"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 10:53:34 -0500, Mike Marlow
wrote:

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...

But was it going a lot faster than your hand would be going if you
slipped
and shoved it into the blade while trying to catch your balance?

Just curious John - I'm not understanding the point you're trying to
relay
with this argument. I don't question the argument itself, but it's
purpose.
I've read the sawstop articles, seen the web site, etc. and I've never
heard
a claim that it will prevent every conceivable form of table saw
accident,
guaranteed, 100%.

But Mike, you're not going to calmly and deliberately run your finger
into the blade, you're going to hit the blade _because_ something went
wrong.

Indeed Dave, but without any sort of statistical evidence on my side, I
would intuitively believe that most accidents with a table saw are the
result of the operator losing focus on the job and getting into the blade at
normal feed speeds, getting loose clothing drawn in, or doing too many
things at once and getting into a blade while reaching across the table for
a cutoff, and not by other accidents such as falling.


That's the point I'm questioning in your position John - where is the
advertising in error? Or even misleading?

Well, I'm not John, but it seems to me it's an example of showing that
it'll protect against something that isn't the situation where it'll
really
be needed.


That's the part I'm not so sure of Dave. As I said, I would believe that
most accidents do happen more in the wood cutting process than by falls,
etc. Even so - they aren't advertising it to be something that it's not.
They're advertising it to control a specific type of contact. Even if that
type of contact only happened 2% of the time, it's still not an advertising
error. Worst case would be that it would be a device that really didn't
have much of a market.
--

-Mike-