Comments on: Public Comments Next Step in Table Saw Safety Rules

By: cbf123

cbf123 — Wed, 05 Oct 2011 22:09:13 +0000

Sure, because nobody was ever saved by government-regulated things like seatbelts, air bags, safe drugs, crash-tested cars, electrical devices, aircraft, personal flotation devices, etc….

By: mancave123

mancave123 — Wed, 05 Oct 2011 12:16:59 +0000

I am trying to imagine the lawsuit on the first time the sawstop technology fails and someone lose a body part, maybe a few billion from the government?

By: hfbowern

hfbowern — Mon, 03 Oct 2011 21:56:35 +0000

Guess they will have to invent a dumby button for those guys that don’t like safety, but insist they should be paid an large sum of money for doing things IDIOTS would do.

By: paulkray

paulkray — Fri, 30 Sep 2011 02:49:32 +0000

This was going to be good and intelligent but I am just gettting pissed about the whole matter. If I cut my fingers off. It was probably my fault. Good thing I just invested in a few more hand saws.

By: Jon

Jon — Thu, 29 Sep 2011 23:26:16 +0000

this will cause the price of old table saws (without the saw-stop technology, aka crony capitalism) to “necessarily skyrocket”.

I bought a new general 350 cabinet saw in 1991 for about $1000, a lot of money. If I were just starting today in woodworking as a hobby, I could not afford a new cabinet saw. Forcing the manufacturs to add this equipment will only force the price up more, and fewer saws will be sold, and maybe even imported.

all this for a nation of increasing illiteracy (can’t read the instructions of placards). LCD

By: david7134

david7134 — Thu, 29 Sep 2011 20:36:14 +0000

Table saw safety is important. I would consider the new saws only if the government stays out. But I feel the the saw safe people are trying to push through something with the help of the government and this is wrong, except with this administration.

This is not an area for the government. If they really wanted to do something to improve safety, then eliminate product law suits so the manufactures would not feel reluctant to make improvements. As it is, if they institute a safety measure, then the lawyers will descend on them and penalize them for saying their product was not already the best on the market.

Get the government out of our lives.

By: AL

AL — Thu, 29 Sep 2011 19:42:20 +0000

Robert, thanks for keeping us up todate on this issue. Personally fail to see the need for the gov’t to mandate anything regarding this issue. If I want a TS with flesh detection they are available for me to buy. And if I wish to buy a TS without flesh detection, I believe I should have the right to do this also.

AL
http://www.woodworkingwithajo.com

By: GunnyGene

GunnyGene — Thu, 29 Sep 2011 18:09:53 +0000

I’ll also be commenting. My own opinion is that the majority of injuries result from the user not taking proper care relative to technique, etc. The various built in safety devices, imho, tend to make the user too reliant on the machine to protect them from themsleves and leads to carelessness and overconfidence. That said there is room for improvement in both the design and quality of ts’s – a cheap consumer saw is far more likely to bite you than a good quality saw. Also important is setup of the saw, correct blade, fence alignment and so on. All stuff that should be adhered to, but often isn’t by the occasional weekend warrior. I hope that the CPSC uses some commonsense with this.

By: Steve_OH

Steve_OH — Thu, 29 Sep 2011 17:16:19 +0000

RWL: “The commission is considering a performance standard that would require the adoption of ‘flesh detecting technology’ in new table saws.”

That’s not true at all. The stated goal of the performance standard is to “reduce or prevent table saw blade contact injuries.” Flesh-sensing technology is one existing method of achieving that goal, but there is nothing to prevent a vendor from coming up with a scheme that has similar performance but doesn’t involve any kind of flesh sensing.

-Steve

By: bob_easton

bob_easton — Thu, 29 Sep 2011 16:27:15 +0000

THANKS Robert for the links and updates.

I’ll be among many planning to take advantage of the public comment period, sending a small piece of my mind to the CPSC. Will be watching for the link about how to comment.

(FWIW, page 2 of the existing document has instructions for commenting. However, it is still a draft document.)