Brian Henderson wrote:
On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 07:42:19 -0500, dpb wrote:

And, if you'll read Sawstop's literature, you'll note it specifically
points out the technology does NOT prevent accidents, it merely limits
the consequences of one...that can't be all bad.

Which is why they originally wanted to require all saw manufacturers
to license their technology, right? ...

I don't think that follows directly, no. Why they wanted manufacturers
to license their product was they had a large investment in a product
which they thought marketable and had an (initial) business plan that
didn't include making the saw themselves.

Their technology was/is certainly clever, innovative, and successful in
addressing a market niche, but that's required of almost any product to
be successful.

You should be relying on yourself, not on your tools, to keep yourself
from being injured.

It's not a zero-sum game, though. Again, to reiterate, Sawstop does
nothing to _prevent_ an accident; in fact, an accident has to happen for
it to have any effect (neglecting the Type II error). It will almost
certainly mitigate the effects of that accident, however.

Safety is dependent on a combination of all the things that goes into
the operation from the design and manufacture of the tool to the music
blaring in the background. Operator attention and proper usage is
surely a major factor but as others have noted, the unexpected is often
the culprit.

And, as my final word, again from my experiences w/ accident analysis, I
can't number the times I've heard the expression of "I've _always_ done
it that way!" or "It seemed safe to me!". And, of course, those stories
were told by those that survived to tell their tale... It is
certainly fortunate that the most severe of woodworking incidents are
not likely to be fatal.

--