Here we go, CPSC wants safer table saws

[TB Roye]

There is engineer in China right now reverse engineering/designing a copy and it will be available to us soon. Just my guess and since a lot of our saws are made overseas I can see it happening. I will be after market so no USA tool company's can be sued. Go online and by a sawstop for your saw at 2/3rds the price. AT my age I have probably bought my first and only Table Saw. My son's or grandsons can buy the sawstop attacment for my BT3 after I am gone. I can see having them in School Shops, but knowing the Gov. they will make every cabinet or woodworking shop in the country have them.

Tom

[crybdr]

As a product designer and woodworker, I have mixed feelings about this.

The table saw, by nature is an extremely versatile and useful tool. Inherently, a large spinning blade is dangerous....but used properly (with learned best practices or training) it is a safe tool to operate.

But, I am surprised that any 'joe' consumer can go out and buy a table saw for $99 or less from any of the chain stores - a cheap saw is just as dangerous (maybe more so based upon my experience with a cheap Craftsman I was helping a friend to set up, I advised him to return it - raising and lowering the blade actually changed the parallel of the blade to the fence - DANGER!).

This race to the bottom of price points puts this type of tool into the hands of people who simply don't read instructions or understand that they (and not the manufacturer) are responsible for their own safety. Perhaps in some peoples minds, low price=low risk?

Drills? Pretty intuitive to most consumers to use one safely. Bandsaws? Intuitive still - but a little more dangerous. Tablesaw? There is a real requiremet for planning ahead and understanding the safety rules before using this tool safely. The physics of the tool are completely invisible to the untrained user - most just think 'push wood through blade to cut....', which is the problem.

I don't have an answer to the problem - but I don't want to pay a HUGE markup to buy the same saw I have now. The 'airbag' arguement makes sense to me for this type of tool - and eventually, we may see some type of blade stopping technology incorporated into the tablesaws of the future.

I'm not going to overreact to the CPSC news yet - I'll wait to see how it unfolds.....and stockpile spare parts for my BT3.

[Black wallnut]

I put the equation as $finger< freedom! where freedom = personal responsibility

CPSC seems to want to take the personal responsibility out of the equation and decide for us what level of safety we shall be allowed to have. Without getting into all of the political reasons why suffice to say that just does not set right with me. If sawstop had been mandated when I bought my table saw I never would have been able to buy one. Because of my purchase my family has been able to enjoy furnishings far above what we could have purchased. I've been able to interest my oldest son in wood working. I've been able to interest LOML in wood working until our youngest came along, perhaps she'll return in a few years. I fear that my oldest might never be able to afford a tablesaw if he makes a blue collar wage once he grows up. I wish for him to be able to make for himself and his family if he so chooses as I, my dad, and my grandfather have made for ours.

I believe that my local school should purchase a saw with blade stop technology if we have not already done so.(kid tells me that they have two sawstops at hs!) I do not believe that I, you, or we collectively have a right to tell a neighboring school district that they must also. It seems that this is what CPSC seeks to do.

[Cubsfan]

I see it's being contested, but the estimated cost to society is 2 billion a year. Assuming that, in large volumes, the SawStop technology added $1000 to the cost of every saw, that 2 billion works out to 2 million table saws a year. I don't know how many table saws are sold every year, but if we assume the 2 billion is a correct number, it seems like a good trade to me.

[leehljp]

BTW, appendages are part of the discussion. Don't you put a value on them?

.

Cab,

I agree with that as it is stated, but in the real world there is a gray area breaking point beyond which people cannot afford the cost of safety. At some point, people have to be allowed to decide for themselves - If the cost of the safety equipment is more than they can afford IN RELATION TO their own perceived ability to be their own safety supervisor. At this point there are 3 variables that enter:
1. ignorance,
2. stupidity,
3. actuarials on accidents of sane and experienced users.

I put in number 3 because of the "10" people mentioned already. How many were experienced and how many were from number 1 & 2 above.

I am in limbo on this but I strongly am against government intervention except to require warnings for the stupid and ignorant and then putting the liability on them for accidents.

I think this should be offered but not required. If I cut my thumb off, It is MY fault and should NOT be on the shoulders of others or the saw manufacturer. What is the price that I put on my hand: My OWN responsibility when it comes to equipments normal function. I accept that risk, not out of stupidity but out of responsibility for my own actions. I think many would also.

I had a portion of my thumb cut off in an accident 30+ years ago. I accepted responsibility even though another fellow was involved. It was an accident, not the fault of the equipment. I feel the same way about saws.


I think initially, Glass wanted about $200 in licensing fees per, and the costs for developing and installing another $200 to $300 per, - with those prices, even many "safe minded" home user people would be locked out of the market. IF the BT had cost an additional $500.00 along with all other low end saws - had cost that 10 years ago, I could not have afforded it at the time.

What is the price of a hand? What is the price of life and a job - and the ability to put food on the table versus no job; or buy a low end house and fix it up for the family versus living in the "hood". Sometimes, people must take risks to survive and sometimes those risks bite. When risk is reduced to zero, then so are jobs, abilities and possibilities. The price of Zero risk in all situations and equipment brings zero possibilities to many.

Risk cannot be eliminated, and neither can "finger" value be used as an absolute in every job situation situation in life. They are intertwined.

When the price gets down to an "afterthought" price, then they can be required. But for now, what is the price of a job for the family, what is the price and risk for putting food on the table?

[cwsmith]

About 50-plus years ago, I witnessed my father cut off a couple of fingers on a table saw. No blade guard, and frankly what I now see as uneducated and dangerous operation on the table saw. But of course I wouldn't call my Dad a stupid man, by any measure... it was of course a lack of "education", much like the accident that prompted the suit against Ryobi.

My Dad's accident scared the "table saw" right out of me, and though I'm now 66, my first table saw was purchased only a few years ago. I have owned a RAS, for several decades and though I consider it safer than a table saw, I know that I am in a very small minority in that thinking. And of course, my RAS with no lower guard is definitely dangerous! That thought guides my use of all power tools and I constantly "think it through, before I do".

I think any of us could argue both sides of the SS debate, until we're "blue in the face". Certainly it would have been great for my Dad to save those fingers! But I'm not so sure I want it forced on me or anyone else in the manner that appears to be in the works.

There are thousand's of dangers out there and I'm sure that if thought, time, and money could be directed at them, most would be eliminated and we may all be saved from ourselves. Does one really have to go through life being protected from their own lack of experience and/or education at every turn?

While I was in High School, way back in the late 50's/early 60's, power tools didn't have safety guards (at least I don't remember any). I started "shop" in Junior High and continued through my Senior year. At no time did I or any other student in our school loose an appendage or have a serious shop accident. Had that occurred, I'm sure such news would have spread through school like a wild fire. I guess my point is that proper education and attention by the teachers was always there. Today, I think there are few high schools that offer "shop" at anything beyond the most basic familiarity.

The SS is sort of neat and I'm sure many will buy it, some because they like the saw itself, and others simply for the technology. And surely, there will be those who with wish they had made such a purchase, if and when they loose a finger. But likewise, such victims may well wish that they had left the guard in place, or not worked so late, or simply not lost thier focus. My hope of course is that we all become safer in our use of cutting tools and not have the SS technology forced upon us.

CWS

[Cochese]

I don't try to put a value on something that can't have a value assigned to it.

What happens when you cut wet wood?

[cabinetman]

You're avoiding the discussion by referring to a what-if scenario. I'm referring to new brakes and new blades when the device triggers. That has to be incorporated into the discussion.

The other technology eliminates those added costs, so let's drop the appendages excuse.

It was hard to tell exactly what you were referring to. BTW, appendages are part of the discussion. Don't you put a value on them?

.

[Cochese]

So we have determined that Steve Gass is no philantropist. He is an inventor and businessman like millions of other inventors who like Gass decided to make money on their invention. Why would he donate it to other saw manufacturers. They had the opportunity to buy it and decide not to.
Just like they had the opportunity to enhance the safety of their saws by copying some of the features used on European saws for years and didn't.
I loved my BT3000. But when I had enough saved up, I bought the SawStop.

Tim

That's not the concern. The concern would be participating in lawsuits as an expert against manufacturers who declined to use his services. I would also be concerned if he participated in any effort by the CPSC to mandate safety technology. He's not exactly an impartial party.

I'd feel the same way if Festool or Powermatic introduced something and promoted their product in the same way. My issue isn't with any particular person or company or product. As a consumer, I'm concerned for the market and my choices in it.

[big tim]

So we have determined that Steve Gass is no philantropist. He is an inventor and businessman like millions of other inventors who like Gass decided to make money on their invention. Why would he donate it to other saw manufacturers. They had the opportunity to buy it and decide not to.
Just like they had the opportunity to enhance the safety of their saws by copying some of the features used on European saws for years and didn't.
I loved my BT3000. But when I had enough saved up, I bought the SawStop.

Tim

[Cochese]

My concern would be such saws would not be able to be sold at all. With the competing technology, that isn't a concern because it can be used on any saw in any cutting situation.

[BobSch]

Look at it this way. As soon as new saws have to have SS the value of used used saws will go up for those of us who don't want the government playing babysitter just because somebody screams "Oh, the humanity!"

/rant off

[Cochese]

It's not flesh sensing it's more in the line of a pico-micro voltage sensor device that detects a rise in blade conductivity that when activated drives a soft metal crush block into the blade and instantly lowers the blade below the table top. So there are two devices at work. The sensor crush block device and the sensor blade lowering device. These more or less have to function at the same time and within a microsecond or less of the blade conductivity rise.

My understanding is that both saws sense contact and activate their safety devices by closing a circuit. I was wondering if there was language specific to that.

[Cochese]

What increased costs are you referring to? The cost of the SS over a competitor, or the cost of surgery due to an "accident". My hand is valuable.



I don't think it's a copout at all. Facts have it that in a crash, you would be better protected with the extra airbags. What's the cost of that. Well it's figured in the cost of the car, and they are there JUST IN CASE OF A CRASH. We also have auto insurance which is JUST IN CASE OF AN ACCIDENT.

.

You're avoiding the discussion by referring to a what-if scenario. I'm referring to new brakes and new blades when the device triggers. That has to be incorporated into the discussion.

The other technology eliminates those added costs, so let's drop the appendages excuse.

[cabinetman]

The problem I have is that there is no real discussion about the increased operating costs. It always defaults to 'well your hand is very valuable.'

What increased costs are you referring to? The cost of the SS over a competitor, or the cost of surgery due to an "accident". My hand is valuable.

One of my cars doesn't have side-impact airbags, but it doesn't mean I'm inherently more likely to die of blunt head trauma than if I'm in my Acura. It's a bit of a copout response if I'm honest. If you disable the sensor to cut green wood, you have the same likelihood of cutting a body part as on a regular saw.

There is no substitute for good safety practices.

I don't think it's a copout at all. Facts have it that in a crash, you would be better protected with the extra airbags. What's the cost of that. Well it's figured in the cost of the car, and they are there JUST IN CASE OF A CRASH. We also have auto insurance which is JUST IN CASE OF AN ACCIDENT.

.