Here we go, CPSC wants safer table saws

[BobSch]

Another way to cut down on the injuries:

http://cherryridgewoodworks.com/2010...events-injury/

Mike

You did notice the date on that article, right?

Right?

[Relative]

Another way to cut down on the injuries:

http://cherryridgewoodworks.com/2010...events-injury/

Mike

[LCHIEN]

I have looked at the SS at Woodcraft, and have seen the weenie demonstration. It is a good, expensive saw. But suppose I go out and buy one for my shop......I'd still have the table mounted router, which I think has the potential to be a real danger. The band saw would still be there, the miter saw, the jointer, and the planer too. There is heavy stuff on high shelves, which create a danger of falls. There are chemicals in there too. Paint, varnish, thinner and a heat source! The whole shop could be a dangerous place to work. I think that shop safety has more to do with being careful in every operation we do and planning ahead for every contingency.
Accidents will still happen, and no amount of nanny state intervention will make us any safer.
Dave

I agree that there are lots of shop dangers, but I think that realistically speaking, even when adjusted for the high percentage of shops that have table saws vs. other tools (router, miter saws, band saws) and high percentage of use, still the TS accounts for I'd venture to guess 80% of serious injuries because of the size of the blade and the fact that we hand feed the wood a long distance sometimes.

Idiot proofing TS alone would greatly reduce shop injuries.

[Uncle Hook]

This discussion reminds me of our nations health care dilemma. The quality and cost of basic health care has gotten so high that a significant number of citizens can not afford it.

I am sure we could save lots of fingers by banning power tool woodworking. The cost of freedom is that people without means are allowed to do things which may be harmful or not good for them.

[3thumbs]

I have looked at the SS at Woodcraft, and have seen the weenie demonstration. It is a good, expensive saw. But suppose I go out and buy one for my shop......I'd still have the table mounted router, which I think has the potential to be a real danger. The band saw would still be there, the miter saw, the jointer, and the planer too. There is heavy stuff on high shelves, which create a danger of falls. There are chemicals in there too. Paint, varnish, thinner and a heat source! The whole shop could be a dangerous place to work. I think that shop safety has more to do with being careful in every operation we do and planning ahead for every contingency.
Accidents will still happen, and no amount of nanny state intervention will make us any safer.
Dave

[BobSch]

According to this article http://blogs.popularwoodworking.com/...94&rid=3356959 from Pop Woodworking there's been a patent filed for a system that will explosively drop the blade without jamming anything into it. It also mentions the system can tell the difference between wet wood and human flesh.

[Black wallnut]

I remember at Expo '74 in Spokane, WA GM had their own pavilion as did ma bell, NW Orient, LDS, and quite a few foreign countries. IN GM's building they had a rather large IIRC display along with video of driver's air bag safety systems. This was at a time where shoulder belts were usually an option if available at all. Cars have become safer. Safer cars is good; safe, attentive drivers is better. We needed to make cars safer to mitigate circumstances beyond the control of the driver. I don't see the same compelling need for table saws. I believe we are already at the point where we should say enough, at least for non-commercial and non educational saws.

In the same time frame tablesaws have become safer too. I doubt there are many of the inverted circ saw tables in use these days.

[LCHIEN]

IIRC some guy patented airbag concepts back in the 50's.
Unfortunately for him he outstripped the technology and before practical airbags were producible, his patent expired. I think the electronic sensors, and the rapid inflation technology just wasn't there for him.

[mpc]

No imagination necessary - airbags have been mandatory since 1998.

In 1998, FMVSS 208 was amended to require dual front airbags

Huh. Last time I checked it was some sort of "passive restraint" was mandatory - at the time either airbags or moving-mouse style automatic seatbelts were acceptable though the law didn't limit it to those two items - they were just the two that so-far had been accepted.

Airbags make a good case study for "you will have item xxxx on your product" regulations: when first considered, airbags sounded like the greatest thing for safety. The original requirements basically called for protecting a large male not wearing a seat belt: "if a little airbag is good for safety, how about a big one! Let's protect as big a person as we can!" mentality. Until shorter folks, particularly women, were getting busted ribs and other chest injuries from over-powerful airbags. Or getting serious eye injuries because the airbag busted their glasses. Oh... and it turns out airbags + baby seats are a bad combination too so gotta make new regs that say put kids only in the back seat or have some sort of switch to disable the passenger side airbag when children have to be in the front seat (e.g. pickups). As Woodtuner's link says, the airbag laws had to be updated - reducing the airbag power so it wasn't so dangerous to smaller folks. I knew about those changes - the "depowered" airbags and the ones that use sensors to detect the size/weight of a seat occupant and try to adjust the bag appropriately. Hopefully they got the regulations "right" on the second try. The airbag case study shows that what initially appears to be a good idea can have all sorts of unintended and unexpected consequences/problems/issues. Don't rush into things until you're sure you really understand it all!

mpc

[pelligrini]

The current blade stopping tech doesn't always work just to save fingers. A few years ago I stopped by a custom millwork place around the corner from our office. During a brief conversation & tour with one of the workers I noticed a nice looking SawStop. I asked him how he liked it and he said it was a nice saw, but the downtime due to false positives was not so good.

I would love to have the tech on a saw, if it could be had at a lower cost. I'm not sure if I would be singing the same tune after a few trashed WW-IIs. I'd probably still like to have it though. I just don't like the way it's being pushed.

Riving knives were mentioned earlier. My saw didn't need legislation ordering it to have one. It was already on there long before it was mandated.

[Eagan]

Disposable Table Saw

Seems easy to me.

A cheap table saw with SawStop technology might cost 299 instead of 99. If it goes off, you'll have to pay 150 for a new blade and brake. (Or did you buy a really good blade for this thing?)

If I had to pay 150 to get a cheap saw working again, I think I'm more likely to just trash it and get a new one. (Heck, it was a piece of junk BEFORE it instandly stopped a blade - no telling what's left of it afterwards)

Me, I hope someone comes up with a cheaper alternative. But I really like my fingers; I've grown quite attached to them.

[woodturner]

The guts of the saw have to be strong enough to survive this jolt - otherwise the blade could exit the saw some other way... and that would defeat the safety purpose.

The point I was making earlier in the thread is that there isn't much of a "jolt" - it's just not much energy to dissipate. If we run the calculations, we find that the stress of startup is comparable and therefore that the existing saw mechanism is strong enough.

Imagine if car laws said "you will include a steering wheel airbag in all automobiles"

No imagination necessary - airbags have been mandatory since 1998.

In 1998, FMVSS 208 was amended to require dual front airbags

[mpc]

A spinning blade & arbor is basically a light flywheel - how long does the blade coast to a stop when the saw is turned OFF? Stopping it instantly from a few thousand RPM converts that rotational momentum into some other forces/moments. The Saw Stop relies on that rotational energy - it is used to help quickly move the blade downwards, into the saw body if I understand it correctly. The guts of the saw have to be strong enough to survive this jolt - otherwise the blade could exit the saw some other way... and that would defeat the safety purpose. Or the guts could break when the Saw Stop module activates resulting in the blade not getting yanked down at all... The saw guts don't have to be beefed up enough to survive this energy undamaged - though it'd be nice if they were (less to repair). They guts do have to be strong enough though to control where the blade + Saw Stop brake module end up. Saws like the BT3 might not be strong enough to meet this requirement.

The CPSC is supposed to watch for items on the market that aren't as safe as they should be, or could reasonably be. It becomes a question of "what is reasonable?" Is the Saw Stop technology a) effective and b) justified on a cost/benefit ratio - or could that cost be better spent elsewhere? From a lawyer's product liability viewpoint (when a company is sued, often the argument is "this failure or this safety issue is something your company should easily have been able to foresee... why didn't you design to mitigate it?") once a safety improvement is generally "known" (as Saw Stop is now, and was once Gass showed it to manufacturers) then any accidents that it might have affected are "foreseeable" and thus potential lawsuits. When the CPSC decides new regulations are appropriate, my concern is "how" the regulations are written:
a) manufacturers shall provide a means to prevent xxxx from happening (or to at least substantially reduce the chances)
or ... and this is what I fear will happen...
b) Saws built after 2012 must include device yyyy. (such as Saw Stop mechanisms)

"a" lets manufacturers come up with their own ideas. Maybe a saw that is covered more - so you can't get hands in there at all? A different way of detecting hands/fingers in contact with the blade? "b" locks designs to one solution, limits innovation, and future saw designs may be restricted because they're forced to include device yyyy even though yyyy doesn't apply to that new saw style. Imagine if car laws said "you will include a steering wheel airbag in all automobiles" - even if future cars did away with the steering wheel by using joystick controllers. Does that mean a dummy steering wheel has to be installed?

mpc

[Cochese]

My point. No substitute for good safety practices and so many of us do that each and every day.

[cabinetman]

I'd be much more interested in knowing how many passes are made in a year without incident.

Those don't cost anybody anything.

.