Samson wrote:
I haven't used a blade guard for years, but was reading a book
today on table saws that insisted to use them whenever possible.

Question: Do you use one? If not, why not?
NO. I'm not going to stick my feet in my lawnmower and I'm not going to
put my hands into my tablesaw blade. The guard is more trouble that
it's worth. If I was cutting tons of MDF all day, then a guard with DC
would be a must.

Dave

writes:

The cause of most accidents are (I would guess) inattention,
stupidity, and ignorance. And I bet that most seasoned woodworkers
have accidents with tablesaws because of inattention.

Agreed.


My attention won't wander while I'm watching that blade.


Why would it wander if there was a guard over the blade?

I'd do the same thing if I had a guard.


--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.

David writes:

As a woodworker, I always find time to ask how it happened. I've
actually learned quite a bit from other's "experience". Often it opens
them up to share some stories.

Sounds like a good topic to share with the group.

What are the most frequent causes to accidents with tablesaws?


--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.

Bruce Barnett wrote:

What are the most frequent causes to accidents with tablesaws?


Carelessness. Failure to understand and/or proper cutting techniques.

"MNFabLab" wrote in message

guy, but after a few years of using 'em, I get uncomfortable when it
should be there but isn't.

Bingo! ... As you get older you realize that gaining good habits is as easy
as gaining bad ones and the sense to find a good blade guard and use it, and
the discipline to make the use a habit, ends up just like you describe.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/06

Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:


Au contraire. It's been my experience very few of these guys are all business.
I'd be surprised if they didn't take the time to ask. Hell, I'd ask.

I've been sent to emergency rooms by radio control airplane propellers
and on and off-road bicycle crashes, but never a tool.

Every time, the attending professionals asked about the details of the
injury. I met a PA who flies r/c and an orthopedic doc who mountain
bikes! G

Mike wrote:
"B A R R Y" wrote in message
et...
Samson wrote:
Question: Do you use one?
A shop-made overhead guard, made of Lexan. I built mine following a
woodcentral.com article, complete with a dust fitting.

Does your's resemble the pictures on WoodCentral? I ask because their's
looks loike it is connected to the ceiling.


Yes and yes!

The main differences a the top plate of mine is maple (I ran out of
lexan G), I used 6-32 cap screws (I had them) and I used a 3" threaded
PVC connector as the dust port, which takes a 4" hose nicely.

I'm extremely happy with that guard and glad I built it. I like the
idea of screwing parts together without glue, in case a replacement is
needed. The saw is cleaner, too!

"Dave Jackson" wrote in message
A little backround....I'm a carpenter for a living and can say that the
chances of finding a blade guard on any jobsite table saw (mine included)
is
slim to none.

You're right about that ... however, as a builder, I often count fewer
fingers on jobsites than should be.

However, I recently bought a cabinet saw for the shop and would like to
find
a decent guard. I tried the excalibur guard I got at auction out today
and
find it a little clunky at the blade cover, although with some re
engineering I think I can make it workable. --dave

I really like my Uniguard ... has an excellent splitter, two guards that can
be used independently and/or swung up out of the way, and it can be removed
in less time than it takes to tell.

In short, it is "convenient" ... a quality which fosters use.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/06

In article , Bruce Barnett wrote:
(Doug Miller) writes:

3) Keep my eye on the blade, especially when it's spinning.

Why? What's it gonna do?
[snip]
You don't need to see it in order to
make a proper cut, because the cut path is determined by the setting of your
rip fence, miter gauge, or whatever you're using to guide the wood past the
blade. So what purpose does it serve to watch the blade?

It's dangerous after the cut as well. In repetitive cuts, I have to
move my hands, wood, etc in preparation for the next cut. Some
accidents occur when people watch other things, and forget about the
blade.

This, of course, is one very good reason to use a blade guard. The blade is
inside the guard. If you keep your fingers outside the guard, they won't hit
the blade.

If I take my eyes off the blade, I might get careless. It's hard to
forget about the blade if your eyes are on it.

If you truly *need* to be looking at the blade in order to remember that it's
dangerous, you probably should take up a safer hobby. Something like knitting.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

I guess there are two "David"s, but I agree with the other one.

The other risks are the usual

No guard. Pushing a hand into the cutting path to block kickback. No
outfeed support, requiring a lot of downpressure at the end of the cut.
If it binds, the hand goes into the blade. (Sometimes even with a
pushstick.) The monotony of repetitive tasks. Alcohol (believe it or
not) and fatigue. Knots. Freehand cuts and pieces that are too small.
Failure to use pushsticks. Lots of injuries occur after the cut --
reaching over the blade and running a hand or forearm over the
invisible, spinning teeth. Distraction (either sudden - a tap on the
shoulder during a cut or chronic - dwelling on other problems while
working). Time pressure to finish a job. I believe that carelessness and
poor technique play a big role, but people differ on what they consider
careless (note the thread on "watching the blade"), and what is
appropriate technique.

David

David wrote:
Bruce Barnett wrote:

What are the most frequent causes to accidents with tablesaws?


Carelessness. Failure to understand and/or proper cutting techniques.

In article .net, "Dave Jackson" wrote:
(snip) If anything, you're making a good argument *for* using the blade
guard!

I'm not trying to argue anything here. Just because YOU use one doesn't
mean everyone else should.

My point, which you appear to have missed, is that the failure of construction
workers to use guards means absolutely *nothing* with regard to whether doing
so is a good idea, or not -- in my experience and observation, most
construction workers use little if any safety equipment, even something as
basic as goggles when running a Sawzall *overhead*.

Have you ever run yours without a guard? And if
so, why are you using one now.

Yes, I have -- some cuts are impossible to make on my saw with the guard in
place. (I'm using the factory guard, which has an integral splitter. The
splitter has to come off for a dado or rabbet, which means the guard does
too.)

(snip) If you have not already learned to pay close attention, you shouldn't
be
operating the tool *with* a guard, let alone without one.

On the flip side, if you *truly* have learned to pay close attention to the
task at hand why would you need a guard?

Mostly because it provides a little extra protection for those moments when,
for whatever reason, that close attention wanders a bit.

Guards surely prevent accidents,
but accidents in the shop generally don't happen to someone who is aware of
, and more importantly knowledgeable, about what they are doing.

I disagree completely. I think a lot of accidents in the shop happen to people
who are knowledgeable and aware, but whose attention slips briefly at just the
wrong moment.

I suppose you'd have a big crisis if I mentioned I am also perfectly
comfortable cutting something freehand on a table saw as well! --dave

No, I won't have a big crisis from you mentioning it, but *you* will some day
from *doing* it. That's just not a smart idea.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

In article , Bruce Barnett wrote:
writes:

No kidding. I'd rather not be in the same shop as a person who can
use a tool to cut off a 2 x 4, and yet not realize that it is dangerous
unless he can see the spinning blade!

That's not the point at all. Are you telling me that people who had
accidents with a table saw didn't THINK it was dangerous?

The cause of most accidents are (I would guess) inattention,
stupidity, and ignorance. And I bet that most seasoned woodworkers
have accidents with tablesaws because of inattention.

That's why the guard is there.

My attention won't wander while I'm watching that blade.

Just because it hasn't *yet* does not mean it never will.

The point is that the guard provides additional protection in case it does.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

In article .com, "MNFabLab" wrote:

I don't care how experienced, careful, knowledgable or invincible you
are, WHY would you leave that spinning blade out in the open when you
can put something over it.

That's the whole discussion in a nutshell.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

In article , David wrote:

NO. I'm not going to stick my feet in my lawnmower and I'm not going to
put my hands into my tablesaw blade.

Please read the "rant" posted earlier by 'zap'...

Just because you haven't *yet* does not mean you never will.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

In article , (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article .net, "Dave
Jackson" wrote:
(snip) If anything, you're making a good argument *for* using the blade
guard!

I'm not trying to argue anything here. Just because YOU use one doesn't
mean everyone else should.

My point, which you appear to have missed, is that the failure of construction
workers to use guards means absolutely *nothing* with regard to whether doing
so is a good idea, or not -- in my experience and observation, most
construction workers use little if any safety equipment, even something as
basic as goggles when running a Sawzall *overhead*.

Have you ever run yours without a guard? And if
so, why are you using one now.

Yes, I have -- some cuts are impossible to make on my saw with the guard in
place. (I'm using the factory guard, which has an integral splitter. The
splitter has to come off for a dado or rabbet, which means the guard does
too.)

Oops -- forgot to respond to the second part of your question.

I'm using one now because I believe it's an important safety practice to use
*all* guards on *all* machines for *all* operations, whenever possible.

The combined guard and spliiter comes off my table saw when I need to make a
cut that's impossible with them in place -- usually this means a cut that's
impossible with the splitter, specifically, in place -- and it goes right back
on as soon as I'm done with that operation.


--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
om...
In article , David
wrote:

NO. I'm not going to stick my feet in my lawnmower and I'm not going to
put my hands into my tablesaw blade.

Please read the "rant" posted earlier by 'zap'...

Just because you haven't *yet* does not mean you never will.


Well, to be fair, if one were to take zap's rant too much to heart, one
would never venture into the shop since life is full of so many fluke
accidents.

--

-Mike-

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
om...

I suppose you'd have a big crisis if I mentioned I am also perfectly
comfortable cutting something freehand on a table saw as well! --dave

No, I won't have a big crisis from you mentioning it, but *you* will some
day
from *doing* it. That's just not a smart idea.


Not necessarily at all Doug. I'd agree that short cuts done free hand offer
a significant potential for problems. The smaller the piece, the more
likely it is that you can't control the travel of the piece through the
blade accurately enough to maintain a proper straight path. However, long
rips do not pose the same threats. He's not in any way guaranteed to have a
problem by cutting freehand - depending on what the definition of freehand
is. I have been forced to make many free hand cuts on a table saw over the
years. It's not my prefered technique or approach, but I've done it. You'd
have to do more than simply assert that this is something that *will* some
day result in a big crisis.

--

-Mike-

The Grip-tite fins are made from polycarbonate-(lexan). We do guarantee
that they will last at least 2 years. They will eventuallly wear out if
you are cutting corian or run a millwork shop cutting lots of
hardwoods. (on oak, etc. they tend to wear at the sharp wood corner.)
After that they cost $1.50 / pair to replace...
You should not spray wd40 or other sprays on them. Polycarbonate gets
brittle when sprayed with that kind of stuff.
Amost all the fins we replace are ones which the blade has eaten,
instead of fingers.

Jerry
Locutus wrote:
"jack the ripper" wrote in message
oups.com...

Jerry Jaksha
http:// www.grip-tite.com

PS: we are giving away 25 Grip-Tites to public school shop programs
this fall- please tell any shop teachers you know about this.


I use the grip-tite and really like it. Thanks for the good product. (though
I am skeptical about how long the plastic fins will last...)

On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 01:02:05 GMT, "CW" wrote:

I don't believe it.

Nor do I. But at least it is more believable than the guy who was
posting on the Saw Stop thread that his wife was a surgeon that does a
thousand a year.

It doesn't correlate statistically with my experience as a maker of
saws in defense of personal injury claims and providing individuals as
technical experts in depositions.

This is an important matter. David should authenticate if it is true.

Table saws are inherently dangerous and all should be encouraged to
use their guards, splitters, and pushsticks whenever possible, and
their minds in all cases. UL/CSA standards committees should be
encouraged to provide standards that would allow manufacturers to
provide OEM guarding that is "practical" and effective. That has not
always been the case.

There was a time, and it may have changed I'm several years out of the
business, that the very good aftermarket guards no matter what brand
could not have been supplied as standard equipment with UL/CSA saws
because they didn't meet the standards. That doesn't make sense.

Frank

"David" wrote in message
...
I'll side with Mortimer and Nigel. As a hand surgeon, I've probably
cared for close to 1000 table saw injuries in my career.

In article , "Mike Marlow" wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
. com...

I suppose you'd have a big crisis if I mentioned I am also perfectly
comfortable cutting something freehand on a table saw as well! --dave

No, I won't have a big crisis from you mentioning it, but *you* will some
day
from *doing* it. That's just not a smart idea.


Not necessarily at all Doug. I'd agree that short cuts done free hand offer
a significant potential for problems. The smaller the piece, the more
likely it is that you can't control the travel of the piece through the
blade accurately enough to maintain a proper straight path. However, long
rips do not pose the same threats. He's not in any way guaranteed to have a
problem by cutting freehand - depending on what the definition of freehand
is.

Mabe we'd better agree on a definition first. My definition of a freehand cut
is one in which only the operator's hands are used to guide the work past the
blade (this would include hand-held pushsticks etc), without using a guide of
any sort -- no fences, jigs, fixtures, sleds, whatever, just the hands and
hand-held devices.

I have been forced to make many free hand cuts on a table saw over the
years.

Forced how/why?

It's not my prefered technique or approach, but I've done it. You'd
have to do more than simply assert that this is something that *will* some
day result in a big crisis.

OK, change that to "will probably"... It's not a good idea.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
om...
In article , David
wrote:

NO. I'm not going to stick my feet in my lawnmower and I'm not going to
put my hands into my tablesaw blade.

Please read the "rant" posted earlier by 'zap'...

Just because you haven't *yet* does not mean you never will.


Well, to be fair, if one were to take zap's rant too much to heart, one
would never venture into the shop since life is full of so many fluke
accidents.

To be fair, you will never get into my shop with that attitude.

I, too, am a safety freak. I guess I got that way growing up around stupid
people who were NOT safety freaks and hurt themselves on a regular basis. I
just looked at them and said that I was going to be different.

Yes, there are those freak accidents that happen from time to time. But the
occur in many places, not just shops.

I have taken a number of injured people to the hospital. In every case,
they screwed up. And most of them knew it too. Interestingly enough, some
people learned from this experience. and some did not.

Frank Boettcher wrote:
On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 01:02:05 GMT, "CW" wrote:

I don't believe it.

Nor do I. But at least it is more believable than the guy who was
posting on the Saw Stop thread that his wife was a surgeon that does a
thousand a year.

Keep in mind that some injuries require multiple operations to repair.

My neighbor, who lost two fingers to a table saw had one restored,
but after two years had it re-amputated as the previous operation(s)
were not adequately successful.


It doesn't correlate statistically with my experience as a maker of
saws in defense of personal injury claims and providing individuals as
technical experts in depositions.

I would think that only a small number of table saw
injuries result in a personal injury claim being filed,
if you mean lawsuits, more if you mean workman's
comp and still more if you include health insurance
claims. E.g. a home-user who removed his guard
is not likely to even consider suing.

Surgeon specialists can do a lot of work. When my
father had bypass surgery it was his surgeon's thrid
operation of the day, and it was only mid-afternoon.

I amskeptical of that number if if refers only to
table saw injuries. It is borderline believable that a
hand-surgery specialist would perform 1000 surgeries
per year for power saw (of all sorts) injuries. It is
entirely beleiveable that she would have a thousand
face-to-face, or face-to-hand visits for saw-injuries
if you include simple stiching, pre-surgical consultation,
and follow-up.

Suppose ahand-specialist performs an average of
five operations a day, five days a week, (allowing
two days for consultaion, doing rounds etc). That's
1250 operations a year. Unless she is a table-saw-
injury-hand-surgeon specialist that seems unrealistic.

The statistic that I do believe is ZERO tramatic
amputations or other injuries from contact with the
blade when using a guard.

Problems with poorly designed or utilized guards
can cause kick-back but it is pretty hard to imagine
one that brings a body-part into contact with the blade.

BTW, The Cleveland Clinic does research on animals
and so has some veterinarians on staff. For restoring
traumaticly amputated fingers, it was routine, and may
still be routine, for a verterinarian surgeon to assist
as he was _really_ expert at working on a small
scale.

--

FF

"Samson" wrote in message
...
On 10/24/2006 9:32:24 AM, "jack the ripper" wrote:

I apologize for the rant, but I have seen too many short fingers to
keep quiet.

Jerry Jaksha
http:// www.grip-tite.com

What's the cost of these things, Jerry?

Did you try clicking on the link in his sig?

"Lee Michaels" wrote in message
...

To be fair, you will never get into my shop with that attitude.

Well, that's fine.


I, too, am a safety freak. I guess I got that way growing up around stupid
people who were NOT safety freaks and hurt themselves on a regular basis.
I
just looked at them and said that I was going to be different.

Likewise, I have seen, and the evidence is certainly contained in the
archives of this group - that being a safety freak in no way ensures safety.
This group is full of stories about incidents in the shop where all of the
safety gear was in place. It is full of stories from "safety freaks" who
put pieces of wood through walls, into body parts, who posted pictures of
stiches, etc. Being a safety freak does nothing to ensure you will not be
hurt. The post by zap was a collection of freak accidents that didn't even
correlate to the discussion at hand.


Yes, there are those freak accidents that happen from time to time. But
the
occur in many places, not just shops.

And you point is?


I have taken a number of injured people to the hospital. In every case,
they screwed up. And most of them knew it too. Interestingly enough, some
people learned from this experience. and some did not.


Ummmmmm... of course they screwed up. And the point is?

--

-Mike-

On 25 Oct 2006 07:25:59 -0700, wrote:


Frank Boettcher wrote:
On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 01:02:05 GMT, "CW" wrote:

I don't believe it.

Nor do I. But at least it is more believable than the guy who was
posting on the Saw Stop thread that his wife was a surgeon that does a
thousand a year.

Keep in mind that some injuries require multiple operations to repair.

My neighbor, who lost two fingers to a table saw had one restored,
but after two years had it re-amputated as the previous operation(s)
were not adequately successful.


It doesn't correlate statistically with my experience as a maker of
saws in defense of personal injury claims and providing individuals as
technical experts in depositions.

E.g. a home-user who removed his guard
is not likely to even consider suing.

Not accurate. Cases are filed, just not necessarily won.
Manufacturer has the obligation to "Guard and Warn" failure to do
either puts them in a bad position in an action.

That is why when other service part tooling for obsolete tools was
discontinued after a long period of limited demand, guard tooling,
warning label art work, and warning printed matter was preserved
forever, at least while I was active.

stuff snipped

Suppose ahand-specialist performs an average of
five operations a day, five days a week, (allowing
two days for consultaion, doing rounds etc). That's
1250 operations a year. Unless she is a table-saw-
injury-hand-surgeon specialist that seems unrealistic.

In my area they see patients for three days a week and do elective
surgery on one day. My wife was a recent patient for CT. There are
obviously emergencies, however, I question the volume.

Additionally, if you multiply the claimed number by the number of hand
surgeons in the U.S. the number would be well over a hundred thousand
table saw hand injuries a year. My local woodwoking club has had none
in the past ten years, so you other guys must be real careless.

Frank

stuff snipped

David wrote:
Samson wrote:
I haven't used a blade guard for years, but was reading a book
today on table saws that insisted to use them whenever possible.

Question: Do you use one? If not, why not?
NO. I'm not going to stick my feet in my lawnmower and I'm not going to
put my hands into my tablesaw blade. The guard is more trouble that
it's worth. If I was cutting tons of MDF all day, then a guard with DC
would be a must.

Dave

How about another similar bone-of-contention for some years back-
seat-belts in cars. In that case, too, the unexpected happened very
quickly,
leaving you no options. Even using them, you still have to drive
reasonably;
in neither case could you be said to be recklessly risking yourself in
traffic.

Seat belts are probably a bother and a nuisance to some, for a while.
My sons were gotten accustomed to them from their first ride, and feel
very exposed now, in their twenties, without being buckled in. One of
them is alive because of using proper restraints; the other escaped
possibly major injury.

If you're going to be involved in sports-car competition, you will have
an
approved 5-point harness strapping you in. No discussion.

If I use proper safety-equipment and procedures on t/s, I can make my
probability of amputation be zero. Saves cleaning up blood-spatter too.

HTH,
J

wrote in message
ups.com...

Suppose ahand-specialist performs an average of
five operations a day, five days a week, (allowing
two days for consultaion, doing rounds etc). That's
1250 operations a year. Unless she is a table-saw-
injury-hand-surgeon specialist that seems unrealistic.


She??

The OP stated "I've probably cared for close to 1000 table saw injuries in
my career". Career... not in a year. If he has been practicing for 10 years,
that would only be 100 a year...

wrote in message
ups.com...


I amskeptical of that number if if refers only to
table saw injuries. It is borderline believable that a
hand-surgery specialist would perform 1000 surgeries
per year for power saw (of all sorts) injuries. It is
entirely beleiveable that she would have a thousand
face-to-face, or face-to-hand visits for saw-injuries
if you include simple stiching, pre-surgical consultation,
and follow-up.


Nevermind... I missed what you were specificly replying to.

"zap" wrote in message
link.net...
Hi All,

This is a rant. If you read it, don't complain later that it was too long
or about what it says.

All this back and forth over a blade guard. Not one of you is going to
change. Those who believe that they are invincible will continue to
believe that they are invincible. those who have either taken advice or
have seen enough accidents will be using a blade guard. So be it.


Actually, several posters in this thread have stated that they will start
using the guard after reading this thread...

Frank Boettcher wrote:
On 25 Oct 2006 07:25:59 -0700, wrote:


Frank Boettcher wrote:
On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 01:02:05 GMT, "CW" wrote:

I don't believe it.

Nor do I. But at least it is more believable than the guy who was
posting on the Saw Stop thread that his wife was a surgeon that does a
thousand a year.

Keep in mind that some injuries require multiple operations to repair.

My neighbor, who lost two fingers to a table saw had one restored,
but after two years had it re-amputated as the previous operation(s)
were not adequately successful.


It doesn't correlate statistically with my experience as a maker of
saws in defense of personal injury claims and providing individuals as
technical experts in depositions.

E.g. a home-user who removed his guard
is not likely to even consider suing.

Not accurate.

How is that not accurate?

Cases are filed, just not necessarily won.

I didn't deny that cases are filed or won. I speculated that
a home-user who removed his guard is not likely to even
consider suing. That implies that such suits would be rare,
not nonexistant, although no one in thid thread has presented
an example of such a suit--yet, despite the fact that we have
had examples of accidents presented.

Manufacturer has the obligation to "Guard and Warn" failure to do
either puts them in a bad position in an action.

Yes, that is one reason why I expect that most people who injure
themselves after removing their guards never consider suing.
They may not have been smart enough to avoid injury
but maybe they are smart or honest enough to realize that
if they ignored the manufacturer's warnings and removed the
manufacturer's safety device, they don't have a case.

Another reason may be that most of the injuries that do require
professional treatment are (hopefully) relatively trivial--mere
stitches
required.

Kep in mind that there is a reason why you see news items about
people winning seemingly trivial suits--they are rare. If they were
commonplace, they wouldn't be newsworthy.

--

FF

In article . com, wrote:

Yes, that is one reason why I expect that most people who injure
themselves after removing their guards never consider suing.
They may not have been smart enough to avoid injury
but maybe they are smart or honest enough to realize that
if they ignored the manufacturer's warnings and removed the
manufacturer's safety device, they don't have a case.

More likely IMO is that they are *not* in fact that smart, but the lawyer(s)
they contact *are*... g

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

On 25 Oct 2006 12:07:37 -0700, wrote:


Frank Boettcher wrote:
On 25 Oct 2006 07:25:59 -0700, wrote:


Frank Boettcher wrote:
On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 01:02:05 GMT, "CW" wrote:

I don't believe it.

Nor do I. But at least it is more believable than the guy who was
posting on the Saw Stop thread that his wife was a surgeon that does a
thousand a year.

Keep in mind that some injuries require multiple operations to repair.

My neighbor, who lost two fingers to a table saw had one restored,
but after two years had it re-amputated as the previous operation(s)
were not adequately successful.


It doesn't correlate statistically with my experience as a maker of
saws in defense of personal injury claims and providing individuals as
technical experts in depositions.

E.g. a home-user who removed his guard
is not likely to even consider suing.

Not accurate.

How is that not accurate?

Cases are filed, just not necessarily won.

I didn't deny that cases are filed or won. I speculated that
a home-user who removed his guard is not likely to even
consider suing. That implies that such suits would be rare,
not nonexistant, although no one in thid thread has presented
an example of such a suit--yet, despite the fact that we have
had examples of accidents presented.


And I would contend that your speculation is in error.

Manufacturer has the obligation to "Guard and Warn" failure to do
either puts them in a bad position in an action.

Yes, that is one reason why I expect that most people who injure
themselves after removing their guards never consider suing.
They may not have been smart enough to avoid injury
but maybe they are smart or honest enough to realize that
if they ignored the manufacturer's warnings and removed the
manufacturer's safety device, they don't have a case.

Another reason may be that most of the injuries that do require
professional treatment are (hopefully) relatively trivial--mere
stitches
required.

Kep in mind that there is a reason why you see news items about
people winning seemingly trivial suits--they are rare. If they were
commonplace, they wouldn't be newsworthy.

And I would contend that you are in error with this statement also.
I've served on the liability committee of a fortune 100 company (not
the woodworking machinery company) and can assure you that the vast
majority of cases are settled without going to court simply because it
cost the defendant less to do so, win or lose. The vast majority of
those potential cases were without merit.

Frank

"Frank Boettcher" wrote in message
news

And I would contend that your speculation is in error.


I would speculate that your speculation of his speculation is merely
speculation.

On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 16:21:29 -0400, "Locutus"
wrote:


"Frank Boettcher" wrote in message
news

And I would contend that your speculation is in error.


I would speculate that your speculation of his speculation is merely
speculation.



Well it's a rainy afternoon and I'm waiting for some glue to dry, so
why not...

Frank

On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 06:09:34 -0500, "Swingman" wrote:

"Dave Jackson" wrote in message
A little backround....I'm a carpenter for a living and can say that the
chances of finding a blade guard on any jobsite table saw (mine included)
is
slim to none.

You're right about that ... however, as a builder, I often count fewer
fingers on jobsites than should be.

However, I recently bought a cabinet saw for the shop and would like to
find
a decent guard. I tried the excalibur guard I got at auction out today
and
find it a little clunky at the blade cover, although with some re
engineering I think I can make it workable. --dave

I really like my Uniguard ... has an excellent splitter, two guards that can
be used independently and/or swung up out of the way, and it can be removed
in less time than it takes to tell.

In short, it is "convenient" ... a quality which fosters use.


When I cut sheet goods I use a guard that I made from plywood that
encompass the blade and that is attached to a section of 1-1/2" pipe,
which is connected to the dust collector. It is suspended from the
ceiling over the saw.

This is a great comfort, particularly when cutting MDF, as the flow
from both above and below takes away most of the offending dust.

When I cut solid stock, particularly "interesting" stock that may be
reaction wood and needs a bit of visual monitoring, I take the guard
off.

I also do not use hearing protection when doing this.

I want to see and hear and feel how that piece is going through that
saw.

If the accumulated wisdom of my senses tells me to bail on that cut, I
want to be able to shut that saw down with a clear understanding of
the problem that made that necessary.

I, like you, have been running equipment for about forty years.

This is my choice of how to get by with good results, both from the
safety and the production end.

I have, as do all of those that I respect, all of my digits.

The mind is the best and most appropriate safety device.

I understand that when talking on the Wreck we are addressing multiple
understandings of the process and multiple levels of experience.

I would simply like to preach the gospel of mind as the premier safety
device, as slavish dependence on contrivances does not answer fully.








Regards,

Tom Watson

tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)

http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/

Frank Boettcher wrote:
On 25 Oct 2006 12:07:37 -0700, wrote:


Frank Boettcher wrote:
On 25 Oct 2006 07:25:59 -0700, wrote:


Frank Boettcher wrote:
On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 01:02:05 GMT, "CW" wrote:

I don't believe it.

Nor do I. But at least it is more believable than the guy who was
posting on the Saw Stop thread that his wife was a surgeon that does a
thousand a year.

Keep in mind that some injuries require multiple operations to repair.

My neighbor, who lost two fingers to a table saw had one restored,
but after two years had it re-amputated as the previous operation(s)
were not adequately successful.


It doesn't correlate statistically with my experience as a maker of
saws in defense of personal injury claims and providing individuals as
technical experts in depositions.

E.g. a home-user who removed his guard
is not likely to even consider suing.

Not accurate.

How is that not accurate?

Cases are filed, just not necessarily won.

I didn't deny that cases are filed or won. I speculated that
a home-user who removed his guard is not likely to even
consider suing. That implies that such suits would be rare,
not nonexistant, although no one in thid thread has presented
an example of such a suit--yet, despite the fact that we have
had examples of accidents presented.


And I would contend that your speculation is in error.

But you actually discuss a matter not dispositive as to
the question of what proportion of the injured sues or
seriously considers suing.

It is not that your comments are wrong or even questionable,
they just don't address that particular question.


Manufacturer has the obligation to "Guard and Warn" failure to do
either puts them in a bad position in an action.

Yes, that is one reason why I expect that most people who injure
themselves after removing their guards never consider suing.
They may not have been smart enough to avoid injury
but maybe they are smart or honest enough to realize that
if they ignored the manufacturer's warnings and removed the
manufacturer's safety device, they don't have a case.

Another reason may be that most of the injuries that do require
professional treatment are (hopefully) relatively trivial--mere
stitches
required.

Keep in mind that there is a reason why you see news items about
people winning seemingly trivial suits--they are rare. If they were
commonplace, they wouldn't be newsworthy.

And I would contend that you are in error with this statement also.
I've served on the liability committee of a fortune 100 company (not
the woodworking machinery company) and can assure you that the vast
majority of cases are settled without going to court simply because it
cost the defendant less to do so, win or lose.
The vast majority of those potential cases were without merit.

I didn't argue that meritless (dare I say fraudulent) suits are
not an expensive problem, only that it is rare for a plaintiff
to win one that actually DOES go to trial.

That the vast majority of cases are settled out-of-court
does not address the question of what proportion of the
injured has (seriously) contemplated suing. For every
meritless suit there may be ten or more equally injured
people who lack the chutzpah to sue.

Despite having Usenet access I still think that decent
(even if careless) people are the majority.

--

FF

On 25 Oct 2006 17:35:47 -0700, wrote:


Frank Boettcher wrote:
On 25 Oct 2006 12:07:37 -0700, wrote:


Frank Boettcher wrote:
On 25 Oct 2006 07:25:59 -0700, wrote:


Frank Boettcher wrote:
On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 01:02:05 GMT, "CW" wrote:

I don't believe it.

Nor do I. But at least it is more believable than the guy who was
posting on the Saw Stop thread that his wife was a surgeon that does a
thousand a year.

Keep in mind that some injuries require multiple operations to repair.

My neighbor, who lost two fingers to a table saw had one restored,
but after two years had it re-amputated as the previous operation(s)
were not adequately successful.


It doesn't correlate statistically with my experience as a maker of
saws in defense of personal injury claims and providing individuals as
technical experts in depositions.

E.g. a home-user who removed his guard
is not likely to even consider suing.

Not accurate.

How is that not accurate?

Cases are filed, just not necessarily won.

I didn't deny that cases are filed or won. I speculated that
a home-user who removed his guard is not likely to even
consider suing. That implies that such suits would be rare,
not nonexistant, although no one in thid thread has presented
an example of such a suit--yet, despite the fact that we have
had examples of accidents presented.


And I would contend that your speculation is in error.

But you actually discuss a matter not dispositive as to
the question of what proportion of the injured sues or
seriously considers suing.

It is not that your comments are wrong or even questionable,
they just don't address that particular question.


Manufacturer has the obligation to "Guard and Warn" failure to do
either puts them in a bad position in an action.

Yes, that is one reason why I expect that most people who injure
themselves after removing their guards never consider suing.
They may not have been smart enough to avoid injury
but maybe they are smart or honest enough to realize that
if they ignored the manufacturer's warnings and removed the
manufacturer's safety device, they don't have a case.

Another reason may be that most of the injuries that do require
professional treatment are (hopefully) relatively trivial--mere
stitches
required.

Keep in mind that there is a reason why you see news items about
people winning seemingly trivial suits--they are rare. If they were
commonplace, they wouldn't be newsworthy.

And I would contend that you are in error with this statement also.
I've served on the liability committee of a fortune 100 company (not
the woodworking machinery company) and can assure you that the vast
majority of cases are settled without going to court simply because it
cost the defendant less to do so, win or lose.
The vast majority of those potential cases were without merit.

I didn't argue that meritless (dare I say fraudulent) suits are
not an expensive problem, only that it is rare for a plaintiff
to win one that actually DOES go to trial.

OK please tell me how that matters. If most are trivial or without
merit and most are settled by paying off the those intitiating the
suit, how does that matter whether it goes to trial other than
semantics.

I prepared a point by point response to your post, but then thought
about those papers I signed about conflict of interest, release of
sensitive or damaging information, etc. etc. Since it is a gray area
and this is Usenet and not worthy of taking a chance, I deleted it
all. However, my opinion, formed as an individual who ran an
operation that made a high volume of table saws, remains the same. And
your opinion is based on.......


That the vast majority of cases are settled out-of-court
does not address the question of what proportion of the
injured has (seriously) contemplated suing. For every
meritless suit there may be ten or more equally injured
people who lack the chutzpah to sue.




Despite having Usenet access I still think that decent
(even if careless) people are the majority.

(snip) I disagree completely. I think a lot of accidents in the shop happen
to people
who are knowledgeable and aware, but whose attention slips briefly at just
the
wrong moment.

I have to disagree with your disagreement. To operate table saw safely it
requires the operators full undivided attention. If someone is not
disciplined enough to give it their full attention, there is a good chance
that there will be an accident in their future with or without a guard.
As an example, if you get American Woodworker mag, check out page 28 in this
months issue. The owner of a small woodworking shop and operator of a new
SawStop says he was in a hurry batch cutting stock when his finger went
under the blade guard and hit the blade. Of course the brake saved him for
major injury, but, as you noted, accidents can happen when attention wanders
even briefly. This is the part of running a machine that takes discipline.
IMHO, if one can give their machine their full undivided attention at all
times, the chances of an accident are small.
BTW, I do not think I'm invincible or anything because I can run a table saw
comfortably with no guard, or believe for a second that an accident could
never happen to me. I run a table saw almost daily and am disciplined
enough to not let anything distract me while I'm running it. Regardless of
whether or not it has a guard, MY fingers are at stake here, and the saw
has my full undivided attention at all times. This has played the key role
for me in keeping all 10 intact.
I do think, however, that it is very possible that people who do use a guard
may get a false sense of security and may become a little more relaxed with
regards to giving their undivided attenion to the saw during a cut.
With that said, I certainly don't recommend anyone remove their guard but to
run their table saw as if it wasn't there at all. The guard is merely to
HELP prevent accidents, not eliminate them. Safe use of a table saw still
lands squarely on the operators shoulders. --dave


"Doug Miller" wrote in message
om...
In article .net, "Dave
Jackson" wrote:
(snip) If anything, you're making a good argument *for* using the blade
guard!

I'm not trying to argue anything here. Just because YOU use one doesn't
mean everyone else should.

My point, which you appear to have missed, is that the failure of
construction
workers to use guards means absolutely *nothing* with regard to whether
doing
so is a good idea, or not -- in my experience and observation, most
construction workers use little if any safety equipment, even something as
basic as goggles when running a Sawzall *overhead*.

Have you ever run yours without a guard? And if
so, why are you using one now.

Yes, I have -- some cuts are impossible to make on my saw with the guard
in
place. (I'm using the factory guard, which has an integral splitter. The
splitter has to come off for a dado or rabbet, which means the guard does
too.)

(snip) If you have not already learned to pay close attention, you
shouldn't
be
operating the tool *with* a guard, let alone without one.

On the flip side, if you *truly* have learned to pay close attention to
the
task at hand why would you need a guard?

Mostly because it provides a little extra protection for those moments
when,
for whatever reason, that close attention wanders a bit.

Guards surely prevent accidents,
but accidents in the shop generally don't happen to someone who is aware
of
, and more importantly knowledgeable, about what they are doing.

I disagree completely. I think a lot of accidents in the shop happen to
people
who are knowledgeable and aware, but whose attention slips briefly at just
the
wrong moment.

I suppose you'd have a big crisis if I mentioned I am also perfectly
comfortable cutting something freehand on a table saw as well! --dave

No, I won't have a big crisis from you mentioning it, but *you* will some
day
from *doing* it. That's just not a smart idea.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

"Samson" wrote in message
...

Question: Do you use one? If not, why not?

Nope! I can still count to ten but the closest call I have ever had was with
the guard on. I find it a distraction and always in the way. I am not a full
time woodworker but have used a table saw for 50yr (just every now and then)
so don't get what you would call comfortable with the blade, so it scares
hell out of me and I want to be able to see it at all times. RM~

PS, I use all other precautions, push stick and etc.

Tom Watson wrote:

: When I cut solid stock, particularly "interesting" stock that may be
: reaction wood and needs a bit of visual monitoring, I take the guard
: off.


But this is irrational. Reaction wood is dangerous because it
can twist and bind against the blade and/or fence, and cause
kickback and kickup. With a splitter and guard you have protection
against this. Whithout them you just plain don't.



: If the accumulated wisdom of my senses tells me to bail on that cut, I
: want to be able to shut that saw down with a clear understanding of
: the problem that made that necessary.

You don't seem to understand how rapidly kickback occurs, when it
does occur.


: The mind is the best and most appropriate safety device.


No one is saying it isn't. Just as it's the most appropriate
safety device when driving. That doesn't negate the
actual, verifiable safety advantages of wearing a seatbelt.


: I understand that when talking on the Wreck we are addressing multiple
: understandings of the process and multiple levels of experience.

: I would simply like to preach the gospel of mind as the premier safety
: device, as slavish dependence on contrivances does not answer fully.


Sure. But you're solving the equation wrong. Attendant
mind + guards/igs/splitters outsafties attendant mind alone.


You sound like one of those people (and I've known a bunch) who don't
wear seatbelts in cars (they want to, variously: be able to
get to the other side to avoid a side collision; get out of a burning car;
be thrown free [through the windshield] instead of stuck in a wreck), and
don't wear helmets on a motorcycle (they impair vision!!!).

Doesn't make it smart.


-- Andy Barss