Comments on flesh sensing saws....

[Handplanesandmore]

Last comment from me.  I've been in construction mostly finish carpentry and cabinets plus woodworking on the side for 25+ years. I'm not 9 digit construction. I respect the power of all my tools. Although I think saw stop is nifty it doesn't take the place of good thinking and safety practices.  Push sticks are awesome things.  Your hand should never be closer than 5" to the blade.  Furthermore I question the reliability of the product.  How many years has this product been tested?

As a SawStop user and then an owner, I agree no features can take the place of good thinking and safety practices. When driverless cars become the norm, I would still prefer a driveless car that allows some manual override option.
SawStop -- company established in 1999 -- came out in 2005 or so., with 80,000 units (?) sold today (I forgot the figures I found last time, I could be way off here). As of today, no one single failure of finger protection has been reported or established (don't trust the naysayers telling you "someone" got injured because the sawstop failed to work. That someone could have been rich today if it had happened.)
My car has been recalled twice this year -- one for an airbag recall and the other for another safety issue or something else. I still want all my car safety features there, even though one of them may fail when I need it. The chance of me getting injured by a failure of the SawStop tech. would be much lower than me getting hurt in a car accident, I would hope.

By the way, I did submit my comments to CPSC, hoping that future generations of woodworkers would enjoy a safer saw (as well as other safer power tools that will be fitted with a similar safety feature) as we now enjoy the safety features of airbags, seatbelts, lane departure warnings, blind spot alarms, etc. The tablesaw safety improvement may be a small step (and may cause some short-term hardship to some), but its implications are far-reaching in terms of economic and personal costs (including pain and suffering).
Simon

[Steve N]

The political math that would require Saw Stop mechanisms on saws is not clear to me. Far worse injuries are suffered at a greater scale with other technology, like alcohol and cars, and alcohol mixed with cars, but similar safety measures are not required. The table saw injuries I have seen are usually hands and eyes. Cars and alcohol often involve coffins.

Why are table saws such a target for consumer protection?

Because Steve Gassbag made it his life's work to make it so, his greed is boundless.

[Admiral]

 . . . . . . I am saying if one can sue a restaurant for a coffee spill that was too hot, a buyer of a second-hand old saw who got injured could sue the seller. Injury lawyers are good at what they are doing. . . . . . . . . . Call me overthinking.

Simon

Well, honestly, yes, you are very much overthinking.  It's highly, highly doubtful that a seller of used equipment could be successfully sued for injuries to the subsequent buyer that are related to the design of the saw.  PI lawyers are generally on a contingency fee basis, and will not waste their time (and money) with such a lawsuit, as it is a hands down loser.  A simple Bill of Sale stating "as is, where is, without representation or warranty by the seller" would more than take care of any such remote risk.

Always, always prepare a bill of sale to be signed by buyer and seller when you sell used machinery, including motor vehicles.  Just put in a description of the item, serial number or whatever you've got like that, the consideration (i.e., price) and include those magic words.

But remember, free legal advice is worth what you paid for it..............

[Steve N]

Nothing on this in the CPSC position paper.

However, if AMI tech. did become mandatory and all you could buy in the market were saws with such safety feature, I would think twice before selling my old saw. Why? People who bought your saw and got injured could sue you for selling an unsafe saw. Yes, you might win in the court at the end of the day, BUT, do you want to go through that? I wouldn't...especially the buyer of my old saw could be an injury lawyer himself or herself!
Simon

If I'm not mistaken this isn't the first time this has happened. Gass lobbied for this some years ago. I have two major problems with this. For starters I think the Sawstop technology is a great thing but I don't need the government shoving something down my throat that a may not want or be able to afford. Sounds a lot like health care doesn't it which has been a tremendous success. The other big issue I have is that there is only one option in the US market right now. That gives Sawstop a monopoly on tablesaws which is a big problem. If Gass was really concerned about public safety he would offer the technology to everyone at a reasonable price and not sue anyone who tries to take a chunk of his business.

Dave every time he goes to court to fight someone with his thinly worded patents it is just for the money he thinks he will lose if they are allowed to use a better, cheaper, or just optional system. If CSPC actually gave a hoot about safety they would waive his patents, and allow the market to repair itself. Gass is only concerned about money, all he ever has been, all he will ever be. Evidently Festool is too.

[Handplanesandmore]

Gass is only concerned about money, all he ever has been, all he will ever be. Evidently Festool is too.

Agreed. They are all business entities, after all.  So are TPI, lobbying against the proposed improvement, and all other tool makers, or for that matter, car makers, phone makers, etc. My bankers who say they are there to look after my money and its growth, too.

If there were no laws, we would still be driving cars or using appliances without any built-in safety protection, even if the technologies were there. Even the warning labels on the smokes would not be there, which cost the tobacco firms to put on.

In business, money talks.

Simon

[Admiral]

Steve, the government can't "waive" patents.  That would be an unconstitutional "taking" of Article I, Section 8 property rights that is banned by the Fifth Amendment, unless the government paid for the patent rights.

[Handplanesandmore]

Bill of Sale stating "as is, where is, without representation or warranty by the seller" would more than take care of any such remote risk.

I would use your advice when I sell my next tool...I'd add that to the Craiglist ad as well.

In the past, I always included the user's manual and reminded the buyer to read it before turning on the machine (if a power tool).

Simon

[JGrout]

I am not saying you would be forbidden from selling your old saw (at least unlikely at this point).

I am saying if one can sue a restaurant for a coffee spill that was too hot, a buyer of a second-hand old saw who got injured could sue the seller. Injury lawyers are good at what they are doing.

Are you prepared for the risk of going to the court on a sales that nets you, say, a few hundred bucks? I wouldn't be. I wouldn't even give the old finger-cutting saw to anyone when all the saws in the market have that finger saving feature built in. As a woodworker, I enjoy being in the shop, not in the court, even as unlikely as it might be.

Call me overthinking.

Simon

you are overthinking. 

I enjoy the safety of the supplied guards in my shop just fine as the guards supplied with the saw are perfectly acceptable. they just have to be in place to work.  leave them off and I can almost bet that 98% or more of the accidents attributed to table and circular saws are from that single issue. 

 It is the type of responsibility (in this case attempts at workarounds that are court mandated) that got this country in the PIL mess we are dealing with today, and it is a path that needs to be burned to the ground. 

SS is not anything more than a bully making an attempt at getting his way. The rest of us with common sense should stand up to that

[Dave Diaman]

Admiral, no offense taken. As I said before, I like the technology. One of my two saws is a SawStop mainly for insurance reasons. I'm not in the tool manufacturing business but it seems like paying him 8% on every tablesaw sold in the US to keep him from filing a law suit against them is kind of high. I know some retailers barely make that on the saws they sell. It would seem that the saw manufactures will still have to do a lot of R&D to redesign their saws to intigrate the technology. When you factor in the additional cost to retool their manufacturing facilities I would imaging the cost would be a lot more than the average Joe could afford. I understand he is in business and wants to make money from his invention. I think he deserves to but acting noble about pushing the technology while he holds a monopoly on the market and stands to make a ton of money off it just seems disingenuous and immoral.

[AHill]

Well, here we go again.  Steve Gas gets his way if this becomes law, and given recent rulings in his favor concerning patent infringement, it essentially gives Gas a monopoly on the technology (right now the only feasible one) until his patents run out.  They already have laws to require blade guards and riving knives.  I guess those aren't enough, because people still defeat them and run saws in an unsafe manner.  How long before someone figures out a way to defeat the flesh sensing technology to prevent inadvertent activation where you waste a blade and spend money on a new cartridge?