Excuse me for just glossing over the first forty posts in this thread, but I’m in a hurry.
Is ths question about mandatory Sawstops on every table saw, or just the ones in a professional setting? I can see regulating to make workers and the workplace safer. But if Joe Blow doesn’t care about his fingers, why should he be forced to pay a higher price just to protect them?
By the way, this is a very cool device, and I think it will sell very well on its own without the government forcing people to buy it.
Two points here. The government is not picking a specific technology, as per this quote further down in your post.
Secondly, the government has a long history of mandating various safety features on everything from cars(seat belts, airbags) to industrial machinery(mining safety regulations, oil rigs, etc.) and evidence of market disruption due to said regulations is weak at best. Restrictions often breed creativity and niches open up in the market for new entrepeneurs who are interested in starting safety-based companies. Seat belt dummy manufacturing and analysis labs. Safety equipment manufacturers/testers/underwriters. The costs imposed by regulation and the loss in one company’s profits become some other company’s profits and the consumer, while paying an increased price for the product, also receives a safer product.
Another point undercut by the above note about any effective technique being acceptable under the letter of the regulations. This point gets into hair splitting between legalities and realities. The legalities seem to be written in manner which does not mandate a particular approach, and thus technically no one is forced, under penalty of law, to license the technology from Gass. On the other hand, the reality is Gass has developed the most mature and proven methodology to date and the R&D costs of implementing an alternative may be higher than licensing from Gass. Market realities meet legal technicalities and the actualities fall as they may.
The downside of this arguement is twofold. Firstly it isn’t just the manufacturers who will face lawsuits. It is small business owners and shop owners for failing to buy the safer saws. The shops who invest in safer equipment will subsidize shops who don’t by having higher insurance premiums and worker’s comp taxes than they should because they’re all part of the same pool as the shops without safer equipment. So giving the market time to sort this out has the unintended consequences of punishing the early adopters by keeping their insurance and tax rates higher than they should be given the acutal state of their safety equipment in the shop. It becomes a disincentive to purchase these saws because you’re going to increase your operating costs(by purchasing a more expensive saw) but at the same time bear the burden of subsidizing insurance rates for those who do not upgrade.
Secondly, this approach is every bit as market-distorting as regulation because it’s going to be forcing the companies at lawyer-point to convert their shops. Some shops are going to be absolutely ruined by a huge lawsuit and manufacturers are going to feel it too. Just wait till someone sues Home Depot.
This arguement did not hold water with seat belts and air bags. A person can be responsible. People can not. The biggest strike against this arguement is the fact that most injuries are to professionals in professional settings with training and safety procedures. The idea that these professionals are not careful or work safely just doesn’t hold water. The “personal responsibility” arguement and the “inherently dangerous” status of table saws are in obvious conflict. No matter how responsible you are the inherently dangerous nature of the device/operation are going to cause issues when the number of operators/operations is scaled up.
I fail to see a difference between this one and number 1. What is the distinction?
So what’s a finger worth? The “Why Sawstop” video has some numbers. Up to $400,000 in medical bills, lost wages, and lost productivity from the loss of a finger over a worker’s lifetime. It is literally a life-changing injury in many cases. Insurance claims/costs of $4,000 to $9,000 for initial treatment of an amputation.
What is the actual price delta for a Sawstop versus a comprable quality table saw? Sawstop costs 2,799 and is a 3HP, 10" cabinet saw operating on 230 volts. A Froogle search for “table saw 230 volts 3 hp -band”(-band eliminates band saws) comes up with a few saws but all of them are in the $1,000+ range(except some used ones on eBay). So we’re talking about a price delta of ~$1,500 if you’re buying the cheapest saw you can find with comprable stats. Many saws are over the price of the Sawstop. A single insurance claim of $4,000 to $9,000 would pay for this delta two to six times over.
I think the market will move this direction, at least for professional shops, but like seat belts I’m not sure this should be “optional”. I’d be fine with regulation in this area.
I don’t have a problem with your post as a whole, but I’m not sure this comment stacks up. I saw a post on a woodworking forum I post on from a Canadian guy who has a large professional shop. He said they were changing over to sawstops as fast as their cashflow would allow, because it made financial sense. He said there was already heavy recognition by his insurers of the benefits of sawstops, and consequently his insurers gave him a big discount in proportion to the number of sawstops vs ordinary table saws in his shop. He had done the sums and come to the conclusion that the sawstops paid for themselves, particularly when he considered the money that he’d lose (due to sick pay, insurance deductibles, medicals, lost time, re-training etc) if there was an injury, multiplied by the odds there’d be one.
I’m not sure I agree with this point. A small business has some, fairly small, chance that an employee would get injured badly from a saw using the old technology. Thus a small business owner might wish to bet that he could save money by not using the Sawstop and not be hurt. My understanding is that small shops cut corners (for instance removing safety equipment that hurts productivity) all the time.
Manufacturers would figure, however, that they will always have someone hurt by their machines, because of the volume. If it becomes a no-brainer that the cost in lost market share is less than the cost of lawsuits, I don’t see how this would be market distorting. If the manufacturers colluded to offer the technology exclusively I could see market distortion. (Or colluded to get the government to issue regulations.) But the argument seems to be that lawsuits (which are part of the market) will force adoption.
FTR, I have no connection to the Sawstop company. They did give me a nice baseball cap at the product demo, though.
Monty, the original assertion was thus: “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.”
I’m not sure this is the case. One would imagine that purchasing safety equipment would push premiums down, for the same reason homeowner’s insurance is cheaper if you have a burglar alarm installed.
Also, your Froogle search is a poor way of establishing this delta, because it picks up contractor’s saws in addition to cabinent saws. The motor/trunion mechanism between the two are quite different.
If you want a comparable saw, Froogle the Powermatic 2000, which is a cabinet saw of comparable quality, including a true riving knife
Contractors saw= 10" table saw with formed sheet steel base that is usually about 45cm tall with provisions to mounting to a permanent base. It’s designed to be carried in a truck, set up on a job site and used for rough work although with some care and setup, it can be used cabinet making work.
Cabinet saw= 10" table saw that is floor mounted, sits ~80cm tall and is generally much heacier and mroe stable. They both can have cast iron mounting brackets but the better cabinet saws have cast iron housings. This makes for a much smoother cutting tool which can be more pwerful as well. They are well suited for making precision cuts needed in cabinet and furniture making work.
The chief difference is in how the motor is mounted to the saw. In a contractor’s saw, the motor assembly sort of hangs out the back. It can be easily removed, which makes the saw a little more portable – the two pieces are much ligher separately and can be easily placed in truck or van.
In a cabinet saw, the motor assembly is housed within an enclosed cabinent (hence the name) and is much heavier.
Wikipedia’s “table saw” entry has a good breakdown on the differences between the three classes of table saw (benchtop. contractor’s and cabinet).
