The US Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) moved closer towards introducing a rule requiring table saw makers to limit the depth of a potentially injurious cut to no more than 3.5mm.
They “determined preliminarily that there may be an unreasonable risk of blade-contact injuries associated with table saws,” and are considering enacting a potential performance standard regarding how severe a cut can be in the event of an unintentional blade contact accident.
Basically, the CPSC has moved closer towards requiring SawStop-like active injury mitigation systems on all table saws.
Advertisement
Here are the latest updates:
September 2023: CPSC staff provided a briefing package to the Commission.
October 2023: The Commission voted to publish an SNPR (Supplementary Notice of Proposed Rulemaking) in the Federal Register.
November 2023: CPSC published a proposed rule: Safety Standard Addressing Blade-Contact Injuries on Table Saws.
This document is an interesting read. It includes a background on the proposed rulemaking, as well as responses to 23 distinct comments and concerns expressed by the public and rulemaking opponents.
January 2024: CPSC granted an extension of the comment period.
Advertisement
February 2024: The comment period will close on February 1st, 2024.
The supporting documents include comments and letters from various tool brands, some of which are particularly insightful.
A November 2023 response from Bosch says:
Bosch Power Tools and TTS reached an amicable solution on Aug. 8, 2018, that allows Bosch Power Tools to sell REAXX jobsite table saws in the United States.
From a November 2023 letter from SawStop’s parent company:
SawStop Holding LLC and/or SawStop, LLC have licensed intellectual property to Precision Products Company, Safety Chop, Inc., Griggio S.p.A., TTS Tooltechnic Systems AG & Co. KG, and to Robert Bosch GmbH and Robert Bosch Tool Corporation.
If Bosch and SawStop’s parent company “reached an amicable solution,” more than 5 years ago, and Bosch licensed SawStop IP, why hasn’t Bosch reintroduced the REAXX table saw?
Here’s one more excerpt from SawStop:
To the best of my understanding, all patents owned by SawStop Holding LLC which might have been considered by some to be essential to the proposed standard have expired except for U.S. Patent 9,724,840. SawStop Holding LLC is evaluating whether to commit either to making that patent freely available to competitors for use in the United States or to licensing that patent on FRAND [fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory] terms if the Commission enacts as a rule the safety standard presented in the current SNPR.
From a 2019 comment from SawStop inventor Stephen Gass:
It is worth noting that one of the industry’s most vociferous arguments against implementation of an AIM-based standard – that I, as the inventor, stood to benefit substantially from consumer protective regulations – is now a moot point; I have divested myself of all ownership in SawStop and the patents on which the company was built; the technology is no longer mine to control or benefit from. Yet here I am, still promoting the safety of table saws, because MBG [modular blade guard] -equipped saws have failed to protect users from the unnecessary and unmitigated torrent of injuries on table saws.
I didn’t know that.
Lastly, the CPSC published the minutes from their October 2023 meeting and vote.
The Commission voted 3-1 in favor of approving the draft SNPR and to publish it in the Federal Register.
The sole dissenter provided a statement titled “Proposed Standard for Table Saws Would Create Harmful Monopoly, Not Ready for Publication.”
One of the Commissioners in favor of the proposed rule provided a statement titled “Historic Table Saw Rule Could Provide Greatest Net Benefits of Any Rule in CPSC History: $2.32 Billion Every Year.”
Here are some excerpts:
But today, we advanced a rule to save those fingers. To stop those amputations. Technology exists that could prevent table saws from cutting more than 3.5 millimeters into skin. That turns an ER trip to a trip to the medicine cabinet for a band aid. And our rule would require that level of safety. In doing so, the rule would provide the greatest net benefit to society of any rule in the agency’s history that I’m aware of—up to a $2.32 billion net benefit every year.
Why isn’t this safety technology ubiquitous? The answer might be as simple as money. Saw sellers appear to be scared that if they start selling safer saws, they will open themselves up to product liability lawsuits when injuries occur in great numbers on their other saws. So, we’re in danger…to protect their bottom line. I don’t appreciate that.
The longest effective date we are allowed to select by law is six months. To depart from that requires good cause. Here, staff seeks to depart all the way up to three years…and I don’t currently see any good cause to do so.
It’s also my understanding that many table saw manufacturers might currently have the rights to compliant safety features and are choosing not to incorporate them. It’s my understanding that the industry group, the Power Tool Institute undertook a joint venture among its members, including Hitachi, Bosch, Stanley Black and Decker, and Techtronic Industries and appear to have created viable saw safety features which may be usable by all of its members.
I wish this agency had done 20 years ago what we are doing today. A million people would have stayed out of the ER. 65,000 people would still have their fingers. And at least one friend of mine would still have his.
Today, we did good. And in the coming months…let’s decide to do good faster.
Once the comment window closes on February 1st, it might be a while until the next actions are taken.
Everything I read so far suggests that the major obstacles have been reduced to speed bumps, and that the CPSC is headed to a final ruling.
Whether you are for or against the proposed rules, this might be your last opportunity to chime in.
Documents
Index for Rule 3041-AC31 (Actions, Dates, Supporting Documents)
CPSC Docket No. 2011-0074 (Regulations.gov)
Commission Meeting Minutes and Vote Statements (October 2023)
Safety Standard Addressing Blade-Contact Injuries on Table Saws – A Proposed Rule by the Consumer Product Safety Commission on 11/01/2023
Notice of Extension of Comment Period (December 2023) – check that page for details on where to submit a formal comment.
Supported Documentation (Letters and Statements)
Read Also: Table Saws Might Still Require SawStop-Like Safety Tech (September 2023 Recap)
Nathan
Not surprised. Was waiting on a step where the blade guard cannot be removed or up when the saw was on. But. I could be convinced either way
Shop saws o think need this or sliding tables
Jobsite might as well go away
Pete
Scm already has one on sliding sawe
IronWood
Quick paraphrase of Stephen Gass: I spent the life of the patents suing competitors and making millions. But now that they’re expiring I’m a really good guy that just wants to help.
If it weren’t for Gass’s lawyers Bosch and others would have had safety equipped saws on the US market for years already.
MC703
Why shouldn’t the patent holder protect his IP?
These are big multinationals with billions in revenue every year. You should be critical of them for not ponying up to license the technology. It’s not the inventor’s duty to give it up so Bosch can cash in on his invention.
IronWood
You make valid points, and it’s not an easy balance. My issue is with them now playing the I just want everyone to be safe card. Once again Volvo’s seatbelt comes to mind. The threat of lawsuits for every remotely similar tech kept others from pursuing it. I’m thinking more about the industrial/commercial cabinet saw market, not just some $500 Bosch or DeWalt jobsite saw. I think saws can and should be safer, but I don’t like the strong arm regulatory tactics.
Patrick Holt
Here is the problem. We are guys. We dont want to appear frightened or slow so we remove safeties to do our job faster thus be more of a man than the other guy.
Guards are necessary but have been poorly engineered making it difficult to work. Feds should have manditory functional standards for ALL TOOLS. Tablesaw, circular saw, radial arm and miter saws all use a blade that bites and pulls material to it thus getting away once it gets a piece of you is difficult. Many people, even most have used such without ever injuring themselves. Most people never have 30mph crashes in their cars. But, that does not mean the manufacturers should be free to build cars without built in protection.
Circular blades have a tooth design that bites and pulls instead of cutting. That is the chief problem.
David Z
“We are guys. We dont want to appear frightened or slow”
Seriously? You think about how you appear when approaching a cut?
Please don’t say “We are guys.” You are some subset of guys, but certainly not representative of all.
Stuart, sorry for the tone.
eddie sky
The point of a patent is to… well… license it. Instead, Gass got greedy and pushed for “the most expensive domestic tablesaw for the consumer”.
Imagine ALL saws having a disposable braking mechanism. And no one ever losing a finger or worse, at those table saws. Plus the sales of the cartridges alone…even if they made $1 profit..
Profit over People.
Shame on the Youtubers that get them free. Its not like their ad revenue can’t afford one. I love the ones that cover up the logos and upfront, “I paid for this, I am not their sponsor”.
Notice Power Tools Institute lobbies the CPSC and its members…
https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/agencies/summary?cycle=2022&id=046
“Its not in the name of safety! Its in the name of profits!”
(PS. I would pay $2500 for a Sawstop 3HP but not $3500. If Grizzly or ShopFox had the tech, I bet a $2500 3HP saw would be a winner)
Stuart
$3582 plus $325 shipping plus tax.
Charlie
So your fingers aren’t worth $3500, the trip to an ER! A hell of alot more, and maybe no finger now! I’m 74 now and bought a Sawstop for about $7,000 with a base and shipping, 5hp 52”, when I’m gone I can rest easy as my son will use it!
Kenneth Homer
I own a sawstop. I could only afford the compact one that costs $900. If they didn’t make that one I was saving up for the $1500 job site saw. Either way this safety feature is worth every penny. Fingers are worth more than money. Some people argue that table saws are safe enough already and then one day changes their lives forever and they can no longer play catch with their kids.
Joe A
My fingers are certainly worth $3500. However, I don’t usually fire up my table saw with the intent of trying to cut a finger off.
The possible chance of or the taking the calculated risk of possibly losing a finger due to my own careless or mistake is not worth $3500.
Andy Harner
I agree with you. I have a new 2 hp variable speed job site ts. I do like the variable speed lot. But give me a finger or hand saver first.@!!!!
Jonathan Moore
He did more than protect his IP. His patent was overbroad and allowed him to threaten to sue companies with distinctly different implementations for stopping saw blades (without destroying them like SawStop does, incidentally). This led to products like REAXX being withdrawn from the US market despite being (in my opinion) better technologies. He has damaged the table saw development ecosystem and made millions in the process. Licensing the patents now that there’s almost no money left to be made is a moot gesture, and he’s forever sullied his and SawStop’s name for me.
Troy H.
It wouldn’t be the first time that the patent system was misappropriated to stifle innovation rather than encourage it, which is supposedly the purpose.
Overbroad patents are a problem in many industries. You shouldn’t be able to patent the concept of a table saw that attempts to prevent injury by sensing something touching the blade. You should be able to patent a specific way of doing something like that.
Initiating liability lawsuits against other table saw manufacturers and campaigning to make the government force competitors to license his patents. If he is so passionate about safety, he can license the BS high level conceptual patents for a negligible amount of money so that other companies can come up with their own competing concepts. Gass was obviously extremely self interested throughout the entire process. He wasn’t primarily interested in safety. He was interested in making money. The fact that he acts pious after expiration doesn’t change history.
Tom
Saw stop is a great invention. Too bad no one else thought enough about safety and came up with this patent. They thought it easier to steal the best safety device ever invented, I own this saw. And sold it for years. I sold a yellow saw to a young gentleman a the nex week he came to see me right out of the hospital. He had lost his fingers. Now he’s out of commission. These saw should pay the piper if that’s what needed
BigTimeTommy
Gass was doing more than “protecting his patent” and now he’s pretending like he was the good guy who just wanted to save everyone’s fingers. Guy is scum.
actionjksn
Sometimes these patent holders don’t want to provide a license, and often when they do they don’t want to license it for a reasonable price. They tend to get greedy with licensing fees which makes it prohibitively expensive.
Kurt
The problem is that the Bosch appeared to be the superior product, as it didn’t damage the blade or require a new cartridge each time it was triggered.
IP is one thing; stifling innovation is another.
Michael F
Are you suggesting he’s Gass lighting us?!
Chris Ficken
Michael F, well done.
MichaelT
Oh for want of a like button…
Marty
I hate to bring it up, but neither Sawstop nor any other saw manufacturer are charities. Without profit there are no saws at all and everyone is reduced to either gnawing on wood or learning how to train termites..
Peter
I have a kickerstarter going for my precision trained wood gnawing termites.
Mike Sigler
I was happy to see your comment. Unlike most of the people commenting on this website, I was self employed for most of my working career and have several patents. People have no idea of the risks involved in starting a business from only an idea. You have to put up everything you own as collateral for a business loan to develop your product. That includes your house. If the business fails, you and your family might not have any place to live. You frequently don’t even draw a pay check for a couple of years. You still have a family to feed as do the one or two people working for you, if you’re lucky enough to have any. The list could go on and on but there isn’t any reason to continue. I was one of the few lucky ones. Most businesses fail within the first five years. I obtained several patents and lived a fairly successful life but it wasn’t easy and nobody was handing me money. He should make a FAIR profit off of his work. If you disagree, why didn’t you quit your job and design the saw stop technology before he did. The most difficult part in all of this is defining the word FAIR remembering he probably worked 18-20 per day, 7 days per week, for many months or even years without a paycheck all with the hopes that he would one day be successful. Believe me when I say it wasn’t easy on him or his family.
Jared
I assume we all hope this won’t just make tablesaws many times more expensive. They are dangerous tools though – it seems obvious that the availability of meaningful injury-prevention tech would eventually be mandated if it didn’t come to market organically.
Michael F
My first thought, for better or worse, is that this legal uncertainty might be part of the reason Makita has not released a cordless table saw.
David Z
How is the risk greater with cordless? Asking sincerely, not challenging you.
James
I think what he’s saying is they’re waiting to launch a product that meets new regulatory standards and takes advantage of expiring IP.
Harrison
I used to consider this tech unnecessary until I spent time in commercial and institutional wood shop settings.
From a business perspective, any step you can take to eliminate risk is worth it- Especially something as easy as spending a few extra thousand dollars to completely eliminate a common injury once and for all. Thats an absolute no brainer at an institutional level. Yes, other tools in the shop are still dangerous. Yes, table saw users need to treat the machine with respect regardless.
In my experience, most people are plenty respectful of table saws- They are, after all, loud machines with an exposed spinning blade in front of your face. You can feel their power on start up, and when a piece of wood contacts the blade. The real issue is complacency, inattention and distractions. It’s better to assume (when dealing with an organization of people) that these mistakes WILL happen and plan accordingly.
At this point, I am in support of regulations mandating the safety features. The tech has progressed to the point it only costs a few hundred extra dollars. Up here in Canada a compact 10” SawStop is $1200. An equivalent Dewalt, Skil, Bosch, etc is $700-$800 easily.
For those who can’t or won’t swing it, we’re talking new products here. The used market is absolutely flooded with table saws- we really don’t need any more as a society.
You’ll be able to buy yourself $50 jobsite saws off Marketplace until the day you die. On the other hand, track saws have never been more attainable.
John
“the tech has progressed to the point it only costs a few hundred extra dollars.”
Maybe that’s the cost to physically add it to a saw, but that ignores how much Sawstop will charge to license it. And they can charge whatever they want. The notion that they will make the patent free is a fantasy only an idiot would believe. You want to test their dedication to safety, make it a requirement that their patent be made free as part of this regulation, and see how quickly they will be dead-set against it!
Also, you’re logic about comparing the Sawstop price to others is flawed in a couple of ways. First, you are trying to make it sound like a 50%+ cost increase is not big deal, which I’m here to tell you is a really big deal! Second, you are ignoring the fact that you can get a DeWalt jobsite saw for $200, but immediately after this regulation takes effect that CHEAPEST saw you will be able to buy is the $900 sawstop jobsite saw. That’s a 450% cost increase!!
Drew
Sawstop’s last relevant patent expires is March of 2026 anyways, so by the time these rules actually get implemented they’d have just over a year of licensing revenue.
Mark W. Ingalls
Dear Stuart,
I have been wanting to thank you for your work for some time, and this article seemed like a great opportunity.
If there was a way to upvote or amplify the articles I so look forward to reading, I would like to learn how.
MWI
Stuart
Thank you – I appreciate it!
The commenting system unfortunately doesn’t offer upvoting or similar rating capabilities. It’s difficult to do that without logged-in user accounts, something I’m not keen to do.
Rafe
It’s easy to make a table saw safe, it’s also easy to make it really unsafe! It’s unfortunately just one of those tools that is easier to use without it’s safety features. I can see a mandatory safety feature in the future.
I assume this will only apply to jobsites and jobsite type saws saws. Can’t imagine Altendorf or SCMI integrating a blade contact safety feature into their saws, for example.
Stuart
Why not? Felder did – https://www.felder-group.com/en-us/pcs .
Rafe
Did not know that, learned something today, thanks!
David
Altendorf already did with different implementation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbZ1LnPcLOM
Rafe
Very interesting did not know that! Thanks
mikedt
It’s a good thing. Just like mandated ABS is a good thing. I know everyone says I don’t need X because I know what I’m doing, but all it takes is one f-up and your deductible will make X seem cheap. If you don’t want “saw stop” functionality I’m sure there will be plenty of used table saws on the market to satisfy you for the rest of your life.
And with this technology being mandated the price per unit will drop dramatically.
Stephen
“Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face” – Mike Tyson
Using the ABS analogy, I tell people like that to inform their insurance company that they’ve removed the ABS fuse along with XYZ safety feature(s) they “don’t need”. Then see what their rates become…if their coverage isn’t instantly cancelled.
Travis Honaker
I find it rather confusing that you have no problem with the scenario you brought up. When auto insurance is required by law, how can they also determine not to cover someone? You think that’s perfectly ok, obviously. What a strange country you live in that professes “FREEDOM” and literally takes your very freedoms away daily while you encourage it.
MM
It’s typical for cars that are “more dangerous” in some way to cost more to insure. It’s built into the actuarial tables they use of course–those cars which are more dangerous for whatever reason have higher accident rates, and therefore higher insurance costs. But it also applies to specific modifications. If you modify your car in an unsafe manner then car companies have a legal reason to deny coverage. I personally don’t have a problem with that because it’s essentially fraud. Let’s say I own a bone-stock Camaro. The insurance company has good data on how safe (or not) that car is. When buy insurance we are entering into a contract regarding what that insurance is for. But if I’ve disabled ABS and traction control, put on non-DOT drag tires, and I’ve installed a 300HP shot of Nitrous I am no longer driving a normal. The statistical data the rate calculations are based on no longer applies. I would by lying to my insurance company if the paperwork said I had a normal car but in reality I was driving around with a bunch of modifications. Thus, there are specialty insurers who cover things like modified cars, antique or home-made cars which may not have modern safety equipment, and so on. It costs more than insuring a standard car, just the same as rates for a teenager in a Corvette costs more than a 50-year-old driving a Camry. It doesn’t get much more fair than the cost matching the risk.
Bob
Good factual article, thanks for the update on this topic.
I own at SawStop PCS, so I was OK with the extra cost to protect my fingers. This was the third table saw I have owned.
I suspect if this becomes a requirement, that the cost differential will go down significantly due to the patents expiring and volume production.
Jbongo
As someone who purchased a SawStop because of the safety feature, this was really interesting to read. Thanks for providing a well written article about it Stuart. I guess the next thing I can hope for is that the brake prices come down a little…
Champs
It seems like manufacturers would expose themselves to MORE liability when they wait to implement safety technology.
There are other places to discuss the merits, but I will point out that if we live under a system where life saving drugs are patented and sold at considerable expense, it will be very difficult to stick anything on SawStop for the non-FRAND patent encumbrances.
William
I wonder if we’ll look at this whole thing in the future like a seat belt or perhaps a radial arm saw. There’s still people who don’t wear a seatbelt despite the proven benefits. The transition was a little tough and awkward but now it’s common place. Radial arm saws are widely considered to be more dangerous than table saws and as such are not nearly as ubiquitous as they once were.
Felder makes an AIM equipped saw but like the documentation notes, it’s only on their most expensive model. I wonder, if it’s only required that companies have A saw with AIMs vs ALL saws with AIMs, if we’ll only see AIMs tech on the ultra premium saws.
I don’t like the government telling me what I have to buy on principle. But overall, once we get through the first decade, this will likely be a net positive.
None of the arguments against the ruling prefer a more dangerous saw. We’re all just concerned about the by-products of the ruling. I think everyone would want a safer saw though.
James Donald Blanchard
I have a Saw Stop. All the cabinet shops that I have been inside of have saw stops and management has said insurance gives a huge break for having the safety Saws. I however hate the idea of regulations. The market can will and does work out with the consumers. Government mandates tend to hurt the consumer and the corporations. Fair market allows for the consumer to be involved in the pricing via supply and demand.
Ron K
Just an opinion. What good government does is not grant over broad Patents, and works to minimize the impact of greed. It often fails, but the market is rarely completely “fair.” If it was, Saw Stop wouldn’t have tried to get it’s technology made law and have a monopoly, or be able to threaten legal action against competing ideas. Like a blade that stops and must be replaced, vs. a blade that drops and has a replaceable drop cartridge. Legal battles are a time tested method of keeping the consumer’s options limited and it was Saw Stop, not the government, who used every legal action they could to try and get,and keep, a monopoly.
Peter
Sometimes it is okay for the Gov to step in imho.
Because one of its jobs is to protect its citizens.
Like to make cars safer, ban substances that do more harm than good, etc.
But I also agree that it is often a fine line to do so.
Peter
I hope that means REAXX comes back.
Koko The Talking Ape
Any real economists out there, please correct my mistakes.
So in a true market, prices reflect supply and demand. If demand is high, that tends to drive prices up, but competition tends to keep prices low. All well and good.
But when we (collectively, through laws and policies) give something like patent protection to some design or process or something, we’re giving the holder a monopoly on that thing. The holder can restrict supply, prevent competition, and cause higher prices. *Artificially* higher, because without the legal protection of IP, competitors would copy the tech and offer it at lower prices.
In the case of some items, the results aren’t so good. For instance, if Volvo had patented and licensed out seatbelts, then many fewer cars would have them, fewer people would buy those cars (because the price would be artificially high) and many more deaths would occur. Volvo would have every right to do so, and customers would have the right to choose whether they want seatbelts. But there would be many more deaths. And it isn’t Volvo’s job to prevent deaths. Their job is to sell cars.
So that’s where a government agency like the CPSC can step in. It can undo some of the artificial restriction on safety technology for instance, so everybody is safer, for cheaper. Active Injury Mitigation tech like SawStop would be cheap and ubiquitous, like seatbelts. Perhaps the IP holder can be compensated somewhat, so they make money for their invention, but don’t make a killing (as it were.)
However, it seems the CPSC isn’t just looking out for the public. If they were, they’d have mandated something like SawStop in every saw decades ago. But they’re also looking out for IP holders and manufacturers. So they’re mandating the technology now, finally, after Stephen Gass’ rights expire. Oh well.
I’m all for intellectual property rights (I’m kind of a creator myself) but in some rare cases, it’s better for the entire world if some creations aren’t given strict IP protection. If I write a novel, I deserve the paltry sum that novel might earn. But if I come up with some kind of life- or injury-saving tech, then maybe I don’t deserve many millions of dollars for it, and maybe it should be cheap and accessible. But the market won’t make that happen without a second intervention (the first being the granting of monopoly rights to the invention.)
actionjksn
This is really cool technology but I do not want to have to buy a saw that cuts like a $300-$400 saw for $1,000+. Was Saw Stop ever willing to license the technology to everyone else for a reasonable price?
Stanley B&D, TTI, Bosch Festool and all the other big ones combined sell a huge number of saws. If all of them just paid a couple bucks per saw in royalties then Saw Stop would make a lot of money.
Instead of going that route it looks like they chose a Monopoly on the tech. I think all the pro grade tool makers would have incorporated this tech if they could have gotten it for a fair price. I’m not willing to pay $1,000 or more for a basic job site saw. I’m sure DeWalt and Milwaukee know this is the case with most carpenters.
Tool Junkie
The parent company of Festool bought out Sawstop several years ago. Yet, they have not chosen to come out with a Festool AIM saw…
Grobinski
Gass offered the tech to all the big machine manufacturers for a couple years early on. Their lobbying organization the “Power Tool Institute” worked hard to prevent SawStop equipped tools from coming to the market. The industry colluded to stop him, but his persistence and his design of the best cabinet saw of it’s time (the first ICS) overcame all efforts to stop him. https://www.inc.com/magazine/20050701/disruptor-gass.html
Stuart
Gass and SawStop did lobbying of their own. From CPSC background report:
With all of the patents, such a requirement would have provided huge licensing fees for SawStop.
James Donald Blanchard
I agree. The jobsite saw- saw stop makes is an inferior saw. I have one. My Dewalt big box store model has a deeper table and a sturdy fence. I will be happy to have a better saw. I ALSO activated the brake and drew blood, I am glad for the safety. But it is possible that a better saw could be out there.
blocky
This is why I ultimately purchased the Dewalt 7491 over the Sawstop. I estimated, for myself, that having a larger, more stable saw would mean better prevention of not only cut injuries, but kickback and binding related injuries.
My coworker who lost a digit, about 15 years into shop-work, did so trying to stabilize a workpiece that was lifting off the table. It was a blink reaction.
I think for experienced users, most table saw accidents happen in this way – a misjudged response to an unexpected situation.
If I were sharing the saw with others, I would have gone with the sawstop anyway.
OldDominionDIYer
Beware of an agency that seeks to protect you from yourself. Making the technology available is one thing, making it mandatory is a whole other issue for me. I’m not against the technology nor its benefits, I’m against mandates because they never seem to promulgate quite as intended. Having it available is great but forcing every single new table saw to employ this technology is over-reach and not welcome.
Koko The Talking Ape
Well, the seatbelt mandate seemed to roll out okay. What mandates didn’t work so well?
Matt
Sawstop parent company Festool recently released a new table saw for US market that doesnt even use the sawstop technology that they own.
David Z
Technically, TTS Tooltechnic Systems Holding AG (Germany) owns both Festool and SawStop, I believe.
So just as you don’t expect DeWalt and Black & Decker (both SBD brands) to have the same tech, neither may Festool and SawStop.
Since the new saw is a limited capability (1 7/8″ cut depth), 6.6″ blade, battery powered portable, I can see it not being the right vehicle for introducing the tech.
Saulac
This is a bit backward, but I still can not believe that a mechanical blade guard is not possible. The guard on miter saw work so well. Most table saws already have the riving knife. Would it possible to make a knife such that it retract or extend ?
Bob
Where would you attach it? If behind the blade, it can not be wider than the blade’s kerf otherwise it will obstruct what you’re cutting and create another safety issue. At that width, it’s not very protective either. If attached elsewhere on the table, it will restrict the size of objects you can cut. That leaves an externally mounted arm which is easy to not use.
Blade guards (attached to the riving knife – not auto retracting as suggested) get in the way when using dado stacks, crosscut sleds, other jigs and when doing thin cuts with the fence near the blade. The other problem with a blade guard is that it makes measuring the precise distance from fence to saw tooth cumbersome.
The hovering blade guards on extended arms solve a lot of the issues that riving attached guards have. They also have the benefit of dust extraction. When I eventually upgrade to a cabinet saw, that is something on my list. On a job site or contractor saw, blade guards are unfortunately more nuisance than they’re worth (at least until hindsight of losing a finger).
Robert Smith
Great article Stuart!
My primary question is one that was raised way back with all of this SawStop mess started.
Safety features, mandated or not, can be turned off. In the case of SawStop, “In case you have to cut wet wood”.
I grew up on the job site with my Dad, who was a Finish Carpenter. More often than not, job site table saws were on the floor, without blade guards, riving knives, or even fences. Guys would run tile or flooring through it at lightning speed.
OSHA inspectors exist for a reason. Safety 3rd… at best.
So do these guys plan to change every SawStop table saw so the safety feature can’t be turned off anymore? Will we all be forced to cut wet wood with a hand saw? What tool do we use when our work won’t fit under a non-removable blade guard?
And have these guys ever seen a circular saw before? It’s a freak’n table saw you can whip around with one hand. Are you insane? Who allowed that?Lathes have to go entirely. Routers will need to be limited to CNC machines so you can get to the other side of the room first.
This is dangerous work. There are risks. We’re violently obliterating wood, to force it into the shape we need for shelter and comfort. How soon until we just put woodworking behind us, and only allow robots to do it?
Stuart
Thank you!!
I think the biggest question is about what a final rule will mean for consumers’ wallets, because that could potentially drive DIYers and some pros towards dangerous improvisations with other types of tools.
David Z
Doesn’t the SawStop deactivation have to be turned on every time you turn the saw on? Of course, you could just always leave the saw running..
bg100
Haha, good thing they’re quiet!
Shanman
If that’s the case I’m glad I just bought my bosch cordless saw. The first thing I did was throw the blade guard and the kick back crap in the garbage. I have great respect for a table saw. I own three none of them have safety stuff on them and knock on a good piece of hardwood I still got all my fingers after 40 years of using them. In an industrial, commercial and home setting.
Stuart
Removing the guard, or in your case throwing it in the trash, greatly increases the chances of a life-changing blade contact injury. These types of injuries, especially to users who have done the same as you, are what the CSPC is looking to prevent.
That’s not a judgement or opinion.
bg100
Thank you for saying it Stuart. Those blade guards aren’t perfect but they DO serve a purpose. I’ve removed mine to make odd cuts, and I usually prefer to have it on. I’ve shaved angles on sub-par guards so they engage more smoothly. You don’t have to pitch them, you can fix them.
Peter
Thank you.
Alexk
I would like a table saw. Got a track saw and with some accessories, can make accurate, repeatable cuts, but it is slow. Today, Stuart posted HD sales and the Ryobi 18v table saw is $199. I’d really like to get a better made one and was thinking Dewalt or Milwaukee cordless. Now I’m at around $500. For cordless.
How does someone like me, who doesn’t make my living with it, afford a Sawstop? And if the wood is a little wet? $75 brake plus a new blade? How often does it trip without skin contact?
Because it’s mostly a hobby, not a job, I work slowly, carefully and not when I’m tired. I don’t remove the blade guard and use a push stick.
If I had the resources, a Felder with sliding table. Less resources? A Sawstop. Current resources? Come spring time, a red or yellow cordless.
I would like a well made, affordable and safe saw. Don’t like the gov’t telling me what to do, but if something is smarter and safer, why not? As the sign at my old job said, “work smart and safe”.
What tool gets my most care and concentration? A Jointer.
Tool Junkie
Sawstop has a table saw equivalent to a Milwaukee,/DeWalt for under $1k.
Arguments aside, how much would an ER visit set you back? More than $500. My buddy had a $200 Ryobi table saw. The dog barked, so he turned the saw off, then turned to look. His ER visit was over $5k & they could not reattach his index finger.
Potato
Wait he turned the saw off and then lost his finger?
Bob
No blade brake. It takes several seconds to stop spinning and is still very much dangerous.
Jared P
I’m also a DIY hobbyist and couldn’t afford the Sawstop. But once a small piece of my finger went to heaven on my old craftsman jobsite saw, I discovered my budget was magically more flexible than I previously thought! Even putting safety features aside, it’s the best and most fun tool in my shop. 10 years later, I haven’t had a single brake activation, but my cuts are cleaner, more accurate and, of course, safer.
To be fair, a $5 zero clearance insert would have prevented my accident. But it was a strong reminder that I’m an idiot. Every single day, I learn a little more intimately just how much of an idiot I am. My uncle used to say, “If you’re gonna be dumb, you gotta be tough.” I knew from experience I couldn’t fix the dumb part. Also couldn’t figure out how to make my fingers any tougher, so I ended up dropping some cash on the Sawstop in case there was an additional unexpected table saw safety lesson I hadn’t learned yet.
bg100
I like your honesty here. Sorry about your fingertip!
Genuine question here: Since it’s been 10 years with your new saw, and you’ve never activated the safety mechanism, wouldn’t that mean you don’t need the safety mechanism?
I’ll admit that the insurance and peace of mind it provides would add value for me, but 10 years accident free to me means that you learned the lesson, and didn’t need anyone to force you to buy the “safety saw.” Not trying to be a butt , but a genuine question.
Jared P
If I go the rest of the saw’s life without a brake activation, then that means I made a bad bet, yep. I certainly don’t regret moving from the awful jobsite saw to a cabinet saw and my accident just accelerated that and gave me a few more years without that jumpy, crooked, loud, whiny piece of crap. It lives at my cabin now and I despise using it more than ever. But if I’d known I’d never trigger the brake, I probably would have gotten a Grizzly, which is maybe 80% as good as the Saw Stop (ignoring the brake) for half the price.
As far as “learning my lesson” goes, I assume table saw safety is like everything else – there’s always something I don’t know I don’t know about it. As an idiot, I have to be careful to never ever believe I’ve learned all there is to know about something.
Switching topics, if I were in charge of enforcing table saw safety at the CPSC, I would have requirements on fence style and accuracy, riving knife alignment, and zero clearance inserts being included. Maybe also require inclusion of something like the grrripper. With those improvements I think table saw amputations would be easily cut in half (haha), for a much smaller disruption to the industry than a braking system. I’m not as anti-regulation as the other commenters here, but I admit that the fact that the CPSC hasn’t required these “easy” improvements makes me think they’re not as interested in saving fingers as they say they are.
Tool Junkie
bg100, that’s kind of like saying, “Since I’m such a great driver, I don’t need any airbags or seat belt.”
Aside for my saw being a quality product, accidents WILL happen. I gave up motorcycles, because even if I had been a professional motorbike racer, a little Ole lady of 85 that couldn’t see very well or react as quickly hit me. When you’re young, it can’t happen to you. But, when you get older, you realize, “Hey, I’ve tripped in the past. What would happen if I “tripped” (so to speak), while using my table saw?
blocky
I’ve done a good amount of fabrication with many people in several different environments. In my observation, about 2/3 of people who come in saying they are ‘good with a table saw’ do not have good trip-hazard awareness.
They may grasp fence mechanics and push sticks, but are blind about the surrounding workspace or have poor footwork.
Almost nothing scares me more than watching someone push a board through the end of a cut when their upper body is so clearly centered forward of their feet.
Oth
A circular saw is more dangerous than a table saw. On a table saw the blade is always in the same place you just have to manage not to put your meat there. I don’t see any regulations coming for circular saws… Safetyism… Pathetic. Just learn how to use your tools.
Stuart
There are numerous circular saw safety regulations.
e.g. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-29/subtitle-B/chapter-XVII/part-1926/subpart-I/section-1926.304
XoverManiac
Quote from SawStop inventor Stephen Gass
“Yet here I am, still promoting the safety of table saws, because MBG [modular blade guard] -equipped saws have failed to protect users from the unnecessary and unmitigated torrent of injuries on table saws.”
And how much of that is from people removing the MBG? Safety features don’t matter if they’re being tampered with by the operators. It would be interesting to see just how table saw injuries are from MBG failure.
blocky
MBG saws in general need improved on-and-off mechanisms. People wouldn’t use seat belts very much if doing so required reaching under the seat with a wrench or fumbling with registration to get the buckle to engage.
Gramps
The CPSC is the same organization that requires a marking on hairdryers sating they are not to be used in a bathtub. The moral of the story is “you can’t fix stupid”. There are powerful tools we use that require constant attention and even more respect.
Nate
I’m not a huge fan of how the patent process played out and Gass’ actions. However, I have to give SawStop some props.
When those SawStops were first developed, the Delta Unisaw and PowerMatics were the standard for pro-sumer shops and as small saws in an industrial shop. When they developed their own saw, SawStop built extremely high quality table saws that compete with those other saws feature for feature.
Where’s the Unisaw now? Delta is a shadow of its’ former self, a victim of its’ cost-cutting and outsourcing. PowerMatic offers a nice saw, but it’s generally the same price as the SawStop and is missing the (patented) safety features. Those companies had a shot at licensing his technology, and they didn’t take it, because they had the same perspective that people of accusing Gass of – they prioritized short-term profit first and foremost.
David Arganbright
I like the idea of a saw stop, the only thing is the 100.00 bill to replace the cartridge when it is activated. Don’t waste time asking me if my finger is worth 100.00. We have a community shop which has had to replace three so far. No fingers involved, just wood with a moisture content enough to set it off.
Peter
You might want to invest into a moisture meter because Saw Stop has the function to override the safety function if you cut wet wood etc..
Jason
It would be great if Sawstop does in fact open up the patent for others to use freely. However, a blade brake is not an excuse to learn the proper way to operate a table saw. That being said, I am glad that my son’s shop class has Sawstop for kids who are new to the woodworking hobby.
bg100
Agreed. Great for kids, because kids will be kids. You cannot ask a kid to have the same attention to detail and constant caution an adult would have.
bg100
I strongly disagree with the notion that all table saws are just waiting to rip off fingers and mangle hands. The CPSC is saying that it’s a saw’s fault that people lose fingers. It’s not. Every single finger loss is due to operator error. Just like chainsaws, just like circular saws. When you bash your finger with a hammer, its because you missed; it’s not the hammer’s fault.
I don’t mind the option of adding a safety mechanism to my saws, but think of the implications now. Every employer will be required to toss their existing saws and buy shiny new saws, or be nailed by OSHA & dropped by their insurance. Workers now have a reason to say no to labor that has been conducted safely for a hundred years. This concerns me as a business owner. I own a few great older saws. I am careful when I make cuts. I have all 10 digits. My buddy almost lost 4 fingers a few years ago, and he admits it was his fault for reaching over a running blade. None of my workers have ever had an accident on the table saw (or any of my saws for that matter), because I care that they are trained and safe.
I love that the patent expired and we will have more options in the near future. I do not want to be handcuffed and forced into compliance.
Stuart
Portable table saws purchased today have different safety features compared to the ones sold 5 years ago.
The DW745 had a 10″ blade.
The DWE7485 has a 8-1/4″ blade to accommodate updated guidelines.
Just because safety standards evolve, that doesn’t mean all prior models need to be immediately replaced.
Another Bob
“Just because safety standards evolve, that doesn’t mean all prior models need to be immediately replaced.”
In a private setting I agree. Some of my equipment is over 100 years old.
Unfortunately in a commercial setting often times government agencies or insurance companies will require updating to new “safe” equipment. They may get cute and say your not required to upgrade but they will increasing your premiums astronomically until you do. With inflation, cost of labor and all the other odds stacked against a small business I can see this being a major problem.
John
I bet this new regulation is not going to require Sawstop to remove the ability to turn off this safety feature, or make it a requirement that it is in at all times.
Saws already come with blade guards and push sticks. If people choose to not use those safety features, then accidents happen.
If they leave the ability to turn off this safety feature, then it’s no different than people choosing to ignore those other safety features and renders this regulation pointless.
John
This might help save some people, but certainly not the ridiculous and likely fake $2 billion cost number quoted, but it also might make people more lazy about safety and ignore the many other dangers of table saws such as kickback, and make them not appreciate as much the dangers of other power tools that don’t have similar safety features. And it certainly does nothing to make all those other tools safer, and probably because they don’t really care. Not to mention this safety feature can be turned off and ignored as easy as ignoring your push stick or blade guard.
The sensible solution, if they REALLY want to promote and improve safety for ALL dangerous potwer tools would be to make it a requirement that anyone who wants to own such a tool needs to go through required safety training first.
A person who buys a sawstop and doesn’t bother to learn the dangers of table saws and how to avoid them might avoid cutting a finger, but it will not help them with other dangers including kickback or getting a piece of loose clothing caught up by the blade. Not to mention all of the dangers of the other tools they’re likely using.
You can’t regulate people into complete safety. You have to show them how to be safe. They need to be given the metaphorical tools to be safe, and it’s up to them to use them.
Potato
regulation requiring sawstop like safety for all table saw sounds amazing, please keep us updated on developments Stuart! The trades will most likely need to be dragged kicking and screaming to accept this.
BA1
Thanks for the update! I was planning on upgrading from my Dewalt contractor saw to a PCS in the next year. I’m gonna hold off until we know what’s happening with this. I’m looking forward to regulation. More options is always better. Sawstop makes a pretty good saw, but I’d love to see a Harvey Alpha with the same technology.
Backcountry164
Save a million trips to the ER because none of those craftsmen would have been able to afford the saw in the first place…
BART
In response to Tom’s comment, if you were a car salesman and the same thing happened because you sold your customer a car that wasn’t the safest car available to purchase, would you still feel the same way?
If we all had to spend the money on anything we purchased to have the safest technology available, much of what the average consumer buys would be unobtainable.
And the comment that this is some type of macho thing and we don’t want the safety built into the device makes me think if that’s what’s going on in your head when you use the saw, maybe it would be best if you stop using it.
At some level people need to take accountability for their own actions, from driving a car to using a knife in the kitchen. This legislation to force this technology and expense on everyone exceeds the limits that unfortunately will be paid by for by the consumer. For those who want to purchase this level of safety, I applaud you! For those that may not have the financial resources to afford the technology, but are willing to employ safe practices to use the tool, understanding it’s hazards, I understand and applaud you. For those who purchase this saw but don’t understand the inherent dangers and are not willing to educate yourself on its safe use, I feel sorry for you as you are an accident waiting to happen.
I just hope this type of over reaching legislation doesn’t affect everything else we have and do in life that can affect our safety, as it will not only hamper innovation, but also impact the financial ability for many to purchase products that we commonly use today.
Little Bit
I’m all about taking every precaution I can and, I do love the safety feature of the SawStop. Its been years since its inception & though I agree with comments above stating that so much time, effort & money go into prototypes to patent etc, I think the creator has probably recouped his investment(s) & made a considerable/ substantial amount of money for this incredible safety device. And he sold it to Festool for some fat $ and that too is his reward. I hold nothing against him for that. Lots of inventions are made, sold & shelved. However, the cost is STILL prohibitive to most woodworkers! Why? That’s the selling point of the SawStop. C’mon. Its NOT a superior saw without it. Put it on all of them for added safety sake & bring the price down already so we can get it!
JR Ramos
Stuart, I suppose you’ve already heard of the CPSC ruling this week against Amazon for product liability/safety. It made me think right away of the implications and discussion about this table saw safety tech and sources of cheap benchtop saws/safety concerns with those. Seems like the stage may be set to nearly wipe those out of the market if the SawStop decision goes that way and if the manufacturers don’t embrace the changes/higher costs to pass along.
Stuart
The Amazon ruling concerns things like recalled CO detectors that don’t work, from foreign brands that seem to be beyond the reach of the CPSC.
I don’t see the connection.
JR Ramos
Yes, but it finally defined them as a “distributor,” which is why they were able to impose the penalty/responsibilities and carries big implications. Thus far, Amazon has been in a self-created free zone concerning liabilities for the most part. That just changed and will change a lot. I was surprised at the three categories they chose to focus on (wish they would have included electric space heaters and a few other things too), but that change in definition is the big kicker.
JR Ramos
It will probably also change things for Ebay and others, too.
The potential connection to table saws will depend on the SawStop issue’s results.
Stuart
Tool safety regulations and guidelines – which are updated on occasion, generally affect products on a moving-forward basis, following an effective start date.
The CPSC ruled on recalled products.
If the CPSC rules on mandating SawStop-like flesh detection and injury mitigation technology, there’s nothing to suggest that existing products would be recalled.
JR Ramos
Well, nevermind then. I think it has major implications from a legal standpoint and a lot of affective potential (both current and future products, but I was first addressing future products in the event that the SawStop type technology is required). This was a big ruling.
Stuart
This is indeed a major ruling.
Let’s say brand N2HACC2BLE has a table saw that doesn’t meet US safety guidelines, triggering a recall. That’s where the new ruling makes Amazon the accountable party, assuming the appeals fail.
If new table saws don’t comply with safety guidelines, I believe it’s the FTC that would have to bar new inventory from entering US ports.