He has taken out patents on his particular invention. Others are free to invent alternative methods of minimizing flesh-blade contact injuries.
Not sure how a “lawsuit” by one manufacturer against another could force such a safety invention in.
However, what’s galling is precisely the fact that companies like Delta and Powermatic have apparently not made any efforts to add such a safety feature to their products, pretty much solely because it might make saws less “inherently dangerous” and thus might open them up to liability for injuries from table saw accidents.
Statistically speaking, it is the most dangerous machine in the shop. And somehow, I doubt all or even most of those injuries resulted from improper use.
More people use lawnmowers than use table saws, so this would be unsurprising.
What number of injuries are necessary before you think regulation is appropriate?
You need an “inherently dangerous” carveout in the world of products liability because some things simply are inherently dangerous and cannot be made less so. The canonical example is a chef’s knife – it kind of is what it is, and it doesn’t make much sense to impose liability on knife makers for every nicked digit in the kitchen.
A problem arises in just this kind of situation, though. What happens when a product previously thought to be inherently dangerous suddenly proves to not be due to advancing technology?
Having said that, even barring CPSC action, the mere existence of the Sawstop on the market is likely to whittle away at that previously-held notion. Inherent dangerousness and much products of liability law is the product of common law, not statute, and its application to a particular product can change with the addition of new facts via product liability lawsuits.
It is entirely plausible that, in the near future, a person injured on a Powermatic saw could sue Powermatic and point to the existence of the Sawstop as proof that table saws are not inherently dangerous and that thus manfuacturers should be held liable for blade-flesh table saw injuries.
I think the manufacturers gambled that Gass was only interested in being an inventor, rather than running a manfacturing operation, and that he would never bring his product to market on his own. They guessed wrong.
Well, I don’t know the first thing about liability law, but I would think that even “inherently dangerous” devices can be subject to liability. Suppose a table saw ships with a defective blade retention mechanism and the blade flies out and embeds itself in someone’s skull. Surely the manufacturer would be liable in such a case. So I am assuming that the added liability manufacturers would be exposed to would be flesh/blade accidents where the brake is determined to be defective. Correct? A manufacturer wouldn’t suddenly become liable for kickback accidents by installing these things, would it?
You know, the shop I worked in I don’t think we had a single table saw accident. One guy damn near lost a couple fingers to a big radial arm saw. The most accident-prone device by far, though, were the nail guns. Even with safety devices on them, guys still shot themselves. I expect they’re “inherently dangerous” too, though, even with the safeties.
Yes, it would be liable in that case. You’re describing the difference between a manufacturing defect and a design defect.
No. Even Sawstop will be liable if its brake is defective and fails to fire. That’s a manufacturing defect – a “lemon,” if you will.
The argument I’m referring to is a design defect – an argument that a reasonable safety feature should have been included in the product’s design, but was not, and that safety feature would have prevented the injury in suit.
This is why, for example, lawnmowers have a trigger handle that shuts off the mower when it is released, making it (mostly) physically impossible to have the motor running while you’re doing maintenance on the motor.
No, they would only be liable for flesh/blade contact injuries.
However, the CPSC is starting to require riving knives on all US saws, effective in the next several years (the Sawstop and the Powermatic 2000 already have them). One could theoretically proceed on the same theory to recover on a kickback injury that occurred on a saw without a riving knife.
As I recall, the radial arm saw is the next-most-dangerous woodshop tool, although it is dropping because the RAS is largely being replaced with compound miter saws.
It won’t be replacing the sort of saw I’m talking about - blade about 2’ in diameter, can cut through a half dozen 2x4s stacked together almost without slowing down. Compound miter saws are great, but they just don’t have the capacity of these things.
It looks from what you’ve said, though, that the other saw manufacturers are out of luck. Doesn’t the mere existence of this technology make failure to include it a “design flaw”?
I’ve gotta think if I ran a shop that used table saws, I’d rather spring for the $170 or so to get the saw back in running order than have to train someone to take the place of the guy that loses his digits. The CPSC could mandate that a system be used on all table saws, not necessarily this system. Perhaps someone comes up with an alternative mechanism that doesn’t wreck the blade. It just seems to me that if we know how to make it so that 3000 people per year won’t lose fingers, and the cost of mandating the device isn’t excessive, then it should be mandated. If this is “nanny government”, so be it.
I think the safety feature should be mandated by the CPSC. If you want the freedom to cut off your own fingers, go for it, but I see no reason why other users should risk serious injury because the owner of the saw was too cheap to buy a modern saw. I can still remember my junior high school shop teachers and their missing fingers.
Ah, the American Dream. You build a better mousetrap and then lobby (or bribe) the government into making it mandatory for people to use it.
I’m a woodworker. I saw an article for this device several years ago. I thought, then, that if works as well as described, it would be showing up on power tools (not just table saws) soon. It hasn’t.
That leads me to ask questions: Does it cost too much, or does it not work as well as advertised? From some of the previous posts, I would tend to believe it costs too much. Delta, Jet, et al are fairly quick adapters. If they thought for a minute that they could gain a market advantage, their saws would have this device.
So here we have an inventor that wants to use the capitalism to make money (nothing wrong with that), but doesn’t want to play by the rules of capitalism and price his product according to what the market will bear. Instead, he wants to play on the socialist aspect of the government and get laws past that mandate his profits.
Sorry, no sympathy from me.
By the way, I’ve taken most of the safety devices off of my table saw because they eventually got in the way. I found that I pay more attention to my work without them. I realize this is a fallacy, but it’s my saw and my fingers.
You have no idea how freaking cantankerous woodworkers can be. There’s a huge running debate (on pretty much any woodworking forum) whether to even use blade guards on table saws. Myself, I think it’s idiotic to run one without a guard and a splitter but there’s a large contigent that just rips off all the safety equipment and tosses it in the corner when a new saw arrives. (It’s not dissimilar to the seat belt debate for cars, or helmet laws for motorcycles.)
So I think it’s pretty much a doomed idea to mandate putting a sawstop on every tablesaw. Especially because then you’d probably have to mandate putting one on every router, planer, and chop saw as well. That said, it’s a pretty clever idea – too bad the guy’s being somewhat of a jerk about it.
I do not plan to buy a table saw as I have a good Radial Arm Saw, Band saw, Scroll saw and a crappy Chop saw. If I were going to buy one, I would resent this inventor for trying to impose his costly addition to the price of my purchase. There are many safety issues that could be fixed by throwing money at them; this does not seem like a vital one. I am still not overjoyed with Airbags, and they save lives, so I guess fingers are not a high priority to me. I am extremely careful with my Radial Arm Saw, which I use often. Helmets and seatbelts are cheap. Cheaper than the related cost to society for caring for those, that choose not to use them. Airbags might fit this condition, I do not know. A blade wrecking brake might save 3000 fingers per year. What does it cost, $20 to $50, maybe. If it will add $170 per saw, I do not think it is worth it.
Is the SawStop technology and licensing expensive enough so that, if mandated, it would eliminate the lowest price point from the table saw market? That might be another explanation for the opposition - reduced sales due to higher prices.
This is an interesting point; IIRC, estimates point to the cost to the consumer of adding the brake at around $100-150. That would effectively double the cost of the el-cheapo benchtop table saws that you can buy at Home Depot. It’s obviously a much smaller deal for a high-end cabinet saw that already costs $2,500 plus.
OTOH, there are reasons to doubt those estimates. Sawstop is apparently working on a contractor’s saw (the middle ground between a benchtop model and a cabinet model) that they say will be very close in price to other good-quality contractor’s saws. They haven’t delivered a model yet – apparently, there have been many difficulties in bringing production on-line – but it does mean that saws may not be priced out of the market.
And there’s also a time component: the longer the technology is used, the cheaper it gets to implement. It may cost a lot to implement the brake today, but it may not cost that much tomorrow. That may make a tiered approach to requiring the brake sensible.
I’ve been involved in some standards activity, and my sense has been that standards try to follow, not lead the market. (And also not to grant one company a de facto monopoly - an issue in the RamBus situation.) So, I can see a standards body or regulator waiting until the technology is feasible for all price points, which I agree will surely happen. I can’t see how they could justify a safety standard that applies only to high-end saws. That the inventors are having trouble hitting a lower price point is more evidence that a bit of delay might be reasonable.
I’d be willing to bet that within 20 years all saws will have this.
In my opinion, due to length and detail of post it smacks of rank commercialism.
Having watched the videos it appears to be a great and useful product. But there is/was no information as to sizes and costs of one of these table saws which you term ‘very expensive.’ Oh but of course we are waiting for the gov’t to make the rules for testing, safety, approvals etc. etc. Mass production will reduce prices?
PS I have no fear of, but a very healthy respect for any fast moving cutting edge or multiples thereof. Been there, but didn’t do that cut-off finger thing!
Maybe, maybe not. What I do have an idea of is what a sweeping statement is. And, IMHO, using one for support of one’s assertion isn’t all that helpful.
