As you might have seen from some of our recent articles, I have been thoroughly analyzing recent activity and updates on proposed rulemaking that could mandate flesh detection and active injury mitigation technology on every table saw.
My goal has been to explore recent news and information from every angle.
PTI, the Power Tool Institute, is an industry group whose members include jobsite table saw makers, such as Bosch, Dewalt, Festool, Milwaukee, Ryobi, Skilsaw, and the company behind Ridgid power tools.
Advertisement
Aside from some of its individual member brands and two other companies (Harbor Freight and Grizzly), the PTI looks to be the only major organization in opposition to US Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) proposed rulemaking that would require SawStop-like active injury mitigation (AIM) tech be implemented in all table saws.
In my opinion, the PTI is losing.
Fact-Checking PTI Claims
When the CPSC started showing fresh momentum on table saw safety rulemaking, the PTI released an updated lengthy document of “table saw facts.”
Following are the PTI’s main arguments. This has been edited from all-caps and color-stylized text for greater readability.
On November 1, 2023, CPSC published a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking on table saws. The proposed rule requiring active injury mitigation on all table saws acknowledges:
- Costs of table saws would more than double,
- Manufacturers may exit the table saw market,
- Small manufacturers may go out of business,
- Sales of table saws will decrease, resulting in unemployment, and,
Additionally, the government could be creating a monopoly for one company (which originally petitioned the CPSC for this mandatory standard), that can either charge unreasonable licensing fees or refuse to license. All of this when voluntary standards are working.
Advertisement
I asked the PTI’s communications rep if they could provide examples of small manufacturers that may go out of business.
They would not, citing “strict anti-trust guidelines.”
I asked if the PTI could at least define what they mean by the term “small manufacturer.” I never heard back.
Which table saw brands – PTI member or not – are at risk of going out of business should the CPSC finalize their rulemaking, requiring table saws to have AIM tech?
SawStop is the ONLY brand I can think of whose entire business is centered around table saws, and they’ve implemented AIM tech at the core of their business.
The PTI repeats the same claim several times in their 180-page comment to the CPSC (PDF) earlier this year. They say:
The NPR acknowledges that a mandatory standard will likely cause prices of benchtop table saws to more than double, and will cause small manufacturers go out of business while larger manufacturers may exit the table saw market, negatively impacting consumer choice and causing job losses throughout the country.
According to the PTI, an AIM table saw safety regulation could lead to “job losses throughout the country.”
It’s likely that table saw prices would increase, and maybe some manufacturers might exit the market. But which “small manufacturers” are going out of business?
Which jobs are at risk?
This is just one claim the PTI makes that doesn’t seem to hold up to scrutiny. It comes across to me as an unsubstantiated hypothetical to the point of fearmongering.
There are other claims I wish to seek clarity on, but the PTI seems unwilling to aid in this.
Risk vs Injury Claims
The PTI oppositional document includes a 2007-2008 breakdown of annual sales estimates:
- Benchtop saws: 875,000 units/year
- Contractor saws: 85,000 units/year
- Cabinet and industrial saws: 60,000 units/year
Their risk assessment, based on the “on” time in hours, estimated a ~66% risk exposure for cabinet saws, ~12% risk exposure for benchtop saws, and ~22% risk exposure for contractor saws.
In PTI’s most recent comments, they included a chart with a 2017 estimate of saws in use, showing an even greater imbalance with respect to “share of injury risk.” I haven’t seen an updated chart yet.
They argued that the “CPSC’s risk assessment does not take into account significant differences in hazard exposure across saw types.”
It seems that the PTI is saying that a fewer number of cabinet saws are used far more than benchtop saws, leading to a higher “share of injury risk.”
However, they acknowledge a CPSC figure that reports a majority of injuries (60.9%) involve benchtop saws.
The PTI says:
Overall, the risk of blade contact injury must be based on the table saw type, as well as the frequency and duration of use. While PTI submitted very detailed table saw hazard exposure analysis in its previous comments, the CPSC wrongly assumes that the risk of injury is equal for all table saw type categories.
Shouldn’t risk assessment follow actual injury data, rather than hours of “on” time and table saw use?
Even if the CPSC “wrongly assumes that the risk of injury is equal for all table saw categories,” is it fair to estimate risk in terms of hours of use per product type?
In 2017, the PTI put together this chart showing the injuries reported to them from 2007 thru 2015 according to saw type. According to the chart, consumer and professional benchtop saws were responsible for 82% of table saw injuries reported to PTI members in this time.
PTI member brands mainly offer benchtop saws, and some offer contractor saws. PTI’s data, as we’ll get to in a moment, show that a fewer number of contractor saws are used more, resulting in greater risk exposure.
The information depicted here suggests that risk exposure does not directly correlate to injury proportions.
What does “on” time matter if benchtop saws were responsible for 82% of table saw injuries reported to PTI member brands, and contractor saws 18%?
According to the PTI’s 2017 risk assessment, contractor saws (19%) were assigned more than double the injury risk compared to benchtop saws (8.8%).
The PTI is estimating double the injury risk hazard for contractor saws, but their injury data shows that 4.56X the number of injuries were reported to their member brands for benchtop saws than for contractor saws.
This suggests that there’s more than 2X the “hazard exposure” for contractor-type saws, but less than 1/4X the number of injuries.
The PTI’s analyses suggest that there’s lower risk exposure, on average, for benchtop saws, but their limited injury data suggests otherwise.
I don’t see much weight in PTI injury figures or estimates. According to their recent report, just 93 benchtop table saw injuries were reported to them for the period of 2016 thru 2021. That’s 93 benchtop table saw injuries in 6 years.
They say that “1 in every 155,143 benchtop table saws was involved in a reported accident.” That sounds like there aren’t very many benchtop table saw injuries, until you realize it strictly references reported accidents to PTI member brands. The CPSC estimates shown an average of roughly 30,000 injuries a year.
This would suggest 93 benchtop table saws were reported to PTI member brands out of up to roughly 180,000 blade-contact injuries, which is not a valid conclusion to make.
The PTI’s report is full of data, but not all of it is meaningful.
They’re unwilling or incapable of answering press/media questions, and so fact-checking is impossible.
In a recent letter to the CPSC, PTI expressed it would helpful to see:
Updated accident data broken down by product category – consumer benchtop, professional cabinet, and professional contractor saws, and any or all studies or analysis of accident rates among these table saw categories.
I think this is going to be key information, especially given that PTI rightfully describes the most recent CPSC data as being a “complete reversal” of earlier figures.
They put considerable effort towards pointing at SawStop as a major obstacle towards benchtop table saws with AIM tech, but I couldn’t find any discussion about how or why such tools can’t be fit with AIM tech.
There’s a lot of philosophizing, but not much in the form of engineering analysis.
Moreso, some of the data seems inappropriate. PTI reports a higher frequency of benchtop saw blade-contact injuries, and it contradicts their “on” time hazard estimate figure.
This makes such hazard and table saw category risk estimates seem convenient for persuasive purposes, but impractical and potentially misleading.
What’s Their Plan?
PTI spends a lot of time talking about the risk of a SawStop monopoly, the inaccessibility of patented tech, and other such obstacles towards developing competing flesh detection and AIM technologies.
They reference Steve Gass at least 38 different times in their recent oppositional document, and SawStop a whopping 203 times.
Where do they propose how to to make table saws safer to use without AIM technologies being mandated?
In their recent comments, the PTI says:
There are additional unintended consequences associated with implementation of the AIM technology, such as: forgoing the use of the guarding system, resulting in increased frequency of eye and other facial injuries and body puncture injuries due to kickback
As I understand it, users forgoing guards is part of the problem, as this is responsible for at least some of the deep laceration and amputation-type injuries suffered and reported every year.
Many users are already forgoing blade guards, and this leads to blade-contact injuries. But the PTI said mandated AIM tech might lead users to users forgoing blade guards and suffer eye, face, and impact injuries due to kickback.
Do SawStop users report an increase frequency of kickback injuries?
Is PTI’s claim supported by injury data, or is it fearmongering?
What’s the takeaway here, that being able to remove table saw guarding could be a source of injuries? Such actions already contribute towards grievous injuries.
The PTI adds:
Given the complexities of these issues, the NPR is lacking in analysis of alternative measures other than AIM, such as permanent guard or indicator of guard status (guard detection)
In their statements, the PTI argues that modern voluntary standards work. But here, they’re referring to permanent guarding or guard status detection as a potential alternative to AIM tech.
The way things are going, we’re lucky if table saws aren’t completely banned.
Organizations in support of the CPSC mandating AIM tech on table saws have argued that modern modular guarding has not measurably prevented injuries.
The CPSC’s data shows that there are still tens of thousands of table saw blade-contact injuries every year.
In ALL of PTI’s opposition to the CPSC rulemaking that I’ve done so far, they don’t thoroughly discuss potential alternatives.
PTI says current voluntary guarding standards are working. Consumer advocates and safety groups say they’re not, and such groups have expressed support for the proposed rulemaking.
What is PTI doing to reduce the number of table saw injuries?
This, I think, is what it comes down to. Are tool brands – PTI members or otherwise – doing enough to sufficiently reduce the number of blade-contact injuries?
What is their plan? Is there a plan?
That’s where the PTI opposition falls apart and weakens.
If the CPSC asks the PTI how they plan to better protect consumers from blade-contact injuries, what’s their answer?
“Things are fine” is not a good answer, because injury statistics clearly show otherwise.
Some readers will say it’s the tool users’ fault for increasing their own risk, such as removing the blade guard. But can anything – other than implementing AIM tech – be done by PTI member tool brands or other bodies to decrease the severity of the consequences of accidental blade contact?
What Happened at the Recent Hearing
US CPSC Commissioner Trumka, who is enthusiastically in support of the rulemaking being finalized and expedited, asked tough questions of the PTI at a recent hearing.
From what I watched in a recording of the most recent hearing, PTI’s Executive Manager dodged all of Commissioner Trumka’s major questions.
See Also: Latest Table Saw Safety Tech Hearing is Full of Drama
The PTI makes some cogent arguments on paper, but there’s also some fearmongering, an insistence that current safety accessories are sufficient, and a focus on SawStop litigation being a major obstacle.
Regarding PTI’s joint venture-developed AIM tech, for which specifics have not been made public or available to the CPSC, Commissioner Trumka asked for PTI members to be released from their own confidentiality agreements
The PTI replied:
“We have licensing agreements for anyone who would like to license our patents, so I think if there is a manufacturer that is interested in licensing the patents, they are free to contact us, and we can provide them with that licensing agreement.”
PTI’s executive manager is co-CEO of a trade association management company.
The Commissioner doesn’t seem to trust their agenda, saying:
… so the playbook is well-worn, you’re hired to do a job, part of that job is to oppose safety rules. Why should we trust you?
Trumka seems to have a very clear opinion, with the following caption attached to a video clip of the hearing he posted to social media:
Companies that don’t protect their consumers when they can should hear from their victims. After all, they’re the ones that pay the consequences of corporate selfishness.
The PTI’s Executive Manager, in their separate role as Executive Director of the Portable Generator Manufacturer’s Association, recently opposed the CPSC’s proposed rulemaking on portable generators.
That CPSC rulemaking, if finalized, would require portable generators to adhere to a carbon monoxide emissions requirement, and feature CO detection and an automatically shut off.
At the recent hearing, Commissioner Trumka said this about the trade association management company, which the PTI Executive Manager is part owner of:
it has a business model that I think virtually no one’s ever heard of, that I find kind of interesting. It’s a for-profit firm that gets hired by nonprofit shell trade associations to run them, and I say shell trade associations because they have no employees. Their work is carried out by [the trade management company]. And your clients are 23 different trade associations.
So it’s not surprising when we see you use the same playbook for multiple clients when you come here [to present at hearings in opposition of safety rulemaking proposals].
If I didn’t hold my own opinions on the topic, I might be inclined to agree that the PTI lobbying does seem to be motivated by “corporate selfishness.” Maybe that is what’s fueling their opposition to the proposed rulemaking, but at least some of the PTI’s arguments are aligned with consumer’s interests.
PTI’s Latest Statement
In a recent communication to the CPSC chairman (PDF), PTI’s manager complains about Commissioner Trumka’s conduct at the hearing, specifically pointing out the Commissioner’s “continued interruptions and grandstanding.”
There are stern statements in the PTI letter, such as:
The hearing included several troubling suggestions unbecoming of the Commission and counterproductive to the rulemaking process.
The PTI manager objected that their organization was described as a “shell company,” and that reference of their testimony in opposition to other safety standard matters was brought up.
These seem like deliberate, mischaracterizations designed to unfairly undermine the PTI’s credibility rather than focusing on the facts to inform the Commission’s unbiased decision making.
If the PTI is a trade group with no employees other than a 3rd party management company that manages many other industry groups, is it really a mischaracterization?
In the past 15-1/2 years, I have only ever heard from the PTI when the CPSC rulemaking on table saw AIM technology shows signs of forward momentum. It has been 3 times now – in 2011, 2017, and again recently.
In my experience working with and reporting on the tool industry, the PTI only pops up to oppose the CPSC’s proposed rulemaking on table saws.
Was Trumka grandstanding? In my opinion, definitely. But is he wrong? I found his characterizations of the PTI and its management to seem accurate.
This image includes two frames from one of Trumka’s recent social media posts.
From Commissioner Trumka’s public posting, it seems that he sees industry and corporations as obstacles pushing back against measures that would improve consumer safety and protections.
The PTI also mentions being surprised about SawStop’s announcement. SawStop recently announced that they would dedicate one of their key patents to the public should the CPSC rulemaking go into effect, eliminating at least one obstacle in the way of competitor AIM table saw development.
The PTI describes SawStop’s announcement as “an inappropriate PR stunt.” Thoughts and judgement aside, was it really a surprise?
See Also: SawStop Tries to Save Face with Patent Promise
In their November 2023 letter in response to Commissioner Trumka (PDF), SawStop’s CEO said:
SawStop Holding LLC is evaluating whether to commit either to making that [‘840] patent freely available to competitors for use in the United States or to licensing that patent on FRAND terms if the Commission enacts as a rule the safety standard presented in the current SNPR.
PTI and its member tool brands have enough lawyers, counsel, and experts that someone should have been keeping an eye on all public documents associated with the CPSC rulemaking.
They could – and should – have considered this to be a possibility, and prepared an appropriate response.
It seems that PTI is still pointing at SawStop as blocking competitive AIM tech development, only with a slightly different argument.
If a table saw manufacturer undertook the development process necessary to develop and commercialize AIM-enabled table saws prior to the rule’s effective date, so that as of the effective date the table saw manufacturer could offer the table saws to the public in furtherance of the Commission’s goals, SawStop could still sue the table saw manufacturer for its activities prior to the effective date, such as the development and testing of prototypes and pre-commercialization products.
The PTI seems to be trying to say that its member tool brands cannot develop table saws with AIM tech because of the still-present risk of litigation.
I don’t understand why this means PTI brands couldn’t develop competitive AIM tech. Haven’t they already been developing tech under the joint venture? Isn’t that what they said they’re willing to license to non-member table saw brands?
Doesn’t SawStop’s announcement simply mean that PTI tool brands couldn’t sell such table saws until CPSC rulemaking goes into effect and the key SawStop ‘840 patent is dedicated to the public?
It recently came to light that Bosch, a PTI member brand, is NOT currently under threat of litigation. Bosch has a licensing agreement with SawStop, but they do not seem to be actively developing a successor to the original Reaxx.
To me, some of PTI’s arguments are coming across as excuses, rather than reasons. If the CPSC Commissioners see the same, I think they are unlikely to be moved by the PTI’s arguments and opposition to the proposed table saw rulemaking.
What Happens Now?
In their comments to the CPSC (PDF), UL Solutions wrote:
We strongly support this proposal and believe that the use of active injury mitigation (AIM) technology will significantly reduce the incidents of devastating and life-long injuries caused by table saws.
I have not seen the PTI suggest any alternative that would “significantly reduce the incidents of devastating and life-long injuries caused by table saws.”
In their statements, the PTI urges that, instead of finalizing the rulemaking regarding table saw AIM tech, the CPSC should instead “rely upon the voluntary standard UL62841-3-1.”
Does this have any weight if the UL itself “strongly supports” the rulemaking?
The National Consumers League commented (with paragraph breaks added for easier readability):
Since the introduction of AIM technology into the US market in 2004, and now two decades later, PTI and its member companies have consistently argued against a mandatory safety standard for table saws without a defensible rationale.
Instead of devoting its considerable resources to adopting and incorporating a proven safety technology that will all but do away with table saw injuries, PTI has instead spent the better part of nearly 20 years fighting CPSC’s and consumer advocates’ efforts to enact a safety standard for table saws that has been proven to be feasible and effective.
This includes going to Congressional appropriators and asking them to bar the CPSC, one of our critical federal product safety agencies, from working on table saw safety.
The fight isn’t over, but it seems that the PTI, their member brands, and other major companies in opposition to the rulemaking are losing. At least, things don’t seem to be going well for them.
William Adams
If table saws become more expensive, what effect does that have on the finances of the folks who buy them? It doesn’t do much good to prevent X injuries, if saws are so much more expensive that folks have to spend Y more time working to earn the money to buy them which time on the job has on average more injuries incurred.
What percentage of injuries would be prevented by the cut prevention technologies?
Are we looking at all saws getting riving knives to reduce kickback?
The number I really want to know is:
– what number of injuries occur when all guides are in place and all operating instructions are properly followed?
As I’ve noted previously, this wouldn’t be an issue at all if all table saw injury trials had a jury composed of shop teachers.
Stuart
The modular blade guards on modern table saws typically feature a movable guard that covers the blade, an adjustable riving knife, and anti-kickback pawls.
Even with the guard removed for non-through-cuts, all of the table saws I’ve tested in recent years have a second riving knife or adjustable riving knife that can be lowered to blade-height, as opposed to rising above the blade for mounting the guard.
I’ve seen table saws without anti-kickback pawls (such as Harvey’s), but riving knives seem to be present on all modern table saws.
The CPSC and numerous consumer safety organizations believe that AIM tech will reduce the number of blade contact injuries.
In opposition to this, the PTI has all along been saying “[yes], but…”
We might not see the rulemaking finalized this year, but it seems inescapable. “But, SawStop…” excuses and arguments won’t be valid for much longer.
Hon Cho
Insurers could easily force commercial users of table saws to adopt AIM by refusing to provide liability insurance unless saws are equipped with the technology.
As for the market for saws, if the numbers given for 2007-08 are just for the USA, close to a million saws a year is much larger than I would have guessed but it’s still not a huge market in terms of dollars. If AIM is mandated, I could see the number of manufacturers of table saws leaving the market instead of developing their own safety systems, giving SawStop a big revenue boost, at least in the intermediate term.
Al
The more effective and fair impact from insurers would be to deny coverage for Worker’s Compensation claims when guards are modified or remived.
That would be akin to car insurers raising rates for an insured party who parks outside of a garage in a high-theft area with a 1990s Honda Civic.
Or, cybersecurity coverage denied when an organization is flagged for activity suggesting a less-than-supportable posture to secure their organization.
An insurer can’t require a specific technology. But can require adherence to prevailing standards.
PW
That’s a terrible idea. Worker’s comp is paid to employees who suffer on the job injuries. Preventing injuries and ensuring safe equipment is the job of the _employer_. Denying claims because people are injured due to their employer’s refusal to ensure safety equipment is the opposite of how the system is supposed to work.
eddie sky
I felt that “benchtop” saws are mitersaws. And to integrate a tech into those for AIM, that would definitely make them cost-prohibitive. No one should pay $1000 for a miter saw. Can you imagine a cordless mitersaw with AIM and $999? (ok, there’s Festool)
I’ve used a tracksaw and on an occasion it jammed/stalled on a long piece that pinched. That was a Makita and it didn’t have a riving knife. While I think Festool does have on that retracts with the blade. Meanwhile, I stick a flathead drive in the wood that is cut to stop it from pinching as I continue the cut (long piece of Oak, not a sheet of ply).
Stuart
Benchtop table saws are the portable jobsite kind, e.g. DWE7485.
J. Newell
There are some references in the comments to “small manufacturers of table saws” (not a direct quote, in spite of the quotation marks, but that accurately describes some of the references). I very strongly doubt that that’s accurate, however.
I think it’s more accurate to speak about “manufacturers of small numbers of table saws” or “manufacturers of table saws with small margins/small profits/small market share.” Ridgid is a big tool company and part of a huge corporate tool group, but I would be surprised if their table saws contributed much to their bottom line. The same is probably true for many tool companies that sell table saws.
These are the companies that will exit the market if the CPSC adopts rules in the form currently being discussed. They may be big companies, but for one reason or another their table saw sales simply wouldn’t economically support the research and development necessary to add AIM tech to their saws. And even if they adopted AIM tech, it’s possible that a big part of their sales is driven by low retail sales prices, so they believe that adding anything, including AIM, that users don’t directly see as value added would reduce current sales.
It may not be clear here, but I am basically agreeing with you. 🙂
Stuart
The PTI statements warn that these “small manufacturers,” however you wish to interpret that, are at risk of “going out of business.”
They won’t back it up with any clarity, context, or explanation.
Alexk
Push sticks, feather boards and maybe a shorter length fence to prevent binding and kickback? Or a simple fence to adjust so it doesn’t bind?
Is there any info about the circumstances of each injury?
Was the person tired? Impaired? Working too fast?
On the job, working as fast as possible without a guard or push sticks, what is the rate of injuries?
There are regulations for long haul truck drivers that limit the time one can drive in a day. I think that has reduced accidents. The regulations don’t affect you and I. Possibly have AIM tech for commercial use?
A W
I know this is somewhat irrelevant, but as someone familiar with OSHA, NHTSA, and FAA regulations, it kindof irks me that CPSC is the one government safety agency that drops the “M” from the NPRM acronym.
NPR is the National Public Radio.
NPRM is a notice of proposed rulemaking
After looking at their AI graphics in a previous Toolguyd post I was shocked to learn that the CPSC somehow has a larger staff than the National Transportation Safety Board. :-/
Given that transportation accidents are the leading cause of death in America up until about age 35, it seems like we should invest far more in NHTSA and the NTSB.
PW
I assume the CSPC’s ambit is much, much bigger than the NTSB. There are a LOT of consumer products sold in the US. Just evaluating suspected lead content from Amazon off-brands could probably be a whole agency…
Mike
Unpopular opinion but if this tech can be streamlined and perfected there is little downside to mandating it except for cost. The cost to the consumer shouldn’t be too large $50-100 more for a tool that lasts many years isn’t a big cost. Saw stop is as expensive as it is because they can charge that, not because they have to. What we should be upset as consumers is that all these companies have had years to develope and improve this safety feature but have chosen to do nothing other than fight against it.
Birdog357
$100 is 25% of what I paid for my saw. I don’t want the nanny state mandating that I must pay more for my next saw, or settle for a lower quality less feature rich saw for the same money. Because they know better than I do…
John E
If you cut the seatbelts out of your car and remove the break pads, you’ll get better gas mileage.
Bsc
I’m old. I have been using table saws and the like for 37 years. Part of me agrees with your sentiment, having been taught not only how tow use these tools safely as possible but also to take responsibility when I don’t. However the math isn’t on your side anymore.
$100 added to the cost of a tool vs. the thousands of dollars in medical bills, the loss of income and the regret which you would surely feel that your injury could have been prevented
David Z
You’re focused on 25%, while others are looking at it as, what, 34 cents a week if you keep it 6 years, 20 cents for 10 years? That’s pretty cheap insurance. I bet many people waste that much on extra paper towels.
JD
I actually agree. If you take inflation into consideration, the price of the tech has gone down considerably. If a pro can’t afford a $500 or $600 saw, they need to keep saving. A hobby woodworker can buy a used saw on Craigslist to get started. On a nice hybrid or cabinet saw the cost will be the equivalent of a couple nice blades.
Either the hobby woodworker or pro can’t choose to use a track saw instead of a table saw for most applications. There are plenty of options and reduction in rush of injury is worth it.
Chris
I’m sure I’ve made the comment before, but I’m split on this.
On one hand, nobody wants regulations forced on them.
But on the other hand, it’s a safety feature. Like airbags in all cars.
So it’s not that big of a deal. I just don’t want the tools to be another $300 more expensive to account for the technology.
You can buy a cheap table saw for like $100. It would be rather pointless to make that cheap, junky saw go for $400 just because of the sensing technology.
I could see if they were going to install them on all cabinet saws but contractor/jobsite saws and benchtop saws would be totally pointless.
David Z
CPSC calculated a price increase of $150 the first 5 years, then dropping down to $50, for low end saws. This was based on information from from manufacturers and comments.
Reflector
Mandates are awful especially when they end up funneling money to Saw Stop which for years aggressively tried to litigate their technology to be mandated while it was patented.
I use the readily detachable blade guard and fabricated my own dust collecting one that comes off with a few turns of a thumbscrew. I use push sticks and when a cut looks or seems dangerous I don’t make it on a table saw. If I push things I will push them in a direction to ensure my hand doesn’t move towards the blade guard were a “slip” to happen.
This won’t stop people from being priced out of an inexpensive table saw by using plywood and a circ saw to create a far, far more dangerous table saw sans riving knife.
Ben
great article and a lot to unpack.
Is PTI a shell company? Probably
What is PTI’s plan? I wouldn’t go as far to say there is no plan, I believe it’s more the plan is to lobby again any and all proposed rule changes which is why the refuse to offer any alternatives.
Is there a lower cost alternative that would greatly reduce the number of serious hand injuries that doesn’t involve the use of AIM Technology? Yes there is and it’s to mandate non-removable guard on table saws. The reason why voluntary standard UL62841-3-1 has not reduced the number of injuries is because nearly everyone removes or never even puts the guard on their table saw. That being said having non-removable guards on table saws is not without down sides of that it would reduce the number of injuries, not eliminate them. It would be also be impossible to do non-through cuts or Dado’s on a table saw that the guard can’t be removed from.
Are there other alternatives than AIM or non-removable guards, of course there is but PTI and it’s member don’t want to implement or develop anything because at the end of the day these companies don’t really care if someone gets seriously hurt or even killed by their products, they are just in the business of making money.
John
As someone who had a hand injury on a portable worksite type saw in 2014, I never filled out any of the endless forms sent to me to get more details on the injury. I did not then nor never would now allow my info available to entities out of my control. With that said how many people never report the details of their injuries, beyond what an ER report would present? My hand injury cost $25-30k, small amount of that out of pocket, insurance the rest. I purchased a Sawstop PCS for my home shop thereafter and sold the worksite saw. My incident was related to a crosscut sled, standard safety implements wouldn’t matter, only flesh detection would be preventative for my case.
Bill
I am also missing part of a finger and 100s or 1000s of dollars would be cheap insurance against a permanent life altering injury to my money makers. I’m sure anyone who’s had a permanent hand injury would gladly pay 10,000s of dollars or more to undo their injury. If the tool prevented missing one paycheck then it’s more than payed for itself. As noted above it costs quite a bit to repair what’s left behind. This tech keeps our hands safe while not changing the way the tool works (for the most part); it’s a stupid easy decision. It makes economic sense any way you slice it (preferably not a hand with a table saw).
s
my first thought as well– sure, they have reported injuries, but how many more were either un-reported, or under-reported?
i personally know of at least 2 wood workers that cut off fingers, and when they finally went to the ER, they only listed it as a “work shop injury” they never specified beyond that.
but other than ER visits, it’s not like there’s an extremely easy or accessible form anywhere that we’re all jumping to report our mistakes.
Nate
Interesting point. A hypothesis: Cabinet style saws in professional cabinet shops could have a higher reporting rate, as there are workplace safety requirements, workman’s comp, etc that need completed.
Robert
Regarding the table saw injury statistics. It would interesting to see the data filtered for table saws with AIM. Sawstop’s TS are pretty common in schools and community hobby shops, so the data is sort of there, but not readily shared with out subpoenas. That is, injuries reported to insurance. Run time might be recorded, or a squishy estimate. Sure, it would be a data set full of caveats, but I suspect orders of magnitude difference, so it would still be relevant.
Mike Fliss
Fwiw, speaking just to the injury ranking, I can weigh in with a fairly expert opinion here. I have a PhD in public health epidemiology, with a focus that includes injuries – overdose, motor vehicle crash, violence, etc. It’s very common to consider Both (a) proportion of injuries by type or cause and (b) an injury rate based on a denominator that captures exposure. For a relevant example, consider car crashes. Personal cars make up a ton of crashes, say compared to motorcycles. However, relative to vehicle miles traveled (vmt), motorcycles are many dozens of times more dangerous. You can think of that almost as a per trip danger measure. Other denominators might be drivers, or commuting population, etc. So the consideration of “on time” rates is pretty normal for injury epidemiology… But it’s not at all the only metric that matters for decision making.
Really appreciate your coverage here. I expect to buy a cabinet in the next few years and having more options than saw stop seems like a good thing to me!
s
“I asked the PTI’s communications rep if they could provide examples of small manufacturers that may go out of business.
They would not, citing “strict anti-trust guidelines.””
PTI’s evasive approach to creating Shock-N-Awe statements, and then refusing to back them up when pressed for more information, brings me to the same conclusion you and the commissioner have already reached.
they had a similar statement when the commissioners pressed the groups representative for more information on parts of their statement. it leaves a bitter taste for which there is little explanation.
every statement they make seems to leave us all with even more questions than answers, with them only stating it’s “proprietary information” when asked any further.
the groups purpose doesn’t seem to be a collaboration for the benefit of each member, or the public at large, but a exists only as combined effort to refute change in any way, shape, or form. which is a far more dangerous road to lead anyone down.
honestly, the politics at play behind this ruling are far more sad/interesting than the ruling itself. there’s really no other reason it should’ve gone on this long other than poor politics.
however, what i’ve found most interesting in all of the comments so far is that the commenters within this site aren’t passionately defending either direction of the ruling. i think we all see the benefits of such a system, there’s a fear of prices going up, but no one is formally opposed, or hard-core supportive, to any and all implementations of an improved safety system.
while i understand the commenters here are a relatively small sample size, i think it gives good indication that while PTI is formally opposed to such regulation, the vast majority of the public is indifferent to the regulation.
Roberto
The lack of passionate defense of either position may be due to Sawstop Debate fatigue. Even though this CPSC saga is a new twist on Sawstop, some readers may feel everything that needs to be said has been said. Even Stuart is interjecting less than normal. Still, while it may not be passionate, I thought the testimony of the injured readers was compelling.
I was at a top notch lumber yard: besides an excellent collection of exotic wood, it has a tool selection to rival a Rockler or Woodcraft store. My point is the sales manager I was talking shop with was a very knowledgeable old hand. Our conversation got onto Sawstops, as they carry them. He said his wife was a nurse, and she says a hand injury costs you at least 10,000, more likely 20,000. Even with good insurance, the deductibles are thousands. So, economically, even when you multiply by whatever probability you care to assign to occurrence, the incremental cost of AIM is not bad, especially if you mentally amortize it over the life of the CPSC AIM brand table saw.
Peter Sorger
Applauding the excellent coverage of this topic. As a teacher and manager of a lab (not a shop!) I have come to appreciate the difference between what is safe or acceptable for me and what is acceptable for my employees. I have become much more safety conscious and accepting of OSHA standards when I consider the devastating injuries that occur to others I am responsible for when safety is not put first.
Across the street from me I was watching a crew freehand rip siding on a table saw (no fence). I asked why engage such a hazardous practice and they said their boss would not buy a new saw with a working fence!. And that in a nutshell is why OSHA exists and CPSC is pushing the AIM standard. It is not to nanny hobbyists or the highly trained individuals on this forum, but to steadily improve safety for the many people who are not given adequate tools by their employers. Slightly more expensive saws that keep 30,000+ fingers attached per year seems like a pretty good cost-benefit ratio (and of course I realize the contractor across the street might still send his workers into the field with no AIM and no fence).
Bob
Thanks, another great article.
I wonder how much money the companies are paying PTI to slow down AIM requirements, and how this would compare with the R&D cost of designing their own version of AIM.
Now that this information is available, it seems inevitable that some lawyers are going to file a class action suite against these companies. When they do discovery, they will find how much they spent to delay these regulations vs. the pain and suffering of users injured. It won’t be pretty.
Al
I think the CPSC getting into the frey should stimulate development so that there are only a few ttpes of interchangeable cartridges. Instead of finding ways to say ‘no’, why not embrace the opportunity?
Argue for development time.
Walt Bordett
Thanks Tool Guy’d for this post. Thanks to all the posters for their civil and useful posts. The comments contain as many gems as the articles here. That is why I monitor it.
Hon Cho
Perhaps this won’t be seen but since Stuart’s April 3, 2024 post “The Media Sees Politics in CPSC’s Proposed Table Saw Safety Rules” doesn’t have comments enabled, I figured I’d post this on an earlier post about CPSC rulemaking around tablesaws.
Stuart’s site, his rules and his opinion that he’s viewed the CPSC rulemaking process on requiring AIM technology as not particularly political. Fine, but when you have political appointees and a history of side-taking by the various political “flavors” we have in the USA, it is an inherently political process. It is naive to think otherwise. Regulatory rule-making is politics played with special interests and money.
I don’t know if not enabling comments was an attempt to prevent the comments from devolving into political finger-pointing or just an oversight. If it was the former, I’d appreciate it if Stuart would be forthcoming in why he chose to disable comments. Further, while there is clearly some interest in the ToolGuyd audience about the CPSC rules surrounding power tools, it may be best to just report on the details of the proposed rules and the outcomes while sidestepping the political aspects to prevent divisive arguments amongst the commentariat.
Stuart
While that appears to be true, have we seen political side-taking in *this matter* so far, over the past 12 YEARS of table saw rulemaking hearings, communications, and efforts?
This is the first time I’ve seen even a hint of “well, they’re just gonna vote on party lines.”
In the SawStop posts, for every (1) comment you’ve seen by a regular reader/commentor, there have been at least 5-10 MORE comments in moderation, and they’re mostly rants about “government overreach” or political soapboxing.
I debated leaving comments open for that post, but I have zero interest in dealing with the bulk of the comments it would have invited. Bad actors have been making deliberate attempts to troll and rile people up.
Regulars will have an opportunity to chime in – ether on related posts as you did here – or maybe a follow-up post that is unlikely to be easily discovered by bad actors.