor in the use of the equipment. As in"
All table saws used for woodworking training classes should have it".

[cgallery]

In my opinion, this guy is a WEASEL!

I think we should organize a boycott of Sawstop products.

[LarryG]

Should all saws be required to have something equivalent to a SawStop detection mechanism?n

Now there's the problem, right there ... those two words I bold-faced in what you wrote. Table saws could be just the beginning. Where will it end? What about compound miter saws? Or circular saws? Bandsaws? Jigsaws? Scrollsaws? Plate joiners? And then there's all the other tools that aren't saws of any stripe but that can put a serious hurt on you too: routers, drill presses, belt sanders ... it never ends. Well, not until you get all the way down to really simple and harmless tools, like screwdrivers.

Oh, wait, scratch that, I forgot ... the very worst tool-related injury I've ever had was the time I stuck a Phillips screwdriver about halfway through the palm of my right hand.

In addition to the Nanny State angle, the other thing that chaps my hiney about the SawStop device is that is does nothing about the most serious cause of table saw accidents: kickback.

[Ken Weaver]

Its great technology, great idea, but mandatory - no way. All that does is take away the individual's responsibility to pay attention to what the he** he/she is doing.

[davidtu]

I'll offer a alternative view. I think consumers are notoriously bad at being willing to pay extra for safety. Its the last feature they add. They expect it from a product but don't want to pay for it. Your automobile is filled with features that cost money and that manufacturers would have left out if they weren't required by law to include. And most consumers, given the choice, would probably choose the cheaper auto over the comparable one with the expensive safety features. This situation results in three things: more fatal and severe accidents, keeping the cost of the safety features high, fewer safe products as they become economicly unfeasible.

I doubt anyone here but the most crumudgeonly would object to having the Sawstop technology in their saw if it didn't add significantly to the overall cost. The best way for that cost to come down is for it to be licensed reasonably and widely available--that will get the manufacturing costs down. If Mr Gass is able to get the CPSC to "require" his technology, I think it would make sense that he'd have to license it cheaply. Of course it might not require a specific technology, but rather the feature of being able to avoid severe injury due to contact with the blade at a given speed, etc.

Every car now has airbags and that certainly would not be the case w/o goverment regulation. Does anyone here feel the economic impact of airbags in their cars? I doubt it.

Rather than become worried about having the technology be in every saw, think about how that would greatly reduce the cost of having that technology protecting you on all your sawing tools. Sawstop does have or will have shortly the Sawstop in a cheaper consumer version and on miter saws and presumably other saws as well.

Sometimes good products and good technology can't get over the hump by itself to become afordable enough to be universal and instead withers away to be lost... goverment regulation can sometimes be what pushes it over.

By the way, now that Sawstop technology is available, given the current litigious nature of our American society, I would not be surprised to see injured individuals successfully suing companies right out of business for not including it. Better to give them a timeframe to prepare and add the feature than to end up with companies deciding the liability is too high to stay in business. Fewer companies making saws also translates into more expensive and less competitive saws.

Just playing the flip-side for ya.

[radhak]

<snip> it does nothing about the most serious cause of table saw accidents: kickback.

exactly. i feel the finger-in-the-saw-blade is easier to control than the kickback. and for something that wants to change the industry, being a one-trick pony is not very reassuring, particularly when that trick is not even the most important/critical/etc.

might be easier if the GRR-Ripper was made mandatory : $70 vs $1000 (extra). Maybe MicroJig should look into that

[gary]

In my opinion, this guy is a WEASEL!

He is a lawyer - goes with the territory.

[Russianwolf]

Every car now has airbags and that certainly would not be the case w/o goverment regulation. Does anyone here feel the economic impact of airbags in their cars? I doubt it.

If your car is broken into for the sole purpose of stealing the airbags, you will directly feel the econonomic impact they cause. To the tune of 800+ bucks just in parts. Are they a good safety feature? yes.

Now there are two other safety devices which are optional on most new cars. ABS and side curtain airbags. I would be interested to see how many vehicles as a percentage are sold with these optional devices. I'm not even including traction control in the mix.

[430752]

there is precedent

Offering more on the alternate viewpoint (and this topic has already been discussed previously), consider other such mandatory ssafety requirements, like helmets for motorcyclists. Don't see a groundswell of argument against that. Or airbags, which didn't become legally mandatory in the legislative sense, but became de facto factory options when detroit was faced with a law on this issue. Leaded gas anyone? Of what of the v-chip in tv's? You and I certainly weren't gonna pay for that. Or, what about HDTV, which is mandated by the FCC that about now all programming to come in hdtv over the air. Or, three day minimum hospital stays for birth of babies (otherwise, economics would have your wife kicked out after a day or two). Did you challenge that law in your state? Or what of laws against illegal dumping of PCB's, Dioxin, etc. By market theory, we wouldn't buy from companies that polluted the earth, yet that one didn't work too well in the wild, did it? Mandatory vaccines for your kids? They cost, and they protect, yet it is unlikely your kid would ever get whooping cough or etc.

Look, point is that if you're gonna argue against governmental interference in safety, you have a long uphill battle against you.

Me? I say all the laws should be gone and I should be able to do whatever we please. But America isn't with me on this, since such a position would also do away with so much stuff we've come to know and love. There is a reason drug bottles come with child proof caps.

curt j.

[SwingKing]

Competing technologies

The only advantage I see to requiring this type of safety feature is that it will provide quite a bit of incentive for the tool companies to come up with different approaches to solve the problem. The SawStop people want up to 8% of the gross cost of the saw for a licensing fee, which is why he couldn't get anyone interested when he was trying to sell the idea. I bet the tool companies would rather find their own (cheaper) solution than pay these outrageous royalty fees.

I certainly would like to have more safety features, but I don't like a solution that costs me $150+ if I saw wood that is too wet (>10%).

Just my .02c

-- Ken

[Stick]

Offering more on the alternate viewpoint (and this topic has already been discussed previously), consider other such mandatory ssafety requirements, like helmets for motorcyclists. Don't see a groundswell of argument against that. Or airbags, which didn't become legally mandatory in the legislative sense, but became de facto factory options when detroit was faced with a law on this issue. Leaded gas anyone?

Look, point is that if you're gonna argue against governmental interference in safety, you have a long uphill battle against you.

curt j.

Opposition to helmet laws? There is LOTS of opposition to helmet laws among those who actually ride motorcycles! And did you know that insurance companies do not replace a helmet damaged in an accident even though it may be mandatory safety equipment?

To airbags? As was said, anyone who's ever had one stolen will have an argument against them, as will anyone who has had one deploy as a result of a very minor fender bender that would never be claimed otherwise. It costs closer to $3000 to replace one up here! All they do is raise our insurance rates.

Leaded gas? Ask anyone that still has a vehicle whose valve seats were not designed for unleaded. Ok, for my Harley, it only has 4 valves, it only cost $500 for new seats, but my tractors have 12 each and I have 4 of them. Not everyone can afford to scrap perfectly good running machinery because of idiotic laws designed for city dwellers.

If the Sawstop thing gets through, they may as well just ban woodworking, because it won't stop at saws.

Ultimately, if people would just stop with the frivolous lawsuits and start accepting responsibility for their own actions, we wouldn't need asenine legislation like this.