Comments on: Where Do Table Saw Safety Rules Come From?

By: CGH

CGH — Tue, 09 Aug 2011 15:15:44 +0000

Sir, as an owner of a professional woodworking business, I feel I had to respond. As you and the PTI said, “follow the money and check the math,” that’s true. Safety is all about money isn’t it? It is very seldom about people, or doing the right thing. You said you don’t want your personal choices limited by someone else. We all are limited in our choices in every facet of our lives, for our protection and the protection of others. If we all used good judgment and made all the right choices we wouldn’t need traffic laws, would we? The fact is we all make bad choices for many different reasons.
Money is important, don’t take me wrong. The fact is that putting flesh detection technology on saws is cheaper than the cost of injuries. Two billion dollars a year are paid out in medical costs, and how about the cost in lost work productivity or the cost of pain and suffering.
As Norm Abram says, “following all safety rules will lessen your chance of personal injury.” There is no guarantee that it still won’t happen. Accidents do happen, that is why they are called accidents.
As you stated, hundreds of thousands of “value engineered” bench top saws are purchased every year. (Cheaply made and dangerous saws that shouldn’t be sold, especially to experienced table saw users.) The table saws that you are referring to are used to build a dog house and put in the garage and not touched for years. Whereas, my cabinet saw is used 14 to 18 hours every day of the year. An hours use vs. injuries study may show a different story.
The study done by the CPSC, which the PTI latched onto, states that only 11% of injuries come from “value engineered” table saws. This is an extremely flawed statistic. One example of this is, some owners of Ryobi saws filled out the survey stating that their saw they were injured on , was a cabinet saw, but Ryobi doesn’t make a cabinet saw. Many people don’t know the difference!
The CPSC also stated that most injuries come from direct drive saws, such as, bench top saws. The report also stated that most injuries were on cabinet saws, but cabinet saws are not direct drive. So which is it, direct drive bench tops or cabinet? As you can see the study is not accurate and needs to be redone properly.
You also refer to the PTI’s claim that it will cost more than $100 to put the flesh detection technology in a saw, and that a Saw Stop is $800-$1000 more than competitors. In reality the higher cost of a Saw Stop is not because of the safety system, but because of the saws superior fit and finish. Making it, probable, the best product on the market.
In open court a representative of PTI stated that their flesh detection safety system, that they have had for about 6 years (Yes they do have their own system), would only cost about $55, this is about the same as a Saw Stop.
Why haven’t they done something with their system? I guess the bottom line is more important to them than people. They want to continue making profit with saws that cause injury and death, YES people have died using table saws. Yet they don’t want Mr. Gass to profit from his invention, which saves people from serious injury. Such hypocrisy! Oh, by the way, the PTI system doesn’t stop the blade. It fires the blade away from your hand below the table surface and the blade keeps spinning. So it would be a good system for a cheap bench top table saw, because there is less force. So where is it, why aren’t they using it?
YES, it is heartless to bring it down to a cost benefit analysis that the PTI wants you to use. Here is the real cost benefit analysis. Tens of thousands of injuries prevented saving billions and billions of dollars every year, with no cost to table saw manufacturers because they will pass the costs along to me, the consumer. That’s okay by me because it will save me thousands of dollars in medical costs down the road and keep me out of the emergency room.
You see, I didn’t purchase the Saw Stop when I had the chance. Three months later I had an accident that cost me $12,000 in medical bills and a finger. I could have purchased four Saw Stops for that! How is that for cost benefit analysis?
No one at the hospital and no one from the CPSC or PTI asked me what type of table saw I was using, a bench top or cabinet saw. No one asked me if my guard was on the saw, which it was, or if it was a new style guard or an old style. Who am I suppose to report it to? Pretty Convenient for the PTI to say that there is no reported injuries with the newly designed guards (UL 987 safety standard), when there does not seem to be a way of reporting it.
Let me say something about the new guard. I do have one and the board seems to go under easier and so do hands. Also, it has never been taken into account that there are times that the guard has to be removed for special operations, such as a dado cuts. The industry has done nothing to protect me during such operations, with the exception of the Saw Stop. The guards themselves cause accidents, as in my case. In most shops across America the guards are not even used.
A saw without the Saw Stop system is like purchasing a vehicle without the airbags and other safety features. The industry has had 60 plus years to do something about safety with little improvement, in the same time automobiles have improved a great deal with crumple zones to seat belts and airbags, which are mandatory. Now it is time for better safety regulations for saws!
CGH

By: Loganmac

Loganmac — Thu, 04 Aug 2011 00:55:52 +0000

If the table saw manufacturers had a seat at the table when the rules were made, then where were the insurance comppanies? Weren’t they invited? After all, they are the ones that would have to pay out if someone successfully sued. The IIHS has a BIG say in setting safety standards for automobiles; product liability insurers should have an equivalent input in this matter

By: rtunas

rtunas — Wed, 03 Aug 2011 16:30:29 +0000

Check out the website http://theborkstore.com/ as they make an aftermarket riving knife for older saws

By: Daniel J

Daniel J — Wed, 03 Aug 2011 16:03:16 +0000

Exactly! – Responsiblity seems to be overlooked, and money becomes the motive.

It is impossible to remove all the risks. It is possible to train people and manage risks.

Blaming the manufacturer in this case is wrong. Any tool is dangerous if missused. And as you say, using legislation to push responsibility aside is side stepping the main issue.

Yes the european regulation for guarding and riving knives means limitations in the way a saw can be used, but these are affordable and sensible measures to reduce the biggest risks. From what I read of the original case, the guards had been removed on the saw he used; The responsibility for willingly removing them is down to the employee/employer, (RTFM!!) not the manufacturer.

By: finzona

finzona — Wed, 03 Aug 2011 15:24:35 +0000

Bob. Well written and insightful. I worked in a level one trauma center for a period of years and every hand tool or power tool injury that came thru the center was due to a lack of knowledge and or carelessness. People in this country seem to think and act as though anything that goes wrong is someone else’s fault.
This was also true of injuries in the kitchen, bathroom and garage. People do senseless things.

By: paulbeard

paulbeard — Wed, 03 Aug 2011 15:20:58 +0000

I usually assemble a complex matrix of scraps and clamps where I know the supplied guard is going to interfere. Ugly but I can still count to ten on my fingers …

By: paulbeard

paulbeard — Wed, 03 Aug 2011 15:19:30 +0000

You hit the nail on the head: this is an issue of responsibility (was the worker trained to use the tool and if so, did they follow those instructions?) vs liability (did the tool maker take every possible precaution to insure that the user could never harm themselves, even if it meant the tool was inconvenient or impossible to use as delivered, i.e., with the safety equipment in place?).

Every regulation stems from some mistake or risk, sometimes unethical or crooked dealing, sometimes stupidity on the part of someone. But we somehow push the responsibility to one side and absolve the other in an imbalanced way.

By: paulbeard

paulbeard — Wed, 03 Aug 2011 15:14:51 +0000

And here I thought that confounded splitter was my misunderstanding or a crappy implementation. Defective by design, it turns out.

By: dennisanvil

dennisanvil — Wed, 03 Aug 2011 14:57:54 +0000

when are they going to make better guard for the older saws.

By: teesquare1

teesquare1 — Wed, 03 Aug 2011 13:41:04 +0000

A good article indeed….

But I wonder if we continue on toward a “nanny state” manner of accident prevention if it will matter…?

My postulation is this:

Everything I need to know abow about table saw safety ( and shop sfety in general ) I learned in the first year of High School wood shop class. That was 36 years ago. So – the question should be – How much of that safety training do I still practice?
And – I believe the statistics will support that most – almost ALL table saw injuries are NOT newbies – rather experienced folks ( o.k. – geezers – like me ).
As we gain experience, and confidence we often do 2 things to dramatically increase our chance of injury.
1. We get lazy due to confidence. Lazy pertaining to simple, key safety rules. Remember – confidence can breed contempt. ( “I don’t need that guard – it only gets in the way” thinking)
2.We get a little egotistical. With many years of experience our skills and abilities often serve to fertilize our ego. Ego can momentarily blinfold our judgement – and THAT is when injuries occur.

I have spoken to many fellow wood butchers through the years about injuries in the shop and there is one commonality…habitual behavior. The gradual allowance for bad habits to replace good practices. Little things, that when added together at the wrong moment can be devasting.

Remember that few injuries are accredited to newbies? Why? Because they still have awe, and respect of the equipment can do not only to the wood – but their body parts as well… And a healthy portion of respect is a little fear. Fear that if you get sloppy, or lazy about safety – the machine WILL bite you.

So – my feeling is that if we continue focusing on making the machine safer rather than making the wood worker safer -we only further empower our government to drive costs out of site on machinery. And – even with all of the saftey one could possibly add on – do you think for an instant that:
1. Insurance cost will go down?
2. That injuries will not happen?

Again – better training, and self awareness is far more valuable to preserving digits and all the “stuff” you can imagine on heaven and earth Horatio.
T