Comments on: California Closer to State Table Saw Regulations

By: papagun

papagun — Sat, 08 Sep 2012 04:42:24 +0000

I weighed in on this years ago when Mr. Glas (sp?) first petitioned congress (and failed) to make it a federal law requiring all table saws in the U.S. to have flesh sensing technology that matched his invetion’s specs. To the number. He also failed to sell his invention to saw manufacturers… Apparently due to his demand for 8%-10% of the wholesale price of the saw. While industry truly wanted the patent rights, they also wanted to stay in business.

I thought the entire debacle was rather a heinous display of greed. But hey, the guy’s a patent attorney and he’s got an undeniably good invention…as well as patents that cover anything EVEN CLOSE to comparing to it. (which would seem to effectively halt other safety products and research), he’s not a saint and seems to have no social conscience. Seems he’s back to trying to get ALL th marbles.

Beside all that, I have seen numbers of 33,000, 66,000 and others of table saw injuries quoted in various posts here. What needs to be considered is the number of “blade contact” injuries on table saws only. Not “all skaw injuries. Most tablesaw injuries are NOT from blade contact as I understand it. Injuries would still happen on a SawStop. We should keep the numbers we talk about accurate.

(83.7% of all statistics are made up on the spot…including this one.)

I have not used a SawStop but would love to own a saw that knew that trick. Knowing what the investor has tried to do to the market would prevent me from buying one of his saws, though. I cannot in good conscience support such greed. I mean, how much money does he need? I would hope somewhat less than “All of it.”

Here in Hawai’i, we get a lot of “crap” wood. It is often wet. This would trigger a SawStop event. So would any contact with metal. In community theater, we reuse a lot of wood and occasionally hitting a brad or small staple is common. We aLso use Masonite which can have a high metal content. At a cost of around $100 plus the blade plus the down time makes the saw finically impractical here. I still would have loved to have the technology when I taught high school. As it was, because of insurance worries and parental fears, the school didn’t allow one for student use.

I think the proposed California legislation is wrong in many ways. Methinks they have better things to do than help Mr. Glass with his bank balance. The saw is there for sale. The consumer has the option to buy it. Someone who wants to buy a cheap tablesaw will NOT all of a sudden be able to buy an expensive one. I can foresee a quick market for “used” saws and inexpensive saws disappearing from store shelves for as long as the law is in effect.

Someone pointed out hat the blade still makes one full revolution during a SawStop shut-down and can ” still mod a lot of damage” (my quotes). True, the blade dose move, but in the millisecond that IT does, the finger or whatever does not… Well, it does an infinitesimal amount. So there is no great damage. From what I have seen usually the skin is not broken.

By: Paul

Paul — Sat, 28 Jul 2012 22:47:40 +0000

i have put all but one of my T/s’s in secure storage, as future investment! As for Sawstop, They couldn’t give me one!

“Nothing is Impossible, just Takes a Little Longer”

By: AerographerE8

AerographerE8 — Thu, 19 Jul 2012 15:12:53 +0000

The following was taken from the US patent office web site “For applications filed on or after June 8, 1995, utility and plant patents are granted for a term which begins with the date of the grant and usually ends 20 years from the date you first applied for the patent subject to the payment of appropriate maintenance fees. Design patents last 14 years from the date you are granted the patent. Note: Patents in force on June 8 and patents issued thereafter on applications filed prior to June 8, 1995 automatically have a term that is the greater of the twenty year term discussed above or seventeen years from the patent grant.” The first SawStop patent was filed in 2001 and issued in 2005.

As for the government legislating safety protection there is one difference in this case as opposed to say seat belts or motorcycle helmets and that is in those cases there were more than one manufacturer so costs were held in check.

I have never used a SawStop saw but have seen the videos of how it works online and would like to have that technology available on every saw, however having it legislated is wrong. I can eventually see someone challenging the law or somehow getting the US Govt. to look at the monopoly involved.

A well written blog piece on the Osario vs Ryobi case that brought this all about.

http://randomscrub.blogspot.com/2011/10/of-table-saws-and-lawsuits.html

By: Bill Lattanzio

Bill Lattanzio — Wed, 18 Jul 2012 21:00:01 +0000

I don’t disagree with you, I would bet that fewer people would buy them if it came down to it. If I had to buy a Sawstop saw tomorrow I couldn’t and would be the first to admit it. I do think that flesh detecting technology will eventually work it’s way into other tools in the future. I personally am a big fan of safety. I’ve luckily never had a table saw accident but I know a few who have.
I’m hoping that the manufacturers do the right thing and price their equipment competitively. If not I will simply not buy the tools. If that means the end of woodworking then so be it. I don’t think it will be by a long stretch. But that’s why we debate. Heck, I might have to invest in a rip saw.

By: katz_jd

katz_jd — Wed, 18 Jul 2012 20:47:55 +0000

The issue here is whether the state can compel you to buy a SawStop against your will. If so, it is quite possible far fewer individuals will buy tablesaws, and as a result, far fewer will engage in woodworking.

And as I wrote before, a topic you avoided, what makes you think the CA legislators will stop with table saws? What happens to woodworking if we’re compelled to replace our band saws, shapers, jointers and planers?

All woodworkers should oppose this insane law.

By: Bill Lattanzio

Bill Lattanzio — Wed, 18 Jul 2012 20:38:17 +0000

Did a little quick research, the average out of pocket cost for an ER visit is $488 as of 2008. If there are xrays up to $200 more.Obviously any stitches or minor surgery could drive up that price. But this was all as of 2008. That’s as much as I could find without getting neck deep into it.

By: Bill Lattanzio

Bill Lattanzio — Wed, 18 Jul 2012 20:15:08 +0000

I didn’t mean to quote you as saying it, just the link that was in your article.

By: Bill Lattanzio

Bill Lattanzio — Wed, 18 Jul 2012 20:13:56 +0000

I don’t think I claimed that Sawstop saves billions of dollars. If I did I didn’t mean to. I do believe that the technology could save the money if the statistics are accurate. I checked three sources, one from a link on this website, they all had the same info: table saw injuries cost around 2.3 billion yearly. That’s as far as I got so that information could be wrong. Believe me, I don’t like the idea of paying more than I have to for anything. As far as Sawstop saws are concerned, I don’t own one and honestly I probably won’t for a long time. I use a Delta contractor style myself. I have worked on a Sawstop before and I had no complaints about it.
And as far as any of my statements are concerned, they are just my opinion that you’re more than welcome to disagree with, but I didn’t put up anything that I didn’t research, especially since I’ve been following this for a while now. Like I said, if it comes down to it, and I cannot afford to buy a new saw, I just won’t do it. I’m a grown man, no sense crying about it. The only reason I get into these debates is that there are so many on these sites that are painting this like it’s the end of woodworking. I just don’t think it’s the case.

By: Robert W. Lang

Robert W. Lang — Wed, 18 Jul 2012 20:10:20 +0000

The $2,300,000,000 annual cost of table saw injuries is one of the items that those in favor of CPSC regulations and the proposed California law use regularly. However, this is an estimate only, and an inflated worst-case estimate at that. Before you quote me as saying that I presented that figure as a fact, I suggest you read the following previous posts:

By: katz_jd

katz_jd — Wed, 18 Jul 2012 18:51:00 +0000

Your claim that SawStop SAVES “BILLIONS” of dollars a year is misleading. Who would save this money? Insurance companies, for the most part. I certainly wouldn’t save any money, and neither would you. Why should I be required to buy something to save an insurance company money?

And yes, there are a lot of very stupid woodworkers out there. Why should I pay for their stupidity?