[QUOTE=boytyperanma]
He has been pretty clear he wants his invention to be mandated. He has taken out many patents to prevent companies from making a similar device.
[/quote]
He has taken out patents on his particular invention. Others are free to invent alternative methods of minimizing flesh-blade contact injuries.
[QUOTE=boytyperanma]
Companies like Delta and Powermatic do have the money to develope such devices and could bankrole lawsuits to force their inventions in. They have never seen reason to do so.
[/quote]
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.
[QUOTE=boytyperanma]
A table saw has potential to be dangerous as do many other tools in a shop. When used properly it is one of the safest.
[/quote]
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.
[QUOTE=boytyperanma]
The fact of the matter is table saw injuries are hardly a epidemic. I think more people are injured using lawn mowers each year.
[/quote]
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?
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.
[/QUOTE]
Isn’t this more the fault of the law than it is of Delta and Powermatic?
[QUOTE=Gorsnak]
Isn’t this more the fault of the law than it is of Delta and Powermatic?
[/QUOTE]
Yes and no, actually.
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.
[QUOTE=Gorsnak]
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.
[/quote]
Yes, it would be liable in that case. You’re describing the difference between a manufacturing defect and a design defect.
[QUOTE=Gorsnak]
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?
[/quote]
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.
[QUOTE=Gorsnak]
A manufacturer wouldn’t suddenly become liable for kickback accidents by installing these things, would it?
[/quote]
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.
[QUOTE=Gorsnak]
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.
[/quote]
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.
[QUOTE=Dewey Cheatem Undhow]
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.
[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=Gorsnak]
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”?
[/QUOTE]
Quite possibly, although as with any prediction of rules derived from litigation, who knows?
That’s why I think the manufacturers were banking on Gass not actually going into the manufacturing business. They lost that bet.
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.
My guess is that the “cantankerous and conservative lot” are really neither. More likely, IMHO, is that an industry-wide change would probably cost a pretty penny.
{lop}
[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=Tully Mars]
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.
[/QUOTE]
Check the 3rd sentence of the 5th paragraph of the OP.
[QUOTE=Voyager]
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.
[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=Dewey Cheatem Undhow]
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.
[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=Dewey Cheatem Undhow]
I present for your consideration: the Sawstop. Watch the hot dog video on that site, and be impressed by the power of clever engineering.
The SawStop, for those of you too lazy to follow the link, is a table saw. Specifically, it is a table saw that is designed to save fingers: it runs a slight voltage through the spinning blade; if flesh makes contact, the saw senses the voltage drop caused by the body’s capacitance and in the blink of an eye – faster than a car’s airbag – shuts off the power to the saw and slams a cartridge into the spinning blade to bring it to an immediate halt. The blade also immediately drops below the table’s surface. The result, as you can see from the video, is an event that would otherwise lop off fingers only gives you a nick shallow enough to repair with a Band-Aid. It ruins your blade and you need a new cartridge after that ($50-100 for a blade, $69 for the cartridge), but that’s cheaper than an ER visit.
I went to a live demo of this sucker a couple of weeks ago, and the video doesn’t do it justice. You can almost feel the force of the cartridge slamming into the blade through the floor when you stand next to the saw. It’s damned impressive.
A little history: Steven Gass, inventor of the SawStop, holds degrees in physics and law and made his living as a patent attorney. He is also an amateur woodworker. One fine day he set his mind to preventing injuries caused by table saws – by far the most dangerous machine, statistically speaking, in most woodworking shops. And he came up with the system described above and patented it.
Mr. Gass invested time and effort in developing prototypes and then took his idea to saw manufacturers. To his chagrin, he was rebuffed. No table saw maker wanted to put the device on their saws, mostly out of liability concerns (manufacturers are insulated from liability for most injuries because the saw is “inherently dangerous” – something that might change if the brake was adopted). Manufacturers also claim Gass wanted too high a royalty for the patent.
Mr. Gass’ next step…well, let me get to that in a minute. It’s where the controversy arises.
Finally, Mr. Gass decided that the only way to gain acceptance for the idea was to actually build and market a table saw, which he has – as you can see from the link above. By all accounts, it is an excellent saw even without the saw brake, comparable to the very best table saws from Powermatic and the like. It has to be; it’s very expensive. It’s been out for over a year now and has garnered numerous awards and has saved many a finger in various pro woodworking shops. The point being: the saw and the saw brake each work, and work very well.
OK, so about that middle step. Gass decided to petition the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) to make saw brake technology mandatory on all table saws. For this, he drew the ire of many woodworkers. Being a cantakarous and conservative lot, many of them hate the idea of letting anything but the market sort out whether the technology should be installed. Many say they won’t buy the saw on principle, even though they recognize its quality as a saw and the effectiveness of the safety device.
About two months ago, the CPSC agreed to start a rulemaking process on saw brake technology (the linked article, BTW, contains a more detailed history of this saga, and I recommend reading it).
So I’m curious to get this forum’s take on the issue. Some of the arguments against making the brake mandatory:
It picks a technology winner, and government shouldn’t do that because it’s bad at it.
It effectively mandates payments to a monopoly, since Gass owns the patent.
Sawmakers will eventually have to include this technology or something like it anyway, because the existence of the SawStop on the market opens other sawmakers up to lawsuits for failing to include the safety device on their saws. Thus, regulation isn’t necessary.
“Woodworking is safe if you are careful, and I shouldn’t have to subsidize the careless.” Essentially, the personal responsibility argument.
Government sucks, the free market rules. (The Ayn Rand argument.)
The argument for: there are a metric shitload of fingers that might be saved.
I suggest taking a look at the CPSC briefing package on saw brakes, as it provides some very interesting information. Note that any rulemaking, if undertaken, will not specifically mandate Gass’ patented method, but will instead be performance-based – it would require *any *method of reducing injury when the sawblade contacts flesh, rather than the Gass technique in particular.
Anyway, I find the whole thing just endlessly fascinating, and am curious as to what the SDMB brain trust will say on the matter. So have at it, folks.
[/QUOTE]
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!
[QUOTE=Finagle]
You have no idea how freaking cantankerous woodworkers can be.
[/QUOTE]
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.
