tzipple wrote:

I appreciate the point, but I suspect that most people who have worked
in a factory appreciate the value of required safety devices on the
inherently dangerous devices. It is up to the operator to make them as
safe as possible, I agree. It is the responsibility of the manufacturer
to avoid manufacturing a device that is more dangerous than necessary.
If SawStop works as well as the initial reports seem to say, costs an
affordable amount, then the definition of "inherent dangerousness"
changes. They are less inherantly dangerous if manufactured using safer
and available technology.

In the shop at Hamilton Standard there was a hydraulic press. It had been
there for more than 50 years and there had never been an injury associated
with it. Nonetheless, the safety engineers decided that it needed a guard.
In the next year there were five injuries caused by the guard.

"Required safety devices" don't always add safety.

ks wrote:

I don't think it will. as pointed out several times, if it is less than
100% foolproof, the liabilities faced would increase manyfold.
As an aside, most powertools are inherently dangerous due to their
nature. It is really up to the operator to make things as safe as
possible


"tzipple" wrote in message
...

Saw that article this month (Fine Woodworking) on SawStop. With
thousands of amputations a year occuring with tablesaw accidents, any
bets on how long it takes for this to be a standard feature? It seems to
me that it will get hard for manufacturers to avoid it, if for no other
reason than to head off lawsuits from people who claim that the
manufactures had the option to manufacture a safer saw. And if it works
and is reasonable priced, it is probably a good thing to have as
standard equipment... like seatbelts, airbags, etc.




--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)