I drafted a new article to post shortly, but abandoned that idea when I read Robert Lang’s article today. I urge you to read it, and to follow future articles, for he is looking at all sides of the issue with a very balanced eye and open mind.
The CPSC and the PTI
I hope the CPSC (Consumer Product Safety Commission) does not grant what will essentially be a monopoly to SawStop; they never have, and very likely never will. I am in the camp that WE, as woodworkers, are solely responsible for safety in the shop. We are charged with learning to operate the machines we operate, to maintain them, to know their limits and capabilities. And if we do not know know how to do it, we should ask for help.
I also hope that the PTI (Power Tool Institute) is able to fully document and track all developments in the future
What is YOUR take?
- Do YOU have an opinion on this?
- Do you do things in the shop that might violate safety and common sense?
- Have you ever had an accident in the shop?
— Al Navas
About Al Navas
It is really easy to be drawn in by the very unfortunate injuries that can happen with table saws. It is also very easy to find “flesh sensing technology” an attractive remedy. Yet, I believe both of those views are standing far too close to the problem.
I believe this quandary is one of deciding what principles are important to us. Do we agree with the principles of individual responsibility? Do we agree with the principles of free enterprise?
Backing away from the table saws and all the ramifications of their potential misuse, let’s change the details a bit. Imagine that the common #2 yellow pencil could be improved. Maybe a variation could be made that didn’t require whacking some of it way in order to get a keen new point when the original has worn round. Maybe a way could be found to have lots of “lead,” or whatever that marking agent is, available when the original material is expended. Maybe it could also incorporate a clip or something that keeps it from falling out of a pocket. Yeah, the “auto-pencil” is born from ideas such as these. Good first step. Now, let’s patent those ideas, find a manufacturer and go to market with our new “auto-pencil.” Yes, it costs more than the yellow #2, but it has a lot of good selling points that make it more valuable to some consumers than “old yaller” has. In fact, the huge number of pencil variations illustrates how a relatively free market works. Those that have the features we want, at price points we find reasonable, survive in the market place. The others die and fade away.
Now, what if yet another “auto-pencil” idea emerged, and was found superior in every imaginable way and has a feature that no one has ever incorporated in a pencil; the marking medium never fails. However, it is far more expensive than all the other alternatives. The new “turbo-pencil” appeals to some who are willing to pay its very high premium.
It struggles in the marketplace, but its inventor is not happy with his market share. His first move is one that is often used; gain patent protection to keep competitors from mimicking the wonderful new feature. However, the competitors find that the feature is very expensive to produce and consumer demand isn’t begging to pay the price, patents or no patents. So the “turbo-pencil” still languishes with relatively small market share.
What’s a man to do? Turn to the government yet again, and demand that competitor MUST include his invented feature. Simple; pass a law! He tries and is unable to convince ENOUGH legislators that his idea is valuable enough for them to TAKE CHOICE AWAY from their constituents.
What next? Well, turn to a government agency. They’re usually operated by fewer people (fewer minds to persuade), and they have NO allegiance to an electorate and very little allegiance to any other form of oversight. Get a consumer products agency to make a new regulation that all “auto-pencils” must have use the new fail-safe writing medium. Make sure the regulations are specific enough they can’t be circumvented by any other techniques, Then, sit back and watch the patent royalties roll in.
As an aside, I am responsible for everything that happens in my shop, safe or unsafe. I currently do not have a table saw. I can afford to purchase a saw with or without “flesh sensing technology,” and want to always have that as my choice, not an imposition from the US Government.
As Ron Bois asks, once we let the government start mandating safety features, where does it stop?
I am in line with Rob Bois, finger trauma are ugly, but have a low morbidity, where kickback induced abdominal trauma can be very dangerous. Classic safety options like riving knifes, blade guards and fast stops are therefore probably more useful than more impressive technologies.
But in the end I think that if people become more careless ( So …. it’s a Saw Stop! I always do that on my sliding table saw!) when using these safer technologies the whole could kickback and make things worse.
This article reminded me of the episode of Dirty Jobs where Mike made cedar shingles. Some of the processes involve working very near large circular saw blades and at a rapid rate. First, he snatches the shingles as that fall away from a ~4′ circular saw blade. To cut the shingles to width, they were held down on a table by hand which was then pivoted down through a circular saw blade. I don’t see SawStop being enforced on industrial manufacturing sites like this, so why should it be any different in a professional woodworking shop? I think that education is more important. I would rather see a licensing program for a tablesaw than mandatory safety features.
Al,
My opinion is divided. I think SawStop technology is fantastic and anyone buying a table saw should buy a SawStop (or other saw with equal technology if they ever come out). That said, I disagree with the table saw court ruling from last year and I don’t like the way SawStop is lobbying for it’s technology.
I probably have many things that would drive a safety inspector nuts, but I’ll never do anything I’m not comfortable with. Let’s hope my personal safety barometer is accurate.
I watched a good friend take off two (2) fingers with a dado blade and then took him to the hospital. This has led me to think that those who think the SawStop technology isn’t necessary are ignorant, and they may not find that out until it’s too late.
I believe there is a limit to how much safety devices should be forced on the consumer. I am probably one of those few people that does use his blade guard religiously on the table saw, and generally try to take as many precautions in the shop as possible. A device like the brake in Saw Stop is a nice luxury to have, but the safety police seem to think this device somehow makes the shop safe. However, I would argue the brake doesn’t even solve the greatest safety issue on a table saw – kickback. With proper care and use of a blade guard, you can reasonably prevent or at least limit the possibility of blade contact, but kick back can bite you even when you’re doing everything right. And I’ve had off-cuts literally pierce 3/4″ stock behind my saw. Also, if we do mandate a saw brake, where does it stop? After all, the table saw blade is one of about a dozen fast moving cutting edges in my shop. Will we then have to add a brake to the band saw? Then all the routers? The jointer and planer? I’ll eventually have some kind of $300 mechanical safety device attached to my chisels I suppose.
The reality is that blade contact is one potential danger on one of many potentially dangerous tool in the shop. To mandate a safety mechanism that will likely add hundreds of dollars to the cost of the tool is a gross overreaction to the unconscionable actions of one plaintiff and his lawyers. These are the same people that would sue a tree if they whacked themselves in the head with a 2×4. They know nothing about the trade of woodworking, the true dangers, or the safety precautions we can and should take in the shop, nor do they truly have woodworker safety as their primary motivator. Let’s just be transparent – this is about money and greed and nothing more.