Bosch (Reaxx) Lost Suit to SawStop news

[Bach1750]

I was unaware that this forum is justifying a TS with a an extra level of safety over promoting its proper use.  Is this is an official policy?

So, let me see if I have this correct.  Steve N is on board affirming that a belt and suspenders approach has value.  Great!, we’re moving forward.

JGrout notes that both osha and cspc require a physical guard.  Wow, I didn’t know that, really.  You mean both those organizations already regulate how table saws must be equipped?  I wonder why they do that?

So, lets see, one way to hurt yourself on a TS is to get cut by the blade.  Another way would be for stock to kick back at the operator (Have you ever seen one of those pictures where a piece of wood is sticking out of a shop wall right behind the table saw... scary).  Either one could lead to serious injury.

Now correct me if I’m wrong here, but a guard with splitter and pawls helps to protect against a kick back as well as getting cut by the blade, and the nanny finger technology helps protect against getting cut by the blade, right?

Removing the guard except for a very short list of cuts seems to be unwise.  Also, do “regulatory bureaucrats” perform periodic reviews to exclude certain products from existing regulations?  That would be a lot of work, but they might, I just don’t know.

[Admiral]

Sorry, all I've got is the picture; this was taken more than 10 years ago so my memory is sketchy. To protect their anonymity I will just say I was photographing the shop (big shop, 100+ workers in various trades) and various people working. I thought it was pretty insane so I took the shot and moved on to get more pics. Later management told me some of the pics couldn't be used publicly because of potential issues with safety stuff (people not wearing safety glasses etc). This was a pretty buttoned up facility but when you have a lot of people scattered over a big area you can't police everyone every second. So folks will take shortcuts. I'm checking on an update if possible from them.

Let's put it this way, I wouldn't be making a cut like that. There's safer ways to do it that are obvious.

[JGrout]

Now correct me if I’m wrong here, but a guard with splitter and pawls helps to protect against a kick back as well as getting cut by the blade, and the nanny finger technology helps protect against getting cut by the blade, right?

So instead of acknowledging the fact that nearly everyone who has been around a TS without a blade or kickback pawls/ splitter or a riving knife installed  at some point in this journey which spans from hobbyist to skilled craftsman who do things  that to you may be dangerous we need one more layer of protection.  
Reality is the danger lies in the fact that from the top down in essence most saws are used with  discarded  safety features by not installing them for whatever reason. 

Then one justifies one more level of protection mainly because :  Instead of just telling you as the owner of a table saw  --wink wink nudge nudge-- you really should install and use the supplied equipment that came with the saw/////// Even though I do not use them....... Now that is just plan stupid but it is the norm not the exception.



All I get from your post is sarcasm and nothing to even come close to addressing my contention that reeducation via demonstration and practice  would all but eliminate any need for more layers. I know for a fact that a properly installed blade guard splitter pawls do the job and prevent cut fingers IF ONLY THEY ARE INSTALLED ON THE SAW 


Additionally, I get it; you just are so frustrated by the fact that all the blather about a genuine need for another layer of protection over these saws is in essence unnecessary making your position nearly impossible to defend if you look at the real issue. 


IF only the features that exist were truly used.....

[Bach1750]

Quote:

saws together under the same regulations what makes anyone thinks it is OK to throw the guard in the corner and forget about it? 

I think this is the single biggest fallacy in the way SS is promoted (at least on the sales floor) and by golly it is NOT true. 

So to put it in a no nonsense way: the technology does not hold enough sway with regulatory bureaucrats to EXCLUDE the one saw that is allegedly safer then ALL the others.

Maybe it is time for forums like these to start promoting proper use of a saw rather than justifying one

[Bach1750]

Yes, my post is sarcastic.

"Reality is the danger lies in the fact that from the top down in essence most saws are used with  discarded  safety features by not installing them for whatever reason".

Do you really hope to "reeducate" everyone who ever uses a table saw?  That seems to be a definition of futility.  In the mean time, real people will suffer devastating, life-long, catastrophic injury.

[JGrout]

How does one eat an elephant?

















One bite at a time.  


As for your contention that people will continue to be injured that part is the challenge that cannot be accomplished overnight even with SS. there are still dozens of TS manufacturers that do not use the technology and SS is nowhere near the top of the heap in terms of sales when the rest are bunched together

Joe

[Bach1750]

So, while we are slowly eating that elephant, people will continue to be injured, right?  While saws that do not have nanny technology continue to exist injuries will occur.  Why not think about eating that elephant in a different way?  Lets slowly eliminate saws that don't have a safer technology.

[JGrout]

OK 

here are the choices:

1 mandate all old technology saws dangerous and get them all gone ( I call it the "you cannot have that you will shoot your eye out" solution) and henceforth only sell safe saws, competition be darned 




2 Forcing regulators who visit shops to fine the pants off employers who are not using safety equipment causing a trickle down effect so much so that an official can walk into any shop including your hobby shop  or jobsite at any time and shut the operation down until they are in compliance with the regulations 


 3 Start promoting actual use of existing technology and explaining with patience how important a safety feature is instead of complaining about how someone will get hurt without another level of protection 

Which one would you consider to the be solution?

[Bach1750]

My solution?

4 Allow saws sold before a selected date to be sold without a safer technology.  Users could use them as long as they wanted.  After that date, all table saws sold must have an approved safer technology.

[Steve N]

Quote:

Maybe it is time for forums like these to start promoting proper use of a saw rather than justifying one

In CPSC's favor during Gasses attempt to change TS's they did reach out to users for information. My understanding is there were available questionnaires for general users, advanced, and professional, as well as surveys for injured parties to submit data.


This isn't from CPSC but another outlet, likely Gass as the text always refers to the "other guard" like this. " include a new modular blade guard system, may not adequately address the operator blade contact injuries associated with table saw use. Although the modular blade guard design is a significant improvement over the traditional blade guard design" At least by someone attempting to appear impartial, but they drank some Kool Aid.


One survey from that time


I was really being snarky with the stupid belt and suspenders pic BTW, and no I'll not embrace that style soon.

I still think that picture of the PM guy is him doing set up for non through cuts, and that blade is NOT moving. But even the story is suspect. I once saw a train wreck happening, but now I don't remember anything about it, really?