A friend tipped me off about a news article talking about renewed table saw regulations. With just a little digging, I learned more about a notice of proposed rulemaking issued by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) just last week.
I’m not going to lie, there’s a lot to digest in the new publication. There’s a lot of very different information, and it’s going to take me some time to read through and analyze all of it.
Advertisement
What is clear to me is that this isn’t something that’s just going to go away. It is very real that table saw regulations could happen.
Here is the full document. Here is the PDF.
Here is the summary, which I have broken up for greater readability:
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission has determined preliminarily that there may be an unreasonable risk of blade-contact injuries associated with table saws.
In 2015, there were an estimated 33,400 table saw, emergency department-treated injuries. Of these, CPSC staff estimates that 30,800 (92 percent) are likely related to the victim making contact with the saw blade.
CPSC staff’s review of the existing data indicates that currently available safety devices, such as the modular blade guard and riving knife, do not adequately address the unreasonable risk of blade-contact injuries on table saws.
Advertisement
To address this risk, the Commission proposes a rule that is based, in part, on work conducted by Underwriters Laboratories Inc. The proposed rule would establish a performance standard that requires table saws, when powered on, to limit the depth of cut to 3.5 millimeters when a test probe, acting as surrogate for a human body/finger, contacts the spinning blade at a radial approach rate of 1 meter per second (m/s).
The proposed rule would address an estimated 54,800 medically treated blade-contact injuries annually. The Commission estimates that the proposed rule’s aggregate net benefits on an annual basis could range from about $625 million to about $2,300 million.
A few years ago, there was an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, to which there was a lot of outcry from the PTI and users. At the time it looked like Stephen Gass and SawStop was in part responsible for the CPSC’s reasoning about the need for table saw injury mitigation technology.
Now, I don’t think that’s the case. I believe that the CPSC is only leaning on things Gass has said, and SawStop has done. In the current document, there is much discussion about the Bosch Reaxx table saw as well, and discussions about what other manufacturers have said about bringing injury mitigation tech to market.
This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking appears to be the next step of the process towards regulations that require active injury mitigation technology be implemented into new table saws.
When I say that it is very real that table saw regulations could happen, we’re probably talking about a few years. A lot of information has been gathered, analyzed, and assembled into what looks to be a very strong case for table saw regulations.
The CPSC considers AIM systems – Active Injury Mitigation technology – to be a viable approach to address blade-contact injury in conjunction with existing passive safety strategies (blade guard and riving knife) to prevent blade contact on table saws.
This would involve a sensor that detects contact with human flesh, and a device by which to react and mitigate injury.
Seemingly based on UL (Underwriters Laboratory) work to develop a surrogate human finger for testing, and an earlier UL report from 2014, Table Saw Hazard Study on Finger Injuries Due to Blade Contact, the goal would be to limit the depth of cut to 3.5 mm when a test probe simulating a human finger contacts the spinning blade at a radial approach rate of 1 m/s.
Why 3.5 mm? It is considered that this maximum-allowable depth of cut would significantly reduce the severity of blade-contact injuries. As an aside, I learned a new word thanks to the document – avulsion. I don’t even want to know what a blade-contact avulsion injury entails.
Also,
Most microsurgery will be avoided because the neurovascular bundle in a human little finger, which contains nerves and arteries, is at a depth of approximately 3.5 mm below the 0.5 mm thick epidermal layer of the skin. CPSC staff has determined that a 3.5 mm depth of cut into a conductive test probe is an appropriate surrogate for a 4mm depth of cut into a finger with insulating epidermis over conductive tissue.
CPSC’s AIM safety standard is achievable. Here is what they found about SawStop saws and the Bosch Reaxx saw:
The depth of cut for the SawStop table saw tests ranged from 1.5 mm to 2.8 mm and the depth of cut for the Bosch table saw tests ranged from 1.9 mm to 2.5 mm.
Here’s what it comes down to: SawStop has done it, Bosch has done it, ignoring their legal fight with SawStop at the moment, and both Stephen Gass (from SawStop) and at least one other manufacturer – maybe more – has commented on what it would cost to develop and implement AIM technologies for their table saws.
Their are costs involved, but also gains. There is an extensive breakeven analysis. I need more time and thought to go through it comprehensively, but it’s clear that there is a lot of good arguments backing the proposed rulemaking.
Not to mince words, it’s not going to be easy to form a counter-argument against the case they’re presenting. They have a lot of facts, and a lot of sound arguments.
It’s not enough to say “I don’t want to potentially have to pay more for a table saw.” Quite frankly, I’m having trouble thinking of a good angle by which to oppose this.
Luckily, part of the rulemaking process is that the public can comment about the matter. The open comment period ends July 26th, 2017 at 11:59pm ET.
According to Wikipedia, part of the process involves:
The public can comment on the proposed rules and provide additional data to the agency;
The public can access the rulemaking record and analyze the data and analysis behind a proposed rule;
The agency analyzes and responds to the public’s comments;
You can visit this page to comment about the matter. HOWEVER, I would encourage you to think carefully about what you say, and how you say it. In order to be taken seriously, follow their guidelines for effective comments (PDF). Here is some of that advice:
Read and understand the regulatory document you are commenting on
Feel free to reach out to the agency with questions
Be concise but support your claims
Base your justification on sound reasoning, scientific evidence, and/or how you will be impacted
Address trade-offs and opposing views in your comment
There is no minimum or maximum length for an effective comment
The comment process is not a vote – one well supported comment is often more influential than a thousand form letters
The CPSC is aware of several opposition arguments. If I comment on the matter, I might be wise to focus on my take on these arguments. Here are some, from the same document:
Notwithstanding the high level of expected net benefits, the proposed rule also would be costly and would result in disruption of the table saw market. Under the rule, table saw manufacturers would need to develop their own AIM technology, without impinging on existing patents or license the patented AIM technology that already exists. Most, if not all, table saw models not already incorporating the AIM technology would require major design changes and the retooling of production facilities, a process that likely would take two or more years to accomplish.
Although the proposed rule would substantially reduce blade-contact injuries and the societal costs associated with those injuries, the impact of increasing table saw production costs on consumers also would be considerable. Staff expects that the prices for the least expensive bench saws now available could more than double, to $300 or more.
In general, the retail prices of bench saws could increase by as much as $200 to $500 per unit, and the retail prices of contractor and cabinet saws could rise by as much as $350 to $1,000 per unit.[99] These higher prices may be mitigated in the longer run, but the extent of any future price reductions is unknown.
Additionally, because of the likely decline in sales following the promulgation of a rule, consumers who choose not to purchase a new saw due to the higher price will experience a loss in utility by forgoing the use of table saws, or because they continue to use older saws which they would have preferred to replace.
There may also be some other utility impacts. The inclusion of the AIM technology will, for example, increase the weight and (potentially) the size of table saws to accommodate the new technology, to allow access to change the brake cartridge, and to mitigate the effects of the force associated with the activation of the brake cartridge. While this factor may have a relatively small impact on the heavier and larger contractor and cabinet saws, the impact on some of the smaller and lighter bench saws could markedly reduce their portability.
They are considering several alternatives to the proposed regulations, such as exempting contractor and cabinet saws from a product safety rule, as their analysis shows this could potentially reduce the impact on smaller saw makers.
The CPSC makes a very cogent argument for pushing forward regulations that impose table saw AIM implementation. Now is our chance to provide more information to help steer them in a different direction.
Personally, I think that the cost implications will be too high for a lot of portable table saw users to justify. I believe the ramifications on sub-$400 saws, and especially sub-$250 saws will be difficult for consumers to bear. I think that some users would seek out other ways of straight-cutting in wood, perhaps more dangerous ways, such as mounting a circular saw upside down to a makeshift base.
I want to see more table saws with active injury mitigation, and I want to see them at lower retail prices. More competition will help bring this, but do we really want it to be involuntarily?
I have much more reading to do, but from what I can tell so far, the CPSC has done their homework, and lots of it. There’s a 2+ window during which they’re open to public comments.
After that, if they’re not convinced away from the current path, we might very well be looking at an inevitable safety standard that requires all table saws, at least portable table saws, to feature active injury mitigation technology.
If it wasn’t for the costs that would make smaller table saws even more expensive for consumers, DIYers, and professionals, I would ask this – would a safety standard that required table saws to have active injury mitigation technology be a bad thing? And to that I would probably say no.
It takes one slip-up, one moment of over-confidence, one distraction, one accident, just one time, to suffer a life-altering blade-contact injury. If the technology exists, does that mean these injuries are avoidable?
Would anyone who has suffered from a severe blade-contact injury not say that they wish they had been using a table saw with AIM tech at the time?
That’s what makes this proposed safety standard particularly hard to comment against. So let’s get to work.
BonPacific
Sounds like a perfectly reasonable rule to add. I am not a patent attorney, but the only issue I can think of is that SawStop’s patent is too wide-reaching at this point. It covers not just their specific method of detection, but (seemingly) the very idea of detecting a dangerous circumstance. I don’t know if the CPSC has any ability to alter the patent, but they may well have to delay this ruling until one or more of the patents expire.
If/when this rule comes into affect, I foresee tracksaws taking over a good chunk of the cheap tablesaw market. Between a miter and track-saw, you can do most DIY or jobsite tasks. Add a cheap router for dado’s and the like. Of course, at that point you could just buy a safer Tablesaw.
Drew M
Glad I got my 1972 Powermatic 66. CPSC needs to stay out of my workshop.
pencil neck
How much injury is due to design flaw VS user error?
Stuart
Doesn’t matter. How many injuries could be prevented with AIM tech in place?
It won’t help against kickback-related injuries, or certain other injuries, but there are a lot of blade-contact injuries each year that AIM tech could prevent.
John
I had read alot of the data available the first time around, and at that time I seem to remember kickback accidents far outnumbering blade contact accidents. So, now I have to question of the 30k+ blade contact injuries, where are direct result of a kickback incident? Or, what has changed to cause such a dramatic shift in the statistics?
I understand the benefits of this technology, however, it is time people started taking responsibility for their own actions and being trusted to make their own decisions. Unfortunately, a novice saw user who believes the “safe” saw will save him/her will make the misguided/uneducated decision to not use any guards at all, and the occurrence of kickback injuries will skyrocket. You cannot make the world “fool proof”, they will just build better fools.
If you want to buy a SawStop or Reaxx saw, I have no problem with it. I understand the SawStop is an excellent cabinet saw, safety features not withstanding. And, when my PM2000 gives up the ghost, I might even consider a SawStop in my replacement search.
What I don’t want or need someone (this means you Mr. Gass) telling me, or having Big Brother tell me, that I have no choice but to buy his saw. And if Mr. Gass, wants us to believe that he is only petitioning the CPSC to enact these regulations because he being a Good Samaritan, then he should put a few of those patents in the public domain (I don’t think we will see that happen). If the price comes down, and these saws can compete in the open market, then people can make informed decisions on what is best for each of them and their specific circumstances. And who knows, in a few years this technology may become ubiquitous in the market, and no one will even want to buy a saw without it.
What I do see happening, regardless of the CPSC decision, is that insurance companies will start pressuring contractors, schools, and other employers/educational institutions to purchase saws with this technology. And, I support their right to do so…in the free market.
BTW – I think I will start working on a black box that you feed rough lumber into one end and finished product comes out the other end. That way no one will have to ever touch a sharp tool and deal with toxic finishes again, it will revolutionize woodworking. It be such an enjoyable hobby then, you just wait and see! Then we will just have to figure out how to prevent someone from getting splinters when they feed the wood into the box.
fred
The splinter thing has been solved – with the new invention called gloves. Good thing that nobody still holds a patent on them.
On that issue (patents) I’m guessing that Gass will work to enhance and extend the running time of his patents to the extent that he can. But once the technology goes off-patent you (I’m probably too old) will see a flood of alternative options (probably fixing some of the issues like the wet wood thing) – much like how OMT’s proliferated once the Fein patents expired.
Raoul
The price needs to come down a lot. Like you mentioned, people will make more dangerous versions by mounting their circular saw upside down and making a makeshift table saw before they spend that kind of money on a saw they use once in a while. Probably have to wait for some patents to expire. Talk about a monopoly at this point. Didn’t they just stop Bosch from importing any more Reaxx?
BikerDad
I see four problems with this proposal:
1) Cost.
2) Liability. Unless they come up with some liability shield for all the “unsafe” tablesaws out there now, this rule will simply turn the existing table saw manufacturers into dead companies walking.
3) Engineering. Consider how hard a tablesaw will throw a hunka wood during a kickback. Now, how are you going to manage arresting all of that force in an easily portable benchtop saw? A different challenge faces the sliding table saw. Gotta find space for the braking mech.
4) Liberty. I’ll forgo expounding on this topic, ’tis well trod ground already.
fred
I think we may be on the cusp of a paradigm shift. The age of the cheap table is probably coming to an end.
Going forward, It seems hard to argue against the rulemaking in the US. The evidence seems to be present to say that there is a big societal cost associated with continuing the status quo. How this will impact the global market will be something to be seen. The EU seems to be progressive when it comes to safety. They might adopt the Bosch technology – putting aside Sawstop’s claims – or do something entirely different.
What this means for the fleet of older saws that are in commercial use – is going to be a big issue. How insurance underwriters will react may have a play here. Will old saws be grandfathered – and what good arguments can there be for doing so indefinitely? Will some classes of saws be exempted? We had a big sliding table saw and a dedicated rip saw with a feeder in our shop. Should such machines that lessen the potential for blade contact have an exemption? What will your insurance premium look like (if yiou can get insurance at all) if you don’t comply – by a certain date? How will worker’s compensation board rule on accidents? Will (or can) manufacturers come up with add-on fixes for the most popular saws in current use?
It is possible that this will actually be a boon for the table saw industry – if there becomes a need to immediately change out the existing fleet of table saws – even if that change out can be phased in. As BonPacific hints – it probably will sell a lot of track saws – although a tracksaw is not a table saw total replacement.
Raoul’s point about how folks may cobble together even more dangerous tools to replace cheap table saws – he’s p[probably right – and a grey market may come into existence for old machines or surreptitiously imported ones. Not having cheap table saws on the market – may however be a good thing – making a table saw purchase a more considered thing. I’m convinced that a portion of the blade contact accidents happen to folks who do not understand and never took the time to learn how to use a table saw properly. Right now you can buy a table saw at Harbor Freight for $104 (after a 20% off coupon), or a Rockwell one for $132 on Amazon and start it up with no training at all – not knowing what dangers lurk in its use. Maybe the low price makes it too easy for some to think they can enter the “table saw users club” without considering their own or other worker’s safety. I’m all for personal freedom – but I think that the CSPC is arguing that saw related injuries and their resultant major medical bills – even if covered by insurance – are things that society as a whole cost-shares.
BonPacific
We have a decent idea already what insurance companies will do. Many already provide a discount if you use saws with AIM. One of the reasons you’ll almost exclusively see SawStop in (surviving) school woodshops. So having less-safe saws is probably already costing you more money on your liability insurance, you may just not have noticed or compared what you would pay if you owned a safer saw.
I don’t see any circumstance in which old saws will be banned, at least not for homeowners. You can still buy and drive a 1950’s car without a seatbelt, although there are restrictions that young children are not allowed in such a vehicle. So if the tablesaw safety regulations end up following vehicle regulations, those should be fine. Tablesaws are damn durable tools as it is, so you should still be able to find a fix up a Unisaw or PM66 if that’s what you want.
fred
I agree that I don’t see them coming into my basement and taking my 70’s vintage Unisaw and sliding table – or into my garage to grab up my Bosch 4100. But if I were to come out of retirement and wanted to again start a new business using these saws – that might be a liability.
BTW – when I worked and ran a business – we never had a blade/flesh contact injury on my watch. We did have a number of kickback incidents that did not rise to trips to the ER – and we’d use such events as re-training opportunities – rather than a source of recriminations. Over the years I did find it necessary to discipline folks up to and including letting people go for repeatedly ignoring safety protocols and warnings. We tried to instill a thought in workers that they were all their brother’s keepers and could always call a timeout if something was unsafe.
My thinking always was that no one came to work in the morning with the thought that “today is the day I want to have a serious injury.” But to avoid ones, training and vigilance was important. In my own shop – my close calls all seemed to come in the afternoon. Maybe after a heavy lunch – but just as likely because of the circadian rhythms that our bodies go through – making us (me anyway) less attentive in at about 2 to 3PM. I learned to avoid doing potentially dangerous things at that time of day.
BonPacific
I don’t know the statistics, but the general feeling I get is that the Riving knife has reduced kickbacks a lot. There’s still plenty of danger, but shy of an auto-feeder, I’m not sure if there’s a technical solution.
firefly
Perhaps I miss it but I didn’t see the categorization of blade contact accident where existing safety implementation (such as push stick) was used or not. That’s a major omission in supporting AIM.
In short, if the use of a reliable push stick such as the micro jig that cost $60 along with other existing safety device such as a riving knife already greatly reduce the chance of a blade contact accident. Then perhaps the bigger problem is the lack of education. fred bring up a great point is that the low entry point of almost anyone can get a table saw could have greatly attribute to the number of possible accidents.
Another great supporting evident that come fred is that no blade contact injury happen under his watch. I don’t think it’s pure luck that it happen. I am certain that he isn’t alone in this. Rather, it is education, training, common sense and a general respect for the operating tool is what greatly reduce the chance for an accident.
Perhaps a mandate for AIM isn’t so bad as long as there are reasonable exception for a shop or individual to get certification for exclusion. But then the typical individuals that get in the accident in the first place are the one that will continue to buy existing saw after market. Perhaps even more dangerous as people cobble together device to replace table saw to Raoul’s point.
Perhaps before making a mandate for AIM. I think a mandate for a $60 market price push stick make a lot more sense. Moreover, if regular safety training or class will greatly reduce the liability insurance premium then perhaps that’s another incentive for shop to take advantage of those.
Stuart
Most if not all portable table saws come with plastic push sticks, and manuals often have instructions on how to cut one out of wood.
Voluntary standards aren’t effective, because a lot of consumers and pros choose not to use them.
How many YouTube videos are there where the operator uses a table saw with the guard removed?
Some injuries happen to novices, a lot happened to seasoned workers who are very comfortable with their saws.
Most if not all blade-contact injuries are avoidable. That’s the problem here.
I always use the guard on a table saw when making a through-cut, and when not I still at least use a riving knife. I always use push blocks or sticks of some kind.
One of Dewalt’s saws detects when a guard is attach or taken off, but I don’t think it’s been very popular with individual users.
KL
If we’re gonna use arguments about “cost to society ” let’s first tackle American obesity, smoking and generally poor health. How many people do you see daily who are missing fingers due to a table saw? How many do you see daily who are overweight, obese, or even morbidly obese?
fred
Amen.
I think we have personal responsibility issues with both table saw injuries and the much more common and serious life-shortening issues that you cite. We could go on and on along this same vein citing texting while driving, driving while distracted or impaired, alcoholism etc. Some seem to want to assign sole or major blame on fast food chains as a cause of obesity, on tobacco companies for smoking and now on tool companies for saw injuries. Maybe the next step is having motion sensors to shut down cell phone hand-held use while you walk or drive. We tried alcohol prohibition via constitutional amendment and know how that worked out – but we seem to continue to want for find ways to protect us from our own failings. I’m not sure e statistics tell us – but we’ve been seemingly at a “war” on smoking and “drugs” for decades – and yet people (both new and long-term users) still choose to do both. If the answer to the problems that things like these cause our society were simple – I suppose we would have fixed the problems after all these years. Inherently I’m a bit conflicted – because I think folks should have a right to smoke, drink or become obese. But if they blow smoke in others faces, drive while drunk and injure others, or ask that we take extraordinary measures for their healthcare consequent to their bad lifestyles – then I have a problem.
On the table saw question, I also believe that the CSPC may be thinking that there is a “simple” (albeit somewhat costly) technological fix to prevent table saw injuries – akin to the introduction of automobile seatbelts – and that they are being compelled to act to force the market.
Marvin McConoughey
Cigarettes can also be made much safer, where is the aggressive CPSC action on that? Lung cancer, one of many cigarette linked diseases, is an unpleasant way to die.
If a new table saw safety rule is enacted, a five year implementation period, and complete freedom of the technology to be used, should help manufacturers to develop less clunky safety measures than are used in the Saw Stop effort.
Josh
I’m worried about the impact if, say, SawStop decides to play hardball with licensing rates. “You’re only allowed to sell a table saw if SawStop says you can, and they don’t think you should be able to do woodworking for less than $1000” is kind of dumb.
And they already successfully shut out the only competitor to bring blade safety tech to the table.
BonPacific
Agreed, either the manufacturers are going to have to get really creative, or the CPSC may have to delay implementation of the rule until SS’s patents expire. The relevant patents in the Bosch case will probably (I am not a lawyer) expire in 2021.
Alternatively, the CPSC might be able to request SS to commit to some kind of agreement like FRAND, if they make the tech required. This would mean SS still makes money off licensing, but would restrict how much they could charge for it. They probably can’t force this on SS, but given Gass’ history, he seems open to the idea. Even during his initial push for licensing, the fee’s weren’t exorbitant. His proposal with Ryobi was set at 3% of wholesale price, moving up to 8% of wholesale in certain circumstances. During the 2008 legal fight, PTI argued licensing and implementing the tech would cost $100 (“or more”) per saw, which isn’t a deal-breaker for most saws, just the already dangerous low-end models.
JC
Well apparently any technology similar to sawstop is out of the question so manufacturers are going to need to be really creative with how they implement these safety mechanisms.
Some things are just done at your own risk like using a table saw. Follow good safety and chances are greatly reduced of an injury. Those kind of pricing increases are incredibly prohibitive.
Steve
With how cheaply pushsticks/ pushpads can be made and utilized, there is rarely an excuse for your fingers to come near the blade. Pushsticks are easy to make out of a piece of scrap.
BonPacific
Never underestimate human stupidity. Especially in situations like a construction site, where speed is of the essence. OSHA should probably be pushing from the other side, requiring push sticks, riving knives, and blade-guards be in use.
Homeowners would still be at risk in that circumstance. Sawmakers do not make it clear to consumers how dangerous their products actually are. Personal responsibility applies sure, but that also requires public education.
Hang Fire
“Sawmakers do not make it clear to consumers how dangerous their products actually are. ”
You clearly have not read the manual that comes with every modern table saw, nor removed all the stickers from a new one.
BonPacific
No, my tablesaw was bought used, but I have seen their advertising. They’re out to make a buck, just like everyone else.
Fran
One thing people always seem to forget is that there are a number of us woodworkers who use wood with a high moisture content and exotic, of woods. The sawstop mechanism can’t tell if it is a finger, a hot dog, or a fresh piece of pine on the table. It reacts the same way.
There is an override switch on the sawstop but it has to be engaged every time the saw is turned on. And it’s not as easy as just flipping a switch to disengage the “safety” feature. If I had to go through the shut down procedure required every time I cut fresh or oily exotic woods, it would triple my time and destroy my work flow.
For me, this is the issue. If the safety feature is removable, I wouldn’t care. But then what’s the point of having to pay for it to be on there, at all?
BonPacific
Wet wood is certainly an issue, but I’ve never heard of oily wood setting off a SawStop. I’ve seen Teak and Olivewood both cut without issue. Do you have a specific example of this happening?
Ultimately, if we can get the more manufacturers working on the problem, someone is likely to figure out a system which doesn’t trigger on green or PT lumber. SawStop is a very small company (comparatively at least), and they haven’t had any competitive pressure to refine their detection tech yet.
Personally, I wouldn’t cut wet wood on a TS anyways, the bandsaw is a much better tool for that, especially since dado’s and grooves won’t keep their shape as the wood dries anyways.
Fran
A sawstop rep told me that cocobolo and ipe have triggered sawstop mechanisms and it s not able to cope with PT lumber. I wasn’t there to see it, obviously, but I took his word for it. Another complaint is cutting lumber that has been stored outside for any time at all. Any residual moisture in/on the wood from the atmosphere (i.e. dew) triggers the cartridge.
If all you deal with is kiln dried, indoor stored material, sawstop will be just fine.
I didn’t ask the rep at the time, but how does sawstop work with plexiglas and other acrylics? Do these materials trigger the safety mechanism?
Fran
BTW the rep also told me about making sure any glue ups were 100% dry before running them through the saw…. wet/soft glue also triggers them…
Needless to say I got the powermatic….
BonPacific
Well, in the case of a glue-up, running a soft panel through a saw is dangerous on its own. If the pieces shift, or your pressure isn’t constant, you are just asking for a kickback.
James C
Pity there’s no nexus (that I can think of anyway) between the estimated $625M, minimum, “aggregate annual benefits” and the added per-unit cost to saws if this took effect.
As a table saw user looking to upgrade, would I pay more for this feature? Personally I would, but I can appreciate the “personal responsibility” argument against it. That being said, if you asked anyone who has had a severe table saw injury, if they could magically trade that experience for a few-hundred dollar feature that would have prevented it, I bet they’d all take the trade.
Thin Man
It is truly a shame that so many injuries occur annually from table saws and, I suppose, that if I was injured with my table saw I would at that time be very sorry that I didn’t have the AIM technology. But regardless of how sorry I was, I would have no one to blame but myself for the decision I made in buying the cheaper “non-AIM” saw and I would have to accept that responsibility. As JC said so well, “Some things are just done at your own risk…” At this point the government is telling us that we don’t think you should be allowed to make that decision so we are going to make it for you, from now on you have to purchase saws with AIM technology. Its not the government’s role to make these sorts of decisions for us.
The statistics tell us that 30,800 times a year someone “makes contact” with the blade of a spinning table saw. But how many times a year is a table saw used without someone making contact with the spinning blade? Probably in the millions. In every case of injury and non-injury someone used the saw at his or her own risk with intelligence and care and good sense going a long way to increase the odds in favor of the user.
John S
While I don’t think anyone is against this technology this is a great example of how when the government gets involved no one wins. I’ll preface by saying I like SawStop the product (tables saws) and the technology it has. I would and am looking to pay extra to get it over a conventional saw, but thats my choice. What I don’t like is being stronarmed into that decision and while good intentions were originally the result of the tech’s invention, thats lead us to lack of choice.
I get that Stephen Gass was upset no one wanted to license his tech and pay him for it, so he was right in making his own line of saws and competing which was good. But to push the requirement while simultaneously preventing anyone else from even coming close to developing their own system is pretty hypocritical and looses all kinds of credibility “for the greater good”.
From the last few cases, it seems any such detection device at all, no matter how different, is a patent infringement so there is zero way to compete against this. This is a monopoly enforce by government mandate. This means there will be zero saws that are not licensed or made by Saw Stop. If thats the case, this patent needs to be in FRAND at the least. Better yet, if Stephen Gass et all want to be serving the greater good, then OpenSource this patent and make it free use. Then compete on your merit of higher caliber saws.
Greg
um no, Gass wasn’t upset that no one wanted to license his technology. He was upset that EVERY manufacturer of table saws got together and jointly decided no one would license his technology in the hope that it would put him out of business and his tech would go away. So he formed his own company and made very nice table saws with the tech himself. Then once the other companies saw how much the technology was liked (even though it was more $$$), Bosch tried to infringe. I’m not a Gass apologist as he seems to generally come off as an ass, but your “facts” are wrong
Hang Fire
It’s not infringing if it uses a different mechanism. But the courts will sort all that out.
Greg
infringing or not doesn’t really matter to me-call it what you want and let the courts decide. My main point was that everyone somehow glosses over the fact that the table saw manufacturers jointly colluded to not license the saw stop technology when they could have gotten it relatively cheaply (before sawstop table saws existed). Now of course it is more expensive to license it because you would be directly completing with Saw Stop saws. You can say Gass is an ass (hey that rhymes!) and you probably wouldn’t be wrong, but there is good reason for him to have a chip on his shoulder. He should at every opportunity defend his patented invention. Maybe, if the CPSC passes the law, suddenly there would be many variations of how to not contact the blade because it would require R&D that no one other than Saw Stop seems willing to do at the moment. And guess what, you might get a saw that doesn’t destroy the blade and can cut wet wood! The saw manufacturers find themselves in this position as a result of attempting to maintain the status quo instead of advancing the industry. I have no pity for them.
Stuart
I would bet a large sum that top-tier portable table saw brands have already invested R&D into making AIM tech, and are simply waiting for the SawStop patents to expire before introducing them to market.
It took what, 5 years for the CPSC to go from an Advance Proposed Rulemaking Notice to a Proposed Rulemaking Notice. There’s a good chance that at least some of SawStop’s patents will be expiring by the time any regulations were ready to go into effect,
firefly
Very well said. The market has already work itself out. There is already a thriving market for AIM in place such as school. As long as there is a proven market there will be innovation. Another major against current AIM is cost of implementation, until that problem has been solved I don’t see any compelling argument for it.
Toolfreak
Yeah, this is pretty much it.
It’s all about MONEY – and who gets it.
If it was about safety, Gass would have either licensed the tech so cheap the manufacturers couldn’t say no without blatantly looking like they didn’t care who lost a finger, or just “given it away” at cost so he didn’t lose anything for his time and effort. Easy enough to go public with the specific $$$ amounts. The guy could have had consumers on his side from the start and demanding the tech be improved and implemented within a few years.
Instead, all he did was go around and ask for outlandish sums of money, and when nobody bit, tried to force the manufacturers to license his tech, again for outlandish sums of money.
Greg
yea, people are motivated under the premise of being able to make money. shocking. You might want to spend some time and go far enough back and read about how the big saw making corporations jointly colluded to not license the saw stop technology so that the detection tech never saw the light of day and they could continue to make money on their currently produced saws, avoid R&D (which costs money), and avoid any safety liability on the already produced saws without the technology (which costs money). And from what I have researched and read, the originally licensing fees were not outlandish at all. They became outlandish once saw stop produced its own saws because guess what, licensing the technology would now directly compete with Saw Stop saws.
BigDan
Sliding table saws have already made a big difference as well as track saws. Blades set up within a box and Indeed outfeed rollers like on the dealt 735 planer would also help with ripping on jobsites so that the hand won’t be able to reach the blade unless you are a whole new level of stupid.
Most commercial shops have specific machines for specific uses don’t see why they would have a ts wide open for finger slicing and if it’s small pieces then bandsaw or other tools work just as well?
maverickps
I bet if you ask any of the 30,800 people injured in 2015 by a table saw blade if they could pay $400 more for their saw in exchange for their injury they’d take it in a heartbeat.
competition will lower prices.
2017 and newer cars are required to have backup cameras. they have airbags. Every power tool I can think of has a ground plug now. If the tools cost more, or slow you down then charge more for your work.
extreme medical bills or losing a finger can change someone life and is something we should value protecting as a society as best we can.
dar
hmmm, up here in TheGreatWhiteNorth, an ER visit with all treatment for ‘shthappens’ is free, but y’all & canadian snowbirds can pay thousand$… & yet some of you are thumbs [sic] down on this …kinda reminds me of murdercycle helmet laws… [which saved my addled brain/skull too many times to count]..
toolPathy
Awesome
Hang Fire
No, sorry, NOT going to ignore SawStop, and their suing everything that moves in the direction of safety in the industry.
Toolfreak
Yeah, it’s disingenuous to make the argument for “safety” while ignoring the elephant in the room – sawstop made it obvious what’s going on here when they tried to strongarm other companies into licensing their tech and then suing Bosch when they developed their own.
Sawstop wants to control the market, pure and simple, and they’re apparently getting their wish.
I wonder how that happened?
RKA
The CPSC has already stated in the past (2011 I think) that they had no intention of mandating a specific technology that would enrich a single company or individual through a government mandate. Any rule enacted would leave open more than one path to a solution. I seriously doubt that position has changed. I think the crux of the issue is should they mandate anything or leave things as-is.
Hang Fire
The CPSC’s position may not have changed, but as the new Bosch lawsuit has shown, SawStop’s position on suing all new blade stopping technologies has not changed either.
fred
Having patents that you are not willing to defend is like having no patent protection at all. Mr. Gass may be an altruistic person or not – but defending his patents is a right that he has – like his right to make money from the fruits of his invention. My quick reading of some of the Bosch decision was that while their method of lowering the blade was different from Sawstop, the sensing that triggered the safety feature was essentially the same as what was set forward in Gass’s patent claims – hence the decision that Bosch was infringing. We may hear more on this if the CSPC rulings increase the stakes (i.e. current technology saws can no longer be sold in the US) incentivizing Bosch (or others) to further challenge past decisions.
RKA
Bosch’s approach is very similar to Sawstop’s. There are other ways to stop a spinning blade and improve the safety of the saws. The question is should a government agency mandate it so it levels the playing field – meaning every manufacturer must meet the requirement (however it’s framed), so nobody is stuck selling the expensive saw that puts them at a competitive disadvantage.
Chris
Just respect the hell out of a table saw and you’ll keep your hand and fingers. That’s my motto.
Ian Stirling
You can pry my unsafe tablesaw from my cold dead hand.
Blythe M
Assuming your other hand got cut off by your unsafe table saw? ?
mattd
It woulds also kill the market for combo miter/table saws that are available all over europe (but I think osha hates them already as I have yet to find them in the US) like the Makita LF1000 or Bosch GTM 12
BonPacific
I think American’s just don’t have a need for those kinds of saws. Pretty sure Miter and Table saws are cheaper in the US than most European countries. American’s also tend to have a lot more space and a bigger DIY culture.
It looks like the GTM 12 was actually on sale in the US for awhile in 2012. Evidently it didn’t catch on.
Stuart
That saw was never released here.
BonPacific
I stand corrected. Virutex has a page up for the TM33S, but who knows if they would actually sell you one.
Stuart
They say it’s “Made Under UL standrds [sic].” But does that mean the finished product meets UL requirements? Because if it doesn’t – and this is why combination saws cannot be sold here – it won’t be OSHA-approved.
ca
Dear Government:
Go away. I am fully capable of taking care of myself. Those who wish to use such safety technology are welcome to do so without its imposition on everyone. Goodbye.
Pete
As a minarchist i completely agree!
Pete
How about this guideline instead- if you are missing more than 3 fingers due to a saw injury your employer shouldnt let you use a saw.
Even if it become law to buy a sawstop i say- ‘Screw you saw stop, you’ll never get my money.’
ktash
One of the problems now is that you have to spend too much if you want a SawStop. They are a niche product. Niche products rarely come down in price. The small niche companies can’t afford it. I’d pay more money for this technology, just not as much as SawStop charges. If you are an average hobbyist/diyer, this is out of your price range.
Plus schools have dropped most of their shop courses. Where are hobbyist/diyer’s supposed to learn safe use of a table saw? For the pro’s do contractors want to properly train all their employees. That’s costly. Do we learn on youtube? You see all kinds of unsafe things there. It’s not straightforward. A single lapse in attention, being sleepy, rushing, etc. If the technology overall were safer, maybe we’d see shop courses come back. The ones still left in my community only teach things like drilling, planing, etc. Only the safer operations.
When I first heard about it I was hoping that this technology would be in my price range. Then when the Bosch saw came out, I hoped the prices would drop. I don’t need a bunch of bells and whistles, but I’d love a safer basic saw. Only when the technology is widespread will it come down in price.
Since the relevant patents in the Bosch case expire in 2021, 3 1/2 years from now, perhaps that’s what this is geared toward. If there’s enough pressure from government maybe these mfg’s who were unwilling to use the technology in the first place will go ahead and do it. Even if the regulations don’t go through, I’m hoping these tool mfg’s wake up.
I don’t have a lot of respect for most tool mfg’s. Safety is not cool, I guess.
This shows with SawStop technology and where is the good dust collection for their tools? Most don’t even try. Instead they go with gimmicky things and make them sound like they are revolutionary. Create a buzz. Like the tick, bluetooth radios, etc. Things that can be produced in China. Again, only the rich hobbyists can afford dust collection with Festool and the like. But Festool raises their prices every year in April. Their prices never come down.
Government regulations can be a pain and unnecessary, but not always. When companies collude like they did with this technology, we should be pointing the finger at them first. Hold their feet to the fire instead of oohing and ahhing about stupid products that add little.
Stuart
I think that SawStop set out to produce a pricier saw because 1) they can, and 2) they can’t compete at the lower-priced market. So why not pull out the stops and throw all the bells and whistles into a product.
Dust collection: apparently USA users don’t care for it, so brands don’t give us the same accessories and designs as in Europe and elsewhere.
Look how fast companies have been able to respond to new guidelines for silica dust. They can come up with highly effective and easy to use dust collection accessories and technologies when they want to. But I guess a lot of American tool users won’t buy such tools and accessories unless they have to.
Festool *has* lowered prices. I believe the quick-action clamp went from $40 to $38 a few years ago, and it has since went back to $39 and now $40 again. lol.
ktash
Yah, I should have stocked up on them at the lower price. Why didn’t you have it posted on Toolguyd so we could all rush out and buy them at the discounted price? 😉
Craig F
Here’s an idea. CPSC buys the patent from either one of the two (for it’s original cost to develop, plus a reasonable royalty), then mandates the use of that system (or any privately developed ones that, at minimum, meet its performance) into all new saws produced after x date, while providing use of the underlying patent for free to sawmakers.
JMG
In the documentation, are there any references to alternatives to AIM tech? In my cabinet shop a stock feeder was installed on the table saw and replaced any guard and did a better job of keeping fingers away from the blades than any other type of guard available. Granted there were a few operations were the feeder could not be used, but in these cases using a blade guard would have impossible as well and these operations were probably less than one percent of saw operation time as a whole. Set up time increased slightly, but the table saw itself was increasingly limited to specific process’, lowering the overall issue.
The feeder all but eliminated kick back issues along with providing protection of fingers getting too close to the blades, but the cost was as much or more than what the AIM tech would encompass in the purchase of a SawStop model today.
At higher levels of production we have CNC systems as well as chain feed saws, vertical panels saws and sliders, leaving the one area of the “cheap” portable table saw as the target for this new tech? How wide of a net should be cast in the interest of safety? My own personal journey caused me to adjust my production processes over time to limit exposure to injuries and it did cost significant amounts over that time period, but it was also my choice to invest in methods that reduced the possibility of injury.
In my view, this blade stop issue is only viable on units to be sold for free hand use and portable in nature. Saws set in a fixed location can be adjusted to be as safe as possible without AIM.
Stuart
Not that I’ve seen.
Ross Williams
Given how long table saws last, no one here is ever going to be forced to use one with sawstop features. There are plenty of used saws out there now with no blade guard, no splitters and no safety switch or grounded plug. What this will do is create a growing pool of safer saws for those of us who want them.
For some of us the price of a new safe saw may be prohibitive. We will end up using something else to cut wood. I doubt most of those options will be more dangerous.
fred
“no one here is ever going to be forced to use one with sawstop features.”
For personal use, I agree but for commercial use, I guess we’ll wait and see how OSHA weighs in on this once CSPC takes action. That might be particularly enlightening if OSHA citations (citing CSPC rulemaking) start accumulating as follow-ups to table saw accidents or jobsite/shop inspections. For the small/medium shop owner – where cutting operations are not yet fully automated – I can see the potential need to change out older table saws. In the case I’m most familiar with, we had a – machine fed rip saw, panel saw, sliding table saw, mixed in with Unisaws – some that we’d even transport and set up at large jobsites. This plus quite a number (I think my ex-compatriots now have 16) jobsite table saws (Bosch and Dewalt)
Stuart
Many workers use table saws without guarding at all, despite what OSHA calls for.
fred
We all know very well that this happens more often than not.
While some cuts are not possible or convenient with the conventional guard in place – think dados – this smacks of an arrogance, sense of invincibility or lack of good training and supervision. Sort of like those who still avoid using seatbelts. To paraphrase the line in “The Treasure of the Sierra Madre” – some workers think: “we don’t need no stinking blade guards.” Some of the same folks probably think the same about respirators, fall arrestors, hardhats etc. While it may sound paternalistic, if you run a business – you really should not allow this to become a matter of personal choice for your employees.
Stuart
I remember a few years ago, there was a motorcyclist protesting a pending helmet rule. He got into a crash and suffered a head injury which could have been lessened or prevented with a helmet, and it ended his life.
Sometimes people need to be protected from their poor choices.
People still put cell phones to their heads when driving, but I think it’s been lessened after it became ticketable.
fred
Once in a while I get a chuckle out of seeing some of those so called “Darwin Awards.” where people inadvertently end their lives in novel and stupid ways. While these are rather extreme examples – stupid, careless or just uneducated actions on the jobsite or at home cost individuals and society lots that could be avoided. I know that there are dire predictions – not unlike those that surrounded introduction of motorcycle helmets, but if the entry price for buying a table saw gets to be something like the $1300 that a jobsite Sawtop costs will our society as we know it come to a halt? Or – maybe as more expensive saws with AIM technology start replacing older ones that get junked – we might just be a little bit safer and save some trips to the ER.
Bruce
No, people never need to be protected from their poor choices. It’s not your job and it’s not the government’s job to protect people from themselves. Go live life and leave other people alone you wanna be communist.
To address the point of the article. I’ve not bought a sawstop or a the new Bosch. Not because the tech isn’t useful, when I buy a saw I can see it being a good choice for me and my shop. However, I’m not interested in a saw that may false and take the saw out of production just because it touches some wet wood. The tech isn’t mature enough yet to be a good choice.
fred
If you run a business – as I did for may years- it kinda is your job to protect your employees from doing dangerous things that will get them injured on the job. My regular pep talk was to say to the crews that I could not possibly compel anyone to be safe, take training, work efficiently or do anything for that matter that they didn’t want to do. What I did have the power to do was to make sure that those who regularly and consistently did not want to follow our procedures and work safely would soon find themselves out of work with us.
For my home shop and at my age – I’m not about to replace my old Unisaw. That’s my choice – but if I have a lapse as old age sets in – and injure myself the fact is that you will share a small bit (though in the costs pooled medical insurance and my Medicare) in the cost of putting me right. Maybe another warning on a new saw should say that if you injure yourself through your misuse of the saw – you give up your right to sue the manufacturer and that you will personally bear the costs of your medical care. Good luck in enforcing any of that – and as Mr. Gerbik says – warning labels are rather useless anyway.
Mr. Gerbik
This is almost as stupid as gun control regulations. Table saw regulations? Really? Just like with guns, whenever an incident occurs, it is %100 operator misuse/ error. But since there’s no regulations to prevent village idiots from buying a table saw who don’t know how to use a saw & injure themselves or worse, they think that some regulations are going to change things. Saws don’t cut people unless ignorant people get stupid and cut themselves. Another problem is that people don’t respect what a powered saw is capable of & the damage it can inflict with ease. All that flesh detector stuff is useless if injuries continue to occur due to operator errors. I guess there’s a lot of people who didn’t learn not to touch the stove when its hot.
Mr. Gerbik
Another problem is all of the warning labels they waste ink with does absolutely nothing to make someone understand what the saw is really capable of. They need to give very detailed descriptions of what will happen if you get stupid & disrespectful. Things like WARNING if the operator of this saw is not thinking clearly & logically, this saw will cut your fingers & hands off very easily if you get them close to the blade. They don’t need to include the words possibly, could, may, etc. They need to be factual & to the point of the warning label. They should have a website with real injury pictures & testimonials so the owner of a new saw will be full aware of what happens if they get stupid. I guarantee injuries would decline if that information included in the owners manual. People will never learn unless they see it firsthand.
Addison Pettis
What really hurts people in the US is cars and forks! Lets deal with one of those before shoving a crummy double priced solution down everyone’s throat. Yes I have looked at these saws, both versions are in the homeowner class, the jobsite saw is on par with low end Craftsman. We should all be against terrible solutions that are lobbied for to solve low occurrence issues.
Mac
I have been teaching in the “shop” to high school and adults for 44 years now. I would NEVER have a Sawstop in my shop! It is just another way for this company to over take the market and not allow other companies to use safe technology without “paying” for patent rights to build a saw similar.! I also dont believe for one second that any carpenter/cabinetmaker is going to give up there Unisaw or Powermatic saw for a Sawstop or lesser built piece of equipment. In my teaching I clearly discuss and preach about respect and attention to using a table saw. It is the owner/users responsibility to learn correct use and proper hand/finger placement when making any cuts on the saw. I have not had one student cut or injured by a blade on the table saw in 44 years! I have had a few kickbacks that hit belt level, that the students then realized just how focused one needs to be on the saw. Please do not allow this policy to take place to make a safe saw for the few that refuse to pay attention, learn proper usage, and that do not read instructions! We have many professional guards and riving knives available for equipment, I will bet that 99% of those injured were not using the guard as supplied and instructed to do so.
Stuart
In at least one highly publicized lawsuit, where “but SawStop has flesh-detection tech” was brought up, the blade height was inappropriately raised for the size of the work being cut.
OM
How do I eloquently put, “I’m an angry Luddite who’s tired of the government meddling in everything and making everything more expensive in the process.”
Toolfreak
If it weren’t for government “meddling”, you’d have lead in your drinking water and air that was barely breathable. Not to mention you wouldn’t have the internet, much less electricity, or perhaps even a civil society where you would be able to worry about anything besides where your next meal was coming from.
Luddies are always free to go live out in the woods and off the grid entirely.
I’d say this is more a case of the CPSC having its palms greased with money to give favor to Sawstop, rather than the government in general overstepping its bounds.
Besides, the consumers still have the real power here. Don’t buy anything from Sawstop, or any of the saws that have this tech. If enough people do that, the market for the saws crashes and burns bad enough to get the rules changed back, maybe with some protests and complaints from consumers and manufacturers.
fred
Ideally we, as voters, should be able (through the ballot box) to tell our government and its agencies what to do through our elected representatives. That is muddy water indeed considering all the special interests that work to get the ear of our politicians and government officials. That’s even considering what’s legal – not factoring in the graft and corruption that we sometimes suspect has perverted the process.
Unfortunately on this issue, since table-saw operation is likely to be rather arcane and uninteresting to much of the public, an ill-informed or possibly apathetic general electorate is not likely to provide any guidance to the CSPC.
firefly
I wondered what happened to Flint, Michigan then?
I understand the need for some regulations. Most of them probably have good intentions. But like a lock they are there to keep honest forks honest. Whether we rely on the free market to keep thing in balance or rule and regulation to keep people in check, both system rely on knowledge and transparency to function.
I want to give CSPC the benefit of the doubt here but I find it appalling that they even consider it at this stage. I don’t have problem with AIM but the technology is not anywhere to be ready to be consider as a contender.
Jon
Here is for hoping that saw stop goes bankrupt and tool guys pull their heads out of their ass and stop buying their product. They are driving this and it is socialism at it’s best.
Thus is no different than saying guns kill people. People get hurt because they hurry, are uneducated about safty, or are just plain stupid and using a toll on a manner you should not.
Supporting such garbage will only make tools more expensive. If you want both options, great. But do the force this crap on me.
Boycott sawstop unless you like government stepping into your toolbox too.
dar
fyi…giving -the- finger -dept… http://www.aboutlawsuits.com/table-saw-settlement-128389/
Table Saw Settlement Results in $2M Payment for Middle Finger Amputation
May 30, 2017 by: Irvin Jackson
The manufacturer of a table saw has agreed to settle a lawsuit filed by a man left with severe injuries to his hand, which alleges the company failed to include readily available safety features on the table saw, which could have prevented the injury.
The table saw settlement came in a lawsuit filed by Alex Mai in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, against One World Technologies, who manufactured a Ryobi table saw that injured several of his fingers in March 2012. The lawsuit also included claims against the owner of the table saw, Eric Aponte.
According to a report by The Legal Intelligencer, the makers of the Ryobi table saw agreed to pay $1.9 million, and the Aponte agreed to pay $100,000 to resolve the lawsuit.
Mai suffered a severed middle finger and permanent nerve damage to his right index finger while helping Aponte install a hardwood floor. The table saw injury allegedly occurred when a piece of wood connected with the back of the saw blade, resulting in what is known as a “kickback.”..
Bob Jones
The CPSC has been saving stupid people for decades. Unfortunately, that has resulted in a dumbing-down of the American people. The average IQ for Americans goes down by at least a point per year now.
The CPSC and Trial Lawyers are the folks who have really sent all our jobs overseas. Soon, NOTHING will be made in the USA.
As far as the injuries go, ignorance, stupidity, carelessness and/or substance abuse probably caused 99% of them. Persons coming into the ER with tool injuries should have their blood tested for intoxicants. I’ve been using table saws for 50 years and never even come close to a blade injury.
Finally, one of these days, the electronics in a SawStop saw will fail and the resulting litigation will wipe them out. The “gadget” encourages careless behavior.
Marvin McConoughey
Are there any known instances where the Saw Stop system failed to stop an injury?
firefly
“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”
Active injury avoidance technology for table saw is still expensive. It’s expensive to implement. It’s also expensive to operate in the case of false positive. To suggest that the mandate will bring down the cost is putting the cart in front of the horse. It set dangerous precedent. The cynic in me say that this is where we are going as a country anyway and this is how we will fail as a country. Because current active safety technology are still expensive to implement and operate the mandate will take away the ability for an individual/company to spend their safety budget money that best suit their need.
To draw a parallel, seatbelt and airbag only cost a fraction of the car. They also only cost a fraction to replace. The chance of a false positive is very low. So this is a case where it make sense to mandate. People who care about safety will seek out technology they can trust to help them. I was one of the few people that opt to have an aftermarket backup camera installed in my SUV long before they were common on the road. Yet one of my uncle got into a backup accident soon after he got his first car with backup camera and backup sensor because he failed to check his side mirror. So technology can be a double-edged sword.
In the million cost of the emergency room. What were the percentage of people that use older equipment that doesn’t have the basic safety system such and blade guard or riving knife? That number need to be removed from the equation because the mandate wouldn’t have helped those people if it were already in place. I suspect that this is a big number.
From the rest of the claim, what are the percentage that intentionally removed the safety guard that is already in today table saw? This mandate won’t help them either. Because the technology is not perfect so they will need a disable switch for legitimate reason. Furthermore the cost for a false positive is high. So all the more reason that they get turned off.
By now we are left with a much smaller number of fairly legitimate case. In those case I am sure there will be a good number that can be saved by regular safety reminder. All in all, It will probably help a few risk taking individual as well (assuming they haven’t turn off the active safety already). I am sure this mandate will help a few people with heart wrenching story. However heart wrenching story are not a reason to pass a mandate. We must look at the cost to society as this mandate is passed vs the cost of society if it doesn’t. Looking at those number, I don’t see them adding up.
I predict that active injury avoidance technology will become a lot more common in the future once the technology is more mature and it will. Once the technology has been matured a lot more shop and individual will seek out for them regardless of where a mandate exist. Those people that will actively seek out the technology must be removed from the “cost saving calculation” because they will buy a safer saw regardless of whether there is a mandate or not. In all those people with the heart wrenching story of how the current active safety system saved their finger. Those people didn’t need a mandate to seek out a safer saw!
With that said, I do think that the power tool company want this to pass. I also think that regardless of whether the regulation is passed or not the market is moving in that direction anyway. So I strongly feel that the fact that CPSC even contemplating passing this mandate in this current state of technology is a waste of time. Perhaps 5 year from now once the technology is more mature I might think otherwise. Again I am happy to be proven wrong but before the mandate is passed further research must be done by further breaking down the category and type of accidents.
John C
I don’t think the government should be mandating anything that has to do with safety technology, the answer is not to have a nanny state that is trying to protect us from ourselves. Afterall, where do you draw the line. Do we need to mandate that every chisel sold in the US must include a pair of carvers gloves? How about every rough sawn board must be sold with leather gloves?
When you mandate something the price of that something NEVER goes down, unless the govt steps in to mandate a price. Maybe even put a tax on the technology so we can subsidize new woodworkers who can’t afford to buy it? Look at how wonderfully that cycle has worked out for health care. NOTE TO THE TROLLS – please don’t talk about seatbelts and airbags, those products are not sold directly to the consumer. So, the corporate customers have the purchasing power to drive the cost of those products down through shear volume. Industry wide, the volume of table saws manufacture per year doesn’t even come close to a single car manufacturer in a month.
Mandates, also stifle innovation and adoption of new technologies. Lets say next year, someone invents an even better device. One that has no false positives, one that automatically detects what kind of cut you are going to make and adjusts its triggers to account for things like wet wood, automatically adjusts the riving knife when you are doing through or dado cuts, etc… But because the old technology was mandated by the bureaucracy, it will take 10 years to get the new technology added to the mandate. And, because the old technology will be replaced by the new, no manufacturers can add it to their new saws because the mandate says….get the drift.
In other words, let the free market work. And please don’t prognosticate on how many people will be hurt in the mean time. The technology is available and people are free to purchase it (or not), so if they can’t purchase it because it is so expensive, then maybe Mr. Gass should come down off his high licensing fee or put his patent in the public domain. I don’t expect him to do that, because again we operate in a free market, it is his invention and he can do whatever he wants to with it….as long as he doesn’t try to get the government to force me to buy it.
If people want this technology in their individual shops they will pony up the $$ for it. When their is more than one source for the technology competition will drive the price down and more people will be more willing to purchase it. Each competing business will find efficiencies in the manufacturing and design process and those savings get passed on to the consumer, the other competitors will then have to adapt their own processes or get priced out of the market. Its basic “invisible hand” stuff straight out of Adam Smith.
As far as the workplace goes, from the employer’s standpoint it makes sense to purchase saws with the technology, solely on liability concerns. However, that is the choice the each business owner has to make after weighing the pros and cons for his/her specific situation. Same with educational institutions, the people that run those institutions should be able to freely decide.