On 05/25/2017 10:08 AM, Keith Nuttle wrote:
....

... Some like me have only got a finger
against the blade once in 50 years. In that case a saw stop would have
only complicated the problem, as it was a STUPID mistakes. I cut the
finger on the blade and did not cut it off.

I'm hard pressed to understand the above...how would having SS have
complicated the problem, operator stupidity or not?

If the saw weren't running at the time and just gashed against a tooth,
sure, it wouldn't have made any difference in the result but how would
it complicate?

If it were running (and my understanding is the brake/sensor is active
even during coastdown, right, Leon?) then the cause of the contact isn't
the issue but removing the blade from the location likely would reduce
the severity.

Can you explain the circumstances; if there is something here to use
against the imposition of the rule I'm all for trying to figure out how
to cast it.

I have nothing against SS technology; it truthfully probably will save a
significant number of injuries from being nearly as serious as otherwise
might be.

As others, I'm just against the imposition of forced rules that benefit
a particular person/persons/company at their specific bidding. The
intro to the CPSC proposed rule admits right up front that

"On April 15, 2003, Stephen Gass, David Fanning, and James Fulmer, et
al. (petitioners) requested that the CPSC require performance standards
for a system to reduce or prevent injuries from contact with the blade
of a table saw. The petitioners are members of SawStop, LLC, and
its parent company, SD3, LLC (collectively, SawStop). ..."

It's nothing but a way to exact tribute from the other manufacturers by
forcing them to license their (SS's) technology that they were unable to
reach common ground over before Gass went off and formed SS. That it's
all about money rather than safety is amply demonstrated by their
aggressive defense of patents against Bosch.

That is, imo, simply wrong use of government.

--