What Are Your Feelings On Mandatory Flesh Sensing Technology On Tablesaws?
In FWW #224 there’s an article titled, “Tablesaws Under Siege.” It’s an interesting and informative article.
The idea that government regulations might one day require flesh sensing technology on all tablesaws left me somewhat conflicted. On the safety end of things, I think it’s great something like that is now available and anyone wishing to buy a new tablesaw can purchase one with that technology. But when it comes to making it mandatory, I’m having a problem with that.
I got my start in woodworking over 30 years ago when I went to the hardware store and bought a Black & Decker 8″ portable table saw. It was probably something like $69 and pretty basic. But it was a start. Prior to that, if I wanted to cut wood I’d use my Craftsman 7″ circular saw and the cuts it made convinced me working on anything fancier than construction grade lumber would be a waste of good wood. With that little B&D I made a teak bowsprit for my dad’s boat. And it held up for 15 years. And I took great pride in it.
Today a tablesaw like that might cost around $150. In the article, they used the Ryobi BTS 15, priced at $179, and then said with Saw Stop technology the price would jump to over $500. Would I have bought that B&D for 3-4 times the price back then? I doubt it. And I probably would have never developed the interest in woodworking that today gives me so much joy.
That’s just one argument against mandatory regulations. There are plenty more. Like the fact the injury reporting for tablesaw accidents does not factor in the newer technology now in use, such as riving knives. No one knows how much that has impacted safety. But we do know that there are more tablesaws in use today than ever, but the number of injuries has stayed about the same. So it is getting safer.
In the article I learned the inventor is a lawyer. And he has certainly used his primary profession to ensure he will profit nicely from his invention. And he should. But by how much? Should the average consumer have to pay an extra $350 or so for the purchase of the saw and another $100-$200 for new parts and blades each time the stop activates? How many consumers have that kind of money? How many consumers would be priced out of the market?
Mr. Gass, the inventor, seems to have his patents locked up so tight no one can come even close to making a safe stop on a tablesaw without the possibility of a lawsuit. So all manufacturers would have to use his technology. That takes out the element of competition. All improvements made will have to be made by him or authorized by him. Delta, DeWalt, Skil, Ryobi, and all the other manufacturers will be unable to use their own R&D to improve the technology. Imagine what the element of competition would do to creating an even better way to stop injuries. And I’m sure they would keep the price to a minimum.
According to the article, he is asking for royalties that increase as the usage of the technology increases. Kind of like double dipping. And he has pushed for legislation to pass laws requiring every tablesaw to have his technology. The manufacturers will pass that along to the distributors and they will pass it along to the consumers, us. All with their added markup too. So Mr. Gass will earn his millions on our backs.
The idea that any new invention, that has no competition and no way any will ever be created, will be made mandatory by a government agency offends me. Competition is our friend. It creates better products, better technology, better safety and at better prices. Until competition enters into the equation, any talk of “mandatory” should not be considered.
Replies
Back scratchers
Arn't most congressmen lawyers ? They know how to feather their nests and help their brothers of the Bar do the same.
Sharks have mandatory flesh sensing technology and a hell of a lot of good it does us. I think it is only going to get worse when the gummint has us all under health care and is paying the bills. I can hear them now up on the hill saying "waddaya mean people want to use claw hammers?... we have to pay when they hit their thumb...Register Hammers! Only trained hammer users can own one, and they have to have a HammerStop attached to boot."
I'm fine with the government protecting us from foreign invasion and running a court system and police force. When the government starts to get into the business of protecting us from ourselves, god help us.
Government in Every Corner
Here we go again. The government playing nanny. Look, if some idiot chooses to ignore basic table saw safety and gets hurt, it's really not a surprise. I've been building furniture for 30 years and have been hurt twice on my table saws. Why? Because I made a stupid decision to ignore the safety precautions. No, I didn't even sue anyone. It was my fault. Saws are akin to guns. Guns don't kill people..people kill people. Likewise, table saws aren't like SUVs that run around hurting people. If the morons would follow the basic safety rules, they probably wouldn't get hurt.
guns don't kill people
I find it interesting that several gun manufacturers are putting warning messages on the side of hand guns. Where will the fear of litigation take us?
You got my vote!!
woodchirp wrote:
If the morons would follow the basic safety rules, they probably wouldn't get hurt.
I agree, somtimes we just have to keep the train of though simple. If the majority of people were being injured from a product due to bad designe then I would have to agree with the manditory addition of installed safty equipment. With that said, if injury is occuring because the operator does not know how to use the tool, then I would most definatly agree with woodchirp. I have been woodworking for a short 16 years and have not been injured in my shop, yes simple cuts and scrapes and all of them were because I was not paying attention, my fault not the tools.
I have a different proposal
Mandatory stupidity-sensing technology for Congress and all federal agencies.
I'm also planning the production of a new horror movie - "Attack of the Killer Tablesaws". Think of it - packs of vicious table saws roaming the streets like mobs of the undead, attacking (apparently) innocent bystanders.
Table saws don't cause accidents, inattentive people do, some of whom are also ill-trained, and/or stupid.
Extorting Legal System
That's what we really have. It serves as a means to leech the wealth from those that produce it to those that just want it.
Oh well, as long as it is legal...
Mr. Gass would have gotten nowhere with his demands, were not for the governmental collaborators.
At least we get to 'vote' for those who will screw us later.
Best wishes,
Metod
From what I've read, it seems apparent Mr. Gass has been lobbying to make his technology mandatory on all tablesaws.
From what I have read, his patents are written so any chance of competition has been effectively eliminated. That means he has a monopoly on this technology.
If the element of free market is removed by government regulations, we will be forced to buy from a monopoly. And the government typically regulates monopolies. Therefore, should the Consumer Product Safety Commission mandate the inclusion of flesh sensing technology on all tablesaws, the monopoly Mr. Gass holds over the industry also needs to be regulated.
Regulations should include, but not be limited to:
1) Controls over profits.
2) Mandatory research and development to improve upon the technology making it safer, more reliable and cheaper.
3) Developing safe stop technology that does not destroy saw blades, has no sacrificial parts and requires nothing more than resetting an electrical disconnect, so users can continue their work without additional cost or delay.
I wonder how Mr. Gass would respond to this.
patents and regulation
I haven't read the SawStop patents, so I'm not sure how loosely written they are. I did, however, read of one alternative method being explored, which may, or may not infringe on Gass' patents.
The Patent Department has been over-worked and under-staffed for a decade or two. It appears that they no longer have the time to research existing practice before issuing patents. For example, photographers have been converting old Polaroid folding cameras for use with sheet film for ages. One person, however, slipped through a patent on the methods, so he's now threatening everyone who makes them with patent infringement law suits.
As to government regulation, I don't think we should expect too much. It hasn't worked too well with public utilities, and certainly didn't work well in the financial markets.
I would object a lot less if at the same time the device were made mandatory, existing patents were invalidated in the public interest. I think there are precedents for that in war time. If there were to become the plan, I'd bet lobbying would subside dramatically.
Deleted
"Tablesaws Under Siege."
I have been a woodworking instructor both on the community college and high school level for 34 years, and have operated a variety of tablesaws, even longer.
I am not in favor of mandating flesh sensors on table saws. The industry has put in place excellent safety rules that will, IF FOLLOWED, keep one safe. 1. Keep the blade just slightly above the material being cut, 2. Never cut free hand. 3. use a riving knive or slitter on the saw 4.Never use a bench model on the floor 5. always use a push stick or other devise when cutting close to the blade. 6. always crosscut with a miter gauge , to name a few.
Ryobi should never have been held liable for the young man cutting himself on the saw. While tragic, he, by his own testimony admitted improper usage of the machine. Perhaps the employer should have been more responsable for the inexperience of his employee.
Mr. Gass is clearly trying to work a deal for his own good. I have used his SawStop for several years in my school shop. It is a well built machine. But not without it's flaws. First the cartridge will fire on certain moisture content in the wood . Or will fire if it comes into contact with metalic material. (nail) These are expensive. 70.00 for a new cartridge and the cost of a blade or repairs to the teeth. This is besides the added cost of the technology upon purchasing a saw.
It is the responsibility of the user of the machine to use common sense and following the safety rules and use safety devises all ready in place . I would far more be in favor of perhaps, public education classes when purchasing a table saw, over adding expensive electronic devises that takes away the affordability of owning a tablesaw.
We the consumer should have the option of flesh sensoring technology. If the consumer wants it, the industry will provide.
great response
I find it amazing they are actually still teaching it in hs let alone college congrats to you! I first learned the love of wood in hs shop and a teacher who beat safety. We did not even get in the shop for the first quarter. I remember getting a paddle and three licks for calling red (danger painted on the floor around every tool) maroon and arguing about it. Sheez it was embarrasing grabbing the ts rail and getting your bottom smacked with the class standing behind you watching. Anyway, I think while its a great invention it should be to the consumer to decide if they want. Let the market place decide. However I think the tool in your type setting or a business, is the very place it should be and I'm glad you have it. Lack of experience and knowledge could be a dangerous thing as well as someone who's done it forever and get's complacent. I still have a very healthy respect every time I step up to the TS. As you suggest push sticks, splitters, and proper body placement, all are key and most of all knowing when to not be at a TS i.e. tired or distracted! Some could make the argument it's like the seatbelt argument from old but I just don't know. From the interviews and print I've read and listened too I beleive that the guy that invented it wants to see no injuries from a TS. He did not even want to build a TS but just license it. Not one company wanted it so he did what he had to and built a company, pretty dang nice saw too. I don't like the mandatory part at all but I don't think his motives are evil. I would gladly trade a few mis fires for a finger or worse. Unfortunately as long as the legal eagles can sue and win may not have much of a choice. I still remember studying in business shool why the lable don't place fingers here got on lawn mowers. It was because a mfg got sued and the argument was they did not say you could not and they won. Have a good one.
"evil" vs. "greed" vs. "on a mission"
I don't think Mr. Gass is being evil, either. But, his efforts to make his (or other non-patent-infringing technology) mandatory on all table saws sold in the United States is, I feel, going overboard. We haven't heard from any of the manufacturers as to what sort of licensing fees he wanted for the SawStop brake, since those negotiations were likely held under some sort of confidentiality agreement. I suspect he was asking too much, otherwise at least one manufacturer would have likely offered the technology as an added-expense option.
A Sad State of Affairs
The bottom line for me is that we've got to get the politicians out of our lives.
"...Ryobi should never have
"...Ryobi should never have been held liable for the young man cutting himself on the saw. While tragic, he, by his own testimony admitted improper usage of the machine. Perhaps the employer should have been more responsable for the inexperience of his employee..."
It's too bad people don't understand what has happened. All this complaining about the Government but the reality is that most of these "frivilous" lawsuits have one basic cause. It used to be that an employer had some liability for injuries on the job. That all stopped when Workmen's Compensation Insurance was privitized. This was the first of the Governmenrt programs privitized and is a good example of what happens with privitization. Employees now actually have little if any protection and privitized Workmen's Compensation mostly depends on Social Security disability. Most business don't much care because the one thing they get from Workmen's Compensation is immunity from liability for accidents. An employee can't sue an employer over an accident if the employer carries Workmen's Comp. The only recourse an injured employee's lawyer has is to go after the manufacturer of what ever implement the employee was using when injured. Parade a suddenly impoverished wife and hungry kids with no possible escape from their crisis before a jury while some big corporation sits in defense and see what usually happens. If we went back to a real workmens' comp system things would change quickly.
Flesh sensing tech.
In comercial shops and schools this should be required. Any employee or student should be protected.
I would tend to agree. I taught shop for 32 years, would have felt better with this technology. I wouldn't want it for my home shop however.
Also can't fault the man for tying things up tight with patents, isn't that what they're for ?
Saw-Stop case Example of Government Intrusion
This Saw-Stop thing is but one more example of our government imposing ever more control over the life of its citizens. Government now tells us how much water we can use to flush our toilets, (another government failure because many cities, including Los Angeles are now having to spending millions of dollars on clogged and malodorous sewer lines), how many gallons per minute in our shower, what kind of toilet paper is allowed, complete control over our health care and what doctors we can and cannot see, death panels to determine whose life is worth saving (these are not the figment of some right-wing imagination but are real and verifiable if one cares to do a few minutes of research), the sort of cars we can drive (which has ended up in the total failure of the flaming Chevy Volt--subsidized by your tax dollars) and tax-funded subsidies to so-called "green" energy projects costing the taxpayers milllions, nay billions, of dollars, i.e., Solyndra, more millions in U.S. tax dollars to build “green” cars in Finland.
One could go on for pages about the unintended consequences and failures of government programs. The politicians use these programs to buy votes or to support their friends in a form of crony capitalism. If you do not recognize this, as well as the hoax of "climate change" (formerly known as “global warming”), as nothing but a not-too-subtle power grab by government then you have to be either pretty dumb or a blind ideologue. It all about putting more and more power into the hands of politicians whose real and primary concern is perpetuating their own power and control over the rest of us.
Gass, who invited the device, deserves a just reward for his efforts and his contribution to the safety of us all. Apparently he made a good faith effort to license it to the saw manufacturers and they only saw it adding to their cost of production, as businesses rightfully do. With a nation of overpaid CEOs raping their companies and getting indecent bonuses for driving them into the ground I am not surprised that not one of the CEO's decided that Gass's idea would might just give his company a distinct advantage in sales and thus turn a good invention into increased profits. Let's just say they were stupid, shortsighted, and in a truly just world would deserve to be canned.
That's not going to happen any more than are the American people going to throw out of office ALL of the politicians who are ruining the country by being too stupid to see the unintended consequences of some of their legislation or by their quest for power and control by imposing regulation and after regulation upon us. One day China will realize that they have little chance of ever getting their money back and will stop lending us money to continue down this insane path of national suicide. When that happens the U.S. of A. will be just more banana republic.
Patents have been given by every government in the world to spur invention and innovation since even before the industrial revolution. For the most part the system has worked very well. The inventor is rewarded by being able to market his invention for a limited amount of time to, hopefully, recover the cost of his investment and creativity. I think a patent validity is about 17 years but I could be wrong-- but not by much. The answer is not for the government to do even more to stifle invention and innovation by interfering with patent law, nor is it for the government to take money from tax payers to subsidize private companies building these “instant-stop” saws nor to individuals who elect to own one.
Most of us who have been woodworkers for a few years will recall the great success of Fein’s Multimaster. It was a wonderful invention and one of the most useful tools I’ve ever owned. The price, however, was outrageous, not only in initial outlay but in the cost of blades and attachments. Fein’s patent ran out a couple of years ago and now almost every tool producer in the world is producing them. I’ve even seem them as low as $19.00 and the price of blades and accessories has correspondingly dropped. None of these companies that are now producing Fein copies elected to put the money into research and production to produce such a tool. Had it not been for patent laws Fein would never have done it either and today we would not have such a useful tool at such a reasonable price.
So, let’s not ignore the benefits to society that patents produce. More importantly, let’s not give the government any more power to control our lives by allowing it to become more involved than it already is.
Well said joeBleau
You forgot to mention these damned light bulbs we are now forced to use.
Money
I don't have the macro view or data to support my viewpoint, but seems to me its going to be very expensive for woodworkers if this goes through, both initial cost and ongoing parts replacements. Lots of downtime, given the false firings I've been reading about on forums. I've seen some nasty tablesaw finger injuries, but almost always operator fault. Spend the money on education and leave us money to spend on overhead gaurds and dust collection addons that work well.
Deleted
Seems to me that the major objections to a government mandate are 1) that gov't shouldn't intrude on personal freedoms and 2) that the cost of implementing a sawstop technology in all saws would be too much. I have a couple of thoughts on the second argument. I believe that we're all already paying more than the cost of the new technology, but in ways that are not directly tied to the price of a saw.
According to the CPSC study, 1/3 of the 34,000+ who are injured each year (amputations and avulsions - tearing away of body parts) are over the age of 65. Means they're almost certainly Medicare beneficiaries. Taxes pay for the bulk of Medicare costs, so we're paying for these injuries, indirectly, for that population.
If your employer is a woodworking establishment, and that employer offers insurance, your health insurer takes into account the injuries received by that pool of insureds. They'll also take into account the risk of the particular business. So your premiums, if you're in that situation, are higher because the insurer knows it runs a risk there.
If your school district or any public employees in your local or state area use saws, their insurance also must cover those injuries. So your taxes pay for that.
If you have insurance through an employer and that same insurer covers woodworkers, they have to build the cost of injuries into their actuarial calculations. So even if you're not working for a woodworking type business, your insurance rates are going to be impacted by these injuries.
Same logic holds for worker's comp costs. You pay for them either through premiums or taxes.
If you look at the CPSC's study, you'll see that the societal costs of the saws (medical, lost wages, liability, etc.) are about SEVEN times the cost of the saws themselves. The total is $2,36 billion (yes, that's with a "B") per year. Think about that. $2.36 billion per year for the cost of table saw injuries. We're all paying for that, even if we don't see it clearly.
I for one, would rather stop paying all of the indirect costs and I would be glad to swap a $150/saw price increase for reducing the indirect costs so dramatically. In the end, it will be a whole lot cheaper for all of us.
Which gets me to the first objection. The government should stay out of my life so that my freedom is maximized. If my time is my money, then the government should act to allow me to keep more of my own money. The government should, therefore, do everything it can to stop us all from having to pour our money (which is our time, our lives, our freedom) down the rat hole of table saw injuries that costs us all $2.36 billion per year.
missed point
Ah, but you're missing a point in the current argument, namely that SawStop is the only current commercially-available solution. So, the CPSC ruling would essentially mandate a monopoly solution.
That bit about the government creating a situation that favors sawstop is certainly worth thinking about.
I guess the question is, where does the societal good of requiring a safety standard outweigh the concern over the government creating a situation that favors a single organization or a select group of entities. If the societal costs of table saw injuries are $2.36 billion (as calculated by the CPSC) and the Commission does nothing to increase the safety of these machines, then you'd have to multiply that figure by the number of years left on the patents held by SawStop to think about what is the potential loss associated with a refusal to put that standard in place. Assuming SawStop has 10 years left (and I really don't know how much it has on its patent life) that figure would be $23.6 BILLION! That's a big number. And, as I've noted above, we are already paying for that indirectly, even though we may not see it in the price of a saw. The saw manufacturers are just getting a free ride on this one because they don't have to build the cost of those injuries into their price. We pay for it in our premiums. Incidentally, we also pay for it in inflated emergency room costs. There's a federal law that requires that hospitals stabilize people who show up at an ER, regardless of ability to pay. So if someone is uninsured and they chop off a finger and go to the ER, they have to be treated. The hospitals make up the difference by charging those of us who are insured higher rates. So there's another indirect cost (there are some 49 million uninsured in the country, so at least some of them will fall into the pool of those injured by table saws).
My belief is that the lawsuits that are underway are going to force the issue faster than the CPSC's safety standard. I've been a participant in the regulatory process (both inside and outside of the government) long enough to know that it can take a VERY long time to run its course. Means by the time any such standard came out, the patent life for SawStop would be shorter and there would likely be some sort of transition period to allow manufacturers to redesign and get ready to comply. I'd bet that if CPSC puts out a standard, it would be several years before we'd actually see other saws with the technology. BUT, the prospect of being sued on behalf of 34,000 people per year will likely put a fire under the other manufacturers and get them moving faster than the CPSC will.
Frankly, I think the other saw manufacturers were foolish for not licensing the technology when it was first offered to them. Some years ago, I was really attracted to the Laguna saw with the sliding table and scoring blade, but then saw a SawStop. I'd love to buy a saw with the Laguna capabilities, but I am, as it were, attached to my fingers. I want to remain that way. It's frustrating because I would like to have the option of shopping for a saw without having to have a single option that will reasonably protect my fingers and those of anyone else who will use my saw, especially when that single option does not have all of the functionality that I would like (e.g., sliding table and scoring blade).
While the other manufacturers have been fighting this new technology, SawStop has set about eating their lunch. If they had licensed the technology from the get go, they wouldn't be seeing a drop in their market share due to the availability of the sawstop saw. Instead, those who licensed the technology would be increasing their own market share. Was a poor business decision not to license it.
technology, training and statistics
"Was a poor business decision not to license it."
Perhaps, or perhaps not. Part of that decision, I'm sure, was based on how much the inventor wanted for the license, along with an estimate of how many customers would want to pay extra for it. The jury still appears to be "out" on that one, since other manufacturers and distributors still appear to be doing reasonably well.
As I understand, the CPSC effort was started in response to a concerted campaign by the owner of SawStop, NOT as a result of consumer demand. Thus, the motivation may be questionable, and there may have been some "spinning" of the statistics. Data collection on injury stats actually appears to be somewhere between poor and haphazard. But, I read some time back that the most common cause of emergency-room visits was close encounters with bagel slicers, with chainsaw accidents following close behind. If so, wouldn't those devices have a higher priority for flesh-sensing technology?
Then, there's the question of the so-called "Law of Unintended Consequences" with respect to regulatory actions. If table saws are regulated in this manner, what follows based on the same logic? The $15 bagel knife might need to be replaced with the $500 bagel knife (SliceStop?).
Ultimately, it may be a question of whether we expect the government to "protect" everyone from their lack of training and lack of attention.
Good point
"As I understand, the CPSC effort was started in response to a concerted campaign by the owner of SawStop, NOT as a result of consumer demand."
Consumer demand, if it was there, would have resulted in woodworkers and business owners flocking to the stores and buying this product and Gass & company probably wouldn't have even felt the need to lobby for their technology to be made mandatory. The reason the product isn't flying off the shelves is cost. Most woodworkers can't afford to buy a new saw, can't afford the additional costs of SawStop and can't afford the cost of a new blade and replacement parts every time the safety device kicks in. They instead CHOOSE to rely on their own knowledge of safety measures to provide them protection from being hurt. And who is any of us to force them to do otherwise? Businesses? That's a different animal. And not what I'm talking about here.
When I'm using my tablesaw I make sure I know where the blade is and where my hand is at all times. When I was taught how to drive a car, my parents told me to constantly be switching my focus from what's ahead, to the instrumentation and to what's behind. Sort of like a triangle of visual awareness. When I'm operating the tablesaw, I do the same kind of thing, I look at the blade, I look at my hand and I look at the fence. I also have two switches on the saw, both of which are turned off when I'm not using it. I don't want to see my blood, or any other part of my body, splattered all over my workshop. That's MY motivation for being safe. If that's not motivation enough, then no technology in the world can save you from yourself.
Yep
That's my motivation, as well.
I'm waiting for the headline, "Man loses finger in SawStop Brake Mechanism" when someone tries to adjust it with the saw turned on.
On a similar note, a recent news article mentioned that a child's turkey sandwich was replaced by a chicken nuggets lunch when a state lunchbox inspector (state lunchbox inspector?!) decided that the turkey sandwich wasn't healthy enough.
On a similar note, a recent news article mentioned that a child's turkey sandwich was replaced by a chicken nuggets lunch when a state lunchbox inspector (state lunchbox inspector?!) decided that the turkey sandwich wasn't healthy enough.
Maybe the State Lunchbox Inspector (I just had to cap the title) had a vested interest in the chicken nuggets. Not sure how those nuggets are made but I did see how McNuggets are made and it made me gag! I hope Mr. Lunchbox wasn't talking about those being healthy.
The last I heard, the Saw Stop is the biggest selling full sized table saw. For schools and commercial users it may be virtually the only saw being sold.
The last I heard, the Saw Stop is the biggest selling full sized table saw.
Then there's no need for the company, or its owners. to be lobbying the CPSC to mandate their technology.
Deleted
I'm beating them to the punch and buying a new PM2000 cabinet saw this week.
I think the gubmint needs to spend more time on some of the rabid mad-dog contractor saw owners around here instead. They can be some real "suck-ups"!!!!
Deleted
This forum post is now archived. Commenting has been disabled