wrote in message
ups.com...

And I wonder if the recreational woodworker might be better off. In
the good old days people love to talk about, there were basically only
good tools. No cheap imported junk.

I wonder how far back the good old day were. I distinctly recall cheap crap
in the 70's. "Wen" comes to mind and it was cheap.

They filed a petition. Do you really think it rationalizes
your original comment as quoted below? Do you have inside
information on how much was being asked for royalties?

I'll bet you use an unsafe table saw just to spite them :-)

***
I however can't get over the greedy inventor's attempt to legislate
this device into every saw in the US. When his invention wasn't snapped
up by all of the major manufacturers as he assumed it would, he lobbied
to make it illegal to manufacture or import saws without a safety device
(his being the only one that would meet the requirements) installed.


Russ wrote:
Mike Berger wrote:
We've all heard this anecdotally. How much direct knowledge do you
really have of the inventor's greed and disdain for humanity?
Even if he lobbied to have the device made mandatory,

In April 2003, sawstop filed a petition with the Consumer Product Safety
Commission to make SawStop-like technology standard on all table saws.

On Jun 5, 11:41 pm, Mike Berger wrote:
They filed a petition. Do you really think it rationalizes
your original comment as quoted below? Do you have inside
information on how much was being asked for royalties?
....

It's pretty clear from the sequence of events and from interviews that
the original business plan did not include manufacturing saws but
licensing the technology and that the prime inventor and his investors
envisioned a much more receptive audience from the major manufacturers
than they received.

That the petition was filed at the time it was and would have had the
effect if enacted upon of legislating the requirement to use their
device (as there was/is no other that would meet the criterion laid
out in the petititon) would have certainly provided them w/
significant leverage to obtain the licensing agreements they hadn't
been able to achieve otherwise.

One does, of course, have to impugn motives, but it's relatively easy
to understand how the conclusions are reached. Whether they're truly
accurate or not isn't so easy. "Greed" perhaps has a stronger
connotation than the true motive force, but it certainly isn't
difficult to conclude that there was a strong interest in gaining a
return on the significant investment which had been made in the
product and the (what must have been almost overwhelming)
disappointment and undoubtedly some anger over not having it accepted
widely.

One has to presume that if the licensing fees were sufficiently low
one of the manufacturers might have bought it simply as a competitive
edge whether they actually chose to incorporate it in a product or
not. That, of course, wouldn't be in the best interest of the
inventor/investors, so one again has to assume the fees were high
enough to at least be part of the decision process in deciding to
reject the technology in toto. Of course, it's likely that the
licensing costs were only a small part of the overall decision -- I
personally expect that the consideration of potential liability issues
was more than likely the overriding factor that ended up being a "deal
breaker" but I'm also sure you'll never get a manufacturer to agree to
that.

So, my take is that "greed" is perhaps too simplistic a total
characterization but I'm almost equally upset of the technique of
trying to use legislation/regulation to force the acceptance of a
product as the poster to whom you're responding. I'm for the
marketplace settling such competitive issues, not the regulators. Now
that they have entered the market on their own I've begun to mellow a
little, but I still fret over what CPSC may eventually do w/ the
petition...

--

On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 21:44:54 -0500, Leuf
wrote:

On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 11:58:58 -0500, Frank Boettcher
wrote:

In an earlier life I was a welder making offshore oil platforms and
deck sections. These things were loaded on barges using two bridge
cranes that had two hoists each at 250 tons capacity each so 1000 tons
total capacity The hooks were very large as were the cables that
attached to them.

Crane hooks are required by OSHA to have spring loaded safty latches,
that is they spring out of the way when you push on the cable loop and
spring back when you get the cable on. Picture cables as large as your
upper arm with a swedged loop that required two men to lift onto the
hook. The hook latches were so large the spring back was mashing
peoples hands. So we took the latches off. Got cited by OSHA. Asked
the OSHA inspector to demonstrate how to get the cables on with the
saftey latches without getting hurt. He declined, admitted that
logically we were right, but had to cite us anyway "got to go by the
book". We also were curious as to how a crane hook loaded to 250 tons
could have a cable slip off the hook if there were no latch. Our
limited knowledge of physics could not fathom that happening. He
declined to explain or to cite any specific statistics.

Load shifts resulting in slack in the line? I'd imagine any siuation
with multiple cranes if that is happening you're pretty much screwed
regardless. Maybe even better off if it does slip off. One less
crane destroyed and able to start picking up the mess.

But in theory if there's no pressure on you to use the thing then
there's no pressure going back to the manufacturer from you to make
something that actually works.

So how many people should it take to get hurt using an ill advised
"safety" device before either OSHA or the manufacturer would be moved
to specify or make something that works?

My point is that on very large hooks, no latch is the safest method.
Nobody got hurt without the latch, many with it (including me). Hard
to argue that it is appropriate. Maybe you have to be there,
wrestling one of those super cables onto a hook to fully understand
the difference and the problems the latches created.

Frank


Frank


-Leuf

"dpb" wrote in message
that they have entered the market on their own I've begun to mellow a
little, but I still fret over what CPSC may eventually do w/ the
petition...

Nothing at all. It's entirely obvious that *any* company of merit using
tablesaws in its business will be forced by the insurance industry to adopt
the Sawstop or a competing technology. It's already happening. Considering
the litigiousness of American society, it will happen much sooner than
later. There's just too much liability not to do otherwise. We're not so
quick to head into the courts up here in Canada, but it's happening here
too. Ask Robin Lee if he's replaced his fleet of tablesaws with Sawstops
yet. Last Saturday after seminar with Peter Boeckh at the Toronto flagship
store, I spent a few minutes examining the Sawstop in the next room.

"Frank Boettcher" wrote in message
news
So how many people should it take to get hurt using an ill advised
"safety" device before either OSHA or the manufacturer would be moved
to specify or make something that works?

My point is that on very large hooks, no latch is the safest method.
Nobody got hurt without the latch, many with it (including me). Hard
to argue that it is appropriate. Maybe you have to be there,
wrestling one of those super cables onto a hook to fully understand
the difference and the problems the latches created.

Frank


I am betting that the "latch" is misnamed. I believe that the "latch" was
intended to be more of a convenience feature in that during instances when
the line with the hook is "slack" the item hooked on it does not fall or
slide off. Somewhere along the line it was probably misinterpreted by OSHA
as a safety feature.

Not totally unlike the hook on a dog leash.

On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 20:45:00 GMT, "Leon"
wrote:

"If" the device works correctly only 1 time, you could have an additional
100 false trips and the extra expense would still be well worth the extra
cost. $200 per trip is an assumption. If you are using an inexpensive
blade the trip is closer to $100 or less including the new cartridge. A
majority of the triggers save thousands of dollars in medical costs. Most
all that have reported false triggers have been compensated in some way by
SawStop and have been assisted in determining a reason and remedy for the
false trip.

You're going to buy an expensive saw and use a cheap blade? Um...
hello?

I made my assumption using a WWII blade which is a pretty standard
blade, if you want to throw a $10 Home Depot cheapie blade in your
saw, more power to you.

Accidents happen whether you practice safety or not. NO ONE is 100%
incapable of having an accident. To think otherwise is pretty naive.

But if you spend all your time quivering in fear that someday, you
just might have an accident, why bother doing woodworking at all?
Woodworking is an inherently dangerous hobby. You will get cut. You
will smash your fingers with a hammer. You will get splinters. Most
of these things are pretty unavoidable.

If you're that paranoid, you should take up knitting.

Frank Boettcher wrote:
....

So how many people should it take to get hurt using an ill advised
"safety" device before either OSHA or the manufacturer would be moved
to specify or make something that works?
....

In my previous life in the (nuclear and fossil) power generation and
coal mining/preparation industries, only one. Any lost time accident or
injury requiring medical treatment was fully investigated for root cause
and mitigative or corrective action(s). If there was a problem w/ a
design of equipment, it or a procedure would be modified to alleviate
the issue...

--

"Brian Henderson" wrote in message
...

You're going to buy an expensive saw and use a cheap blade? Um...
hello?

You never know with some people, I use strictly Forrest.



I made my assumption using a WWII blade which is a pretty standard
blade, if you want to throw a $10 Home Depot cheapie blade in your
saw, more power to you.

Accidents happen whether you practice safety or not. NO ONE is 100%
incapable of having an accident. To think otherwise is pretty naive.


But if you spend all your time quivering in fear that someday, you
just might have an accident, why bother doing woodworking at all?

I'm confused, is this a comment on the fact that no one is incapable of
making mistakes except for you because you know what you are doing?


Woodworking is an inherently dangerous hobby. You will get cut. You
will smash your fingers with a hammer. You will get splinters. Most
of these things are pretty unavoidable.


Not according to the way you do things.

I'm not trying to rationalize. One assumption is that they're doing this
for the greater good. Another assumption is that they're trying to make
a buck. The fact that they attempted to make their invention the 'law of
the land' could be an action spawned by either motivation.
The fact that they were licensing it for $$, not placing it in the
public domain, supports the latter. That they were trying to FORCE the
public to license their product via governmental coercion after their
efforts to market the device failed - that is what ticks me off.

I have no inside information on how much they were asking in royalties.
I do however have Google; in at least one instance they were asking 8%.
Reasonable? I can't say. Apparently the big manufacturers didn't want to
pony up that much, or perhaps it had more to do with liability concerns.

I do still use an unsafe saw. Not to spite them, but to spite the evil
saw. My ever-sore, tingly, disfigured, sawn-to-the-bone left thumb is a
constant, nagging reminder each and every time I turn the saw on to keep
it, and all body parts attached to it, safely away from the spinning
blade. It's a very effective safety device, albeit an expensive one.

I would pay for a sawstop device, but only if I had the ability to
disable it when necessary. It still won't handle wet/green wood without
triggering needlessly.
Besides... what if I WANTED to cut some hot dogs on my Jet? Can't do it
without buying a new Forrest blade and sawstop cartridge every time.

I don't dislike the sawstop device, or any other safety device. I do
dislike, despise even, being strong armed by someone who wants to sell
me something. Call me libertarian, but I believe that letting the market
- AKA peoples spending decisions - determine what products make it into
my garage.
I'll decide for myself what safety devices are right for me. Not some
bureaucrat or snake oil salesman.

And after all that, sawstop found some investors and are now producing a
good quality, safe saw. They'll probably do very well financially. That
should have been the path they took first.

Mike Berger wrote:
They filed a petition. Do you really think it rationalizes
your original comment as quoted below? Do you have inside
information on how much was being asked for royalties?

I'll bet you use an unsafe table saw just to spite them :-)

***
I however can't get over the greedy inventor's attempt to legislate
this device into every saw in the US. When his invention wasn't snapped
up by all of the major manufacturers as he assumed it would, he lobbied
to make it illegal to manufacture or import saws without a safety device
(his being the only one that would meet the requirements) installed.


Russ wrote:
Mike Berger wrote:
We've all heard this anecdotally. How much direct knowledge do you
really have of the inventor's greed and disdain for humanity?
Even if he lobbied to have the device made mandatory,

In April 2003, sawstop filed a petition with the Consumer Product
Safety Commission to make SawStop-like technology standard on all
table saws.

On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 15:22:10 -0500, dpb wrote:

Frank Boettcher wrote:
...

So how many people should it take to get hurt using an ill advised
"safety" device before either OSHA or the manufacturer would be moved
to specify or make something that works?
...

In my previous life in the (nuclear and fossil) power generation and
coal mining/preparation industries, only one. Any lost time accident or
injury requiring medical treatment was fully investigated for root cause
and mitigative or corrective action(s). If there was a problem w/ a
design of equipment, it or a procedure would be modified to alleviate
the issue...

The poster indicated that following a bad reg because it is in the
OSHA federal register would provide the pressure to get something
changed. Therefore my question, because I think not.

Most were first aid cases, not lost time or recordables. For it to be
a recordable it would have to required off premises medical attention
or a prescription. And recordables wether they be lost time or not,
were investigated. Root cause was the use of "safety" latches on a
250 ton hook. latches removed, problem solved......However, that
solution was not going to satisfy the OSHA people.

My perspective is from the point of view of one who handled the
cables, and later as one who was responsible for making those lifts in
a safe manner.

You ever try to modify a crane component to make it better. You have
just relieved the manufacturer from all liability for any future
incidents. On one particular lift, I worked with the manufacturer of
those bridge cranes to do some modifications to make a single lift
that would be over capacity. They did all the Engineering
calculations and work, supervised the modifications, then on the day
of the lift, they faxed in a disclaimer for anything that might happen
as a result of the lift. Took the money though.

Who were you with BTW. could it have been Combustion Engineering?

Frank

On Wed, 6 Jun 2007 09:29:26 -0500, "Upscale"
wrote:


"dpb" wrote in message
that they have entered the market on their own I've begun to mellow a
little, but I still fret over what CPSC may eventually do w/ the
petition...

Nothing at all. It's entirely obvious that *any* company of merit using
tablesaws in its business will be forced by the insurance industry to adopt
the Sawstop or a competing technology. It's already happening. Considering
the litigiousness of American society, it will happen much sooner than
later. There's just too much liability not to do otherwise. We're not so
quick to head into the courts up here in Canada, but it's happening here
too. Ask Robin Lee if he's replaced his fleet of tablesaws with Sawstops
yet. Last Saturday after seminar with Peter Boeckh at the Toronto flagship
store, I spent a few minutes examining the Sawstop in the next room.


I think you over estimate insurance companies. If there is an
"industry" where the pressure would be on to use the SawStop or
something similar I would think that high schools and Vo-Tech schools
would be it. The combination of very inexperienced users and low
"worker" to supervisor ratio would seem to me to create an environment
where liability would be high. However I can assure you that none of
the representatives of the 4 insurance companies that quoted on my
district's insurance required, or for that matter had ever heard of,
the sawstop - I asked each and every one of them, and also the
insurance broker that was working with us to obtain this year's
quotes.

Dave Hall

Frank Boettcher wrote:
On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 15:22:10 -0500, dpb wrote:

Frank Boettcher wrote:
...

So how many people should it take to get hurt using an ill advised
"safety" device before either OSHA or the manufacturer would be moved
to specify or make something that works?
...

In my previous life in the (nuclear and fossil) power generation and
coal mining/preparation industries, only one. Any lost time accident or
injury requiring medical treatment was fully investigated for root cause
and mitigative or corrective action(s). If there was a problem w/ a
design of equipment, it or a procedure would be modified to alleviate
the issue...

The poster indicated that following a bad reg because it is in the
OSHA federal register would provide the pressure to get something
changed. Therefore my question, because I think not.

Most were first aid cases, not lost time or recordables. For it to be
a recordable it would have to required off premises medical attention
or a prescription. And recordables wether they be lost time or not,
were investigated. Root cause was the use of "safety" latches on a
250 ton hook. latches removed, problem solved......However, that
solution was not going to satisfy the OSHA people.

My perspective is from the point of view of one who handled the
cables, and later as one who was responsible for making those lifts in
a safe manner.

You ever try to modify a crane component to make it better. You have
just relieved the manufacturer from all liability for any future
incidents. On one particular lift, I worked with the manufacturer of
those bridge cranes to do some modifications to make a single lift
that would be over capacity. They did all the Engineering
calculations and work, supervised the modifications, then on the day
of the lift, they faxed in a disclaimer for anything that might happen
as a result of the lift. Took the money though.

Who were you with BTW. could it have been Combustion Engineering?

I agree on the previous that OSHA tends not to change w/o massive push.
Am surprised could have gotten the "remove latch" solution through a
safety committee even though understand that certainly removed the
proximate cause. Would have thought the solution more likely to have
been regarding alternate lifting procedure to remove hands from direct
proximity...

Also agree that no engineering firm would accept any responsibility for
a modified piece of safety equipment, no matter how minor nor benign the
modification appeared. Liability just too great and the lawyers and/or
field inspectors for OSHA, etc., have _no_ sense of humor (or
perspective, often, either). NRC didn't, either...

My vendor experience was w/ Babcock & Wilcox although knew a bunch of
guys from C-E.

-dpb

--

Brian Henderson wrote:

....

Woodworking is an inherently dangerous hobby. You will get cut. You
will smash your fingers with a hammer. You will get splinters. Most
of these things are pretty unavoidable.
....

At least one of the woodworking magazines has added that mantra to their
inside cover page, apparently in response to the legal beagles and in
the interest of political correctness. I tend to disagree not in
principle but in level of it being an "ordinary" level of danger
associated w/ the activity and not worthy of mention per se.

the list of accidents, other than the splinter, I can't recall the
last time one of the others has happened to me. Not that I'm somehow
magic, but I do tend to be careful. Having hit myself w/ hammers in the
past has taught me not to do that any longer.. I have a very strong
aversion to _ever_ cutting myself again severely, and for that reason
have very serious evaluations of how I try to carve/cut on stuff...I'm
not a professional carver, though...

--

Howard Swope wrote:
I am getting ready to make a table saw purchase. I have pretty much decided
on getting the SawStop http://www.sawstop.com/. It looks like a high quality
saw and the safety features can't be beat. It is about double what I had
originally wanted to spend. My thought was that if it prevents one injury it
has easily paid for itself. An extra 2 grand seems like a lot of money until
you weight it against the loss of a finger(s), and then that 2 grand seems
like nothing.

Thoughts, comments, advice?

Thanks,
Howard


Only if you can't seem to keep your fingers away from sharp spinning things.
mahalo,
jo4hn

On Jun 4, 8:40 pm, "Howard Swope" wrote:

"decided on getting the SawStophttp://www.sawstop.com/"

You guys must be swimming in cash! $400 for shipping? Geeze, I paid
that for my saw!

Are you a hobbyist or setting up a professional shop?

My grandfather was the carpenter everyone would wait for, died with
all ten fingers and left solid tools my uncle used till he died at
eighty.

Richard Newell would have said "its a poor workman what blames 'is
tools."

As to fingers, used a high quality carbide tipped blade, It will cut
through flesh, bone and fingernails cleanly and quickly. You shouldn't
feel a thing. Wrap them up in a clean towel with some ice before
leaving for the emergency room and get a decent plastic surgeon or
bone man. If you cut through the knuckle, the result is a stiff
finger. Keep your head about you and drive carefully to the ER cursing
your craftsman all the way - yeah, its the saws' fault!.

If you've $6,700 to blow on a hobby tool, go for the Multi-featured
European tool and be "to careful" with it.

When you wake up the next morning and the Hospital Admin folks come to
have you sign some papers, tell them to come back when you're off the
anesthetics for 24 hours or so. (Lack of capacity to contract!) If
you do sign anything that next day - call, fax and write a notice of
revocation. Th hospital will try and get you to sign over your
insurance to them FIRST and leave you to share the remainder with the
surgical team, etc. Have your Insurance company wait until you have
all the bills at hand and know all the players. Then, have them make
the check out to you and everyone on that list. Then counter-sign the
check and send it to them all c/o the Hospital with a letter offering
it in full settlement.

If its cashed, that's that no more bills its all paid for! And not
dime one out of your pocket.



I am getting ready to make a table saw purchase. I have pretty much decided
decided on getting the SawStophttp://www.sawstop.com/. It looks like a high quality
saw and the safety features can't be beat. It is about double what I had
originally wanted to spend. My thought was that if it prevents one injury it
has easily paid for itself. An extra 2 grand seems like a lot of money until
you weight it against the loss of a finger(s), and then that 2 grand seems
like nothing.

Thoughts, comments, advice?

Thanks,
Howard

"Hoosierpopi" wrote in message
ups.com...

As to fingers, used a high quality carbide tipped blade, It will cut
through flesh, bone and fingernails cleanly and quickly.

That is simply not true. Cleanly, absolutely not. Quickly, absolutely.

You shouldn't feel a thing.

You clearely are talking BS. Cut through bone and it feels like your whole
arm is being electrocuted.

On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 09:20:48 -0500, Frank Boettcher
wrote:

So how many people should it take to get hurt using an ill advised
"safety" device before either OSHA or the manufacturer would be moved
to specify or make something that works?

Well ideally there would be enough pressure for your company to be
going straight to the manufacturer saying your latch doesn't work for
us, on one side of me I've got my guys bitching they get hurt if they
use it and on the other I've got OSHA bitching if I don't use it. Do
something. But yes in reality it's just easier to pay the fine and
nothing changes until somebody gets killed.

My point is that on very large hooks, no latch is the safest method.
Nobody got hurt without the latch, many with it (including me). Hard
to argue that it is appropriate. Maybe you have to be there,
wrestling one of those super cables onto a hook to fully understand
the difference and the problems the latches created.

I'm sure Mike Rowe will be along to show us at some point.



-Leuf

Tue, Jun 5, 2007, 12:40am (EDT+4) (Howard*Swope)
doth query:
snip Thoughts, comments, advice?

Not worth it. You can't even cut salami without it stopping.



JOAT
If a man does his best, what else is there?
- General George S. Patton

(J T) wrote in news:25367-4667BB31-1176
@storefull-3336.bay.webtv.net:

Tue, Jun 5, 2007, 12:40am (EDT+4) (Howard*Swope)
doth query:
snip Thoughts, comments, advice?

Not worth it. You can't even cut salami without it stopping.



Now you know that's a load of balogna.

Puckdropper
--
Wise is the man who attempts to answer his question before asking it.

To email me directly, send a message to puckdropper (at) fastmail.fm

On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 00:39:16 -0500, Leuf
wrote:

On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 09:20:48 -0500, Frank Boettcher
wrote:

So how many people should it take to get hurt using an ill advised
"safety" device before either OSHA or the manufacturer would be moved
to specify or make something that works?

Well ideally there would be enough pressure for your company to be
going straight to the manufacturer saying your latch doesn't work for
us, on one side of me I've got my guys bitching they get hurt if they
use it and on the other I've got OSHA bitching if I don't use it. Do
something. But yes in reality it's just easier to pay the fine and
nothing changes until somebody gets killed.

With your last sentence, you must be assumming that there is an
inherent danger without the latches, and that somebody is more likely
to get killed with them removed. Certainly, my opinion would not be
the same. Maybe I don't share your confidence that the bureaucrat who
wrote the regulation was competent to do so.

My point is that on very large hooks, no latch is the safest method.
Nobody got hurt without the latch, many with it (including me). Hard
to argue that it is appropriate. Maybe you have to be there,
wrestling one of those super cables onto a hook to fully understand
the difference and the problems the latches created.

I'm sure Mike Rowe will be along to show us at some point.



-Leuf

Leuf wrote:
On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 09:20:48 -0500, Frank Boettcher
wrote:

So how many people should it take to get hurt using an ill advised
"safety" device before either OSHA or the manufacturer would be moved
to specify or make something that works?

Well ideally there would be enough pressure for your company to be
going straight to the manufacturer saying your latch doesn't work for
us, on one side of me I've got my guys bitching they get hurt if they
use it and on the other I've got OSHA bitching if I don't use it. Do
something.

It doesn't really work that way. I'm thinking you've not worked in an
OSHA-controlled environment...

OSHA has the force of law and inspectors to enforce it and power of very
substantial fines with which to be punitive about it. Unfortunately, it
is one of those bureaucratic nightmares which has become the 900-lb
gorilla and often the good intentions are lost in detailed
"letter-of-law" enforcement. Not all inspectors are as qualified as
would be desirable nor are all as interested in working to find a safe
technique for a given operation as in finding violations.

Consequently, manufacturers of equipment have to produce it to OSHA
standards and if, for example in this case, the reg says "there shall be
a hook", then they're going to make the item with a hook because if they
don't they can't sell it as approved. And, unfortunately, Leuf is right
in that it isn't something one can simply tell OSHA "we'd rather do it
this way because..." and get an approval or waiver or any such relief in
a timely fashion.

But yes in reality it's just easier to pay the fine and
nothing changes until somebody gets killed.

The above said, however, last sentence doesn't in general reflect the
attitude of many companies on workplace safety, however. There are some
that tend to "not get it", but for the most part it is a serious effort.

--

On Jun 5, 1:22 pm, Brian Henderson
wrote:
On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 00:40:24 GMT, "Howard Swope"
wrote:

Further, lots of people have reported false trips of the
mechanism and at about $200 per trip, that can add up since you have
to replace the cartridge and blade. If you don't have an extra on
hand, you're out work time as well.



Care to elaborate on where/who all these false trips are happening.
Cartridge $70 (in some cases free from SS) $90 for WWII

On Wed, 6 Jun 2007 15:42:56 -0500, "Leon"
wrote:

I'm confused, is this a comment on the fact that no one is incapable of
making mistakes except for you because you know what you are doing?

No, I just don't think that people should rely on nanny safety
equipment, they should learn how to be safe and use the safety
equipment as a backup. Otherwise, it's all about evolution in action,
the stupid get culled from the herd. If people have to be told not to
lay on a running table saw because something bad might happen...
something tells me these people deserve to be laying on running table
saw blades, they're just too stupid to survive on their own.

On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 16:43:42 -0500, dpb wrote:

At least one of the woodworking magazines has added that mantra to their
inside cover page, apparently in response to the legal beagles and in
the interest of political correctness. I tend to disagree not in
principle but in level of it being an "ordinary" level of danger
associated w/ the activity and not worthy of mention per se.

Unfortunately, we live in a very sue-happy society where not only do
you have to tell people to be safe, you have to do it in such a way
that a brain-dead chihuahua could understand it.

the list of accidents, other than the splinter, I can't recall the
last time one of the others has happened to me. Not that I'm somehow
magic, but I do tend to be careful. Having hit myself w/ hammers in the
past has taught me not to do that any longer.. I have a very strong
aversion to _ever_ cutting myself again severely, and for that reason
have very serious evaluations of how I try to carve/cut on stuff...I'm
not a professional carver, though...

I've never managed to cut anything off my body I didn't intend to,
neither did my father in a lifetime of woodworking, neither did my
uncle in a lifetime of woodworking. Why? Because we all learned that
whirling metal blades of death meeting flesh is a bad thing. We
learned how to work safely, we learned that if you do something that
feels dangerous, chances are that doing it at all is wrong. You know
something? That's what kept us all safe. Not having nanny-equipment
that doesn't let us be stupid, but learning not to be stupid in the
first place. That's really where I object to all this anti-stupidity
equipment that has come along. It doesn't teach people to be safer,
it teaches them that they can be idiots, the equipment will keep them
from having any consequences to their stupidity.

Honestly, I think people need to suffer the consequences of their
idiocy, otherwise how do you learn not to be an idiot?

"Brian Henderson" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 6 Jun 2007 15:42:56 -0500, "Leon"
wrote:

I'm confused, is this a comment on the fact that no one is incapable of
making mistakes except for you because you know what you are doing?

No, I just don't think that people should rely on nanny safety
equipment, they should learn how to be safe and use the safety
equipment as a backup. Otherwise, it's all about evolution in action,
the stupid get culled from the herd. If people have to be told not to
lay on a running table saw because something bad might happen...
something tells me these people deserve to be laying on running table
saw blades, they're just too stupid to survive on their own.


What are you, 14, 15 maybe?

"Brian Henderson" wrote in message
...

I've never managed to cut anything off my body I didn't intend to,
neither did my father in a lifetime of woodworking, neither did my
uncle in a lifetime of woodworking. Why? Because we all learned that
whirling metal blades of death meeting flesh is a bad thing. We
learned how to work safely, we learned that if you do something that
feels dangerous, chances are that doing it at all is wrong. You know
something? That's what kept us all safe. Not having nanny-equipment
that doesn't let us be stupid, but learning not to be stupid in the
first place. That's really where I object to all this anti-stupidity
equipment that has come along. It doesn't teach people to be safer,
it teaches them that they can be idiots, the equipment will keep them
from having any consequences to their stupidity.

Honestly, I think people need to suffer the consequences of their
idiocy, otherwise how do you learn not to be an idiot?

You are sooooooo naive. You talk about those people that need to suffer the
consequences and yet you are headed right down that path and don't see it
coming.
You know the saying, you don't know enough to know that you don't know.

Leon wrote:
You are sooooooo naive. You talk about those people that need to
suffer the consequences and yet you are headed right down that path
and don't see it coming.
You know the saying, you don't know enough to know that you don't
know.

Just curious....as a major (at least here) sawstop supporter as well as
table saw victim why don't you have one? On another note if any table saw
accident is possible is it as well inevitable? Rod

"Rod & Betty Jo" wrote in message

Just curious....as a major (at least here) sawstop supporter as well as
table saw victim why don't you have one?

Whether he actually owns one is mostly irrelevent in this case. As well,
there can be other reasons why a proponent of Sawstop safety might not own
one. Leon is arguing the benefits of the Sawstop in this case against
Brian's "impossible for me to get hurt" responses. I fully support the
safety features of the Sawstop myself, but don't own one. And since I know
you're going why, I'll indulge you with the primary reason I don't own a
Sawstop. I use a wheelchair and the Sawstop table surface is too high for me
to use in as safe manner as I'd like.

However, that hasn't stopped me from seriously considering one. I've
examined the Sawtop closely in person and inquired about the possibilility
of cutting down the Sawstop cabinet to lower the table. But, the additional
mechanical components needed for the safety features in the Sawstop make it
impossible to lower the table. Other makes of cabinet tablesaws however, can
be lowered without extensive mechanical modification and that *is* something
that I'm actively pursuing.

On another note if any table saw accident is possible is it as well
inevitable?

Given enough time, yes it is inevitable. In the case of Brian Henderson
possibly, possibly not, but his "impossible for me to get hurt" attitude
makes him more vulnerable to accident. And the ironies of life have a way of
biting one in the butt when they least expect it. Not that I'd want to see
Brian or anyone else be hurt just to satisfy that irony, but his attitude
certainly mandates a good scare on the tablesaw just to bring him down to
reality.

On Fri, 8 Jun 2007 04:31:26 -0500, "Upscale"
wrote:

Whether he actually owns one is mostly irrelevent in this case. As well,
there can be other reasons why a proponent of Sawstop safety might not own
one. Leon is arguing the benefits of the Sawstop in this case against
Brian's "impossible for me to get hurt" responses.

No one has ever said it's impossible to get hurt, but the reason I
haven't gotten hurt isn't because I've got the
safety-equipment-from-hell, it's because I know how to work safely.
Is it possible I might get seriously hurt someday? Sure, anything is
possible. Am I going to be paranoid about it? Nope.

We see far too many people who rely on technology to keep them safe
and just don't bother actually learning how to *BE* safe in the first
place. That's the objection.

On Jun 4, 10:17 pm, "Leon" wrote:
"RonB" wrote in message

...







"Leon" wrote in message
. net...

And that is a good upgrade in the thought process of operating procedures
but accidents often happen when there is no wood being processed. And I
thought only an idiot could cut half their thumb off when not cutting
wood. ;~)
Me too. I put a "to-the-bone" notch in the end of a finger a few years
ago with the saw's motor off. I flipped the switch off, started to walk
away, and realized I had left a cut-off piece on the table. I carelessly
overreached the still spinning blade and "bang"!

That's a hard hit when bone is involved. Very painful, but an invaluable
lesson in safety. I am lucky, and a much more careful woodworker for it.

RonB

Yeah, the bone being hit is pretty violent. I still remember how my whole
hand shook as I cut it away from the tip of my thumb between the nail and
the finger print up to the first joint. I also remember the nurse at the ER
commenting "Knarly".

Unfortunately I was clueless what happened. I initially thought I had a
kick back until I opened up my hand that was clutching my left thumb. I
never could figure out what happened until I almost did it again about 1
year later. One year later I did the same thing, I finished cutting a
through dado and turned the saw off. Then I reached with my left hand to
the far end of the rip fence to lift it up and off the table top. This time
however I felt the wind coming off of the dado set. Fortunately this time
my thumb was too short to come in contact with the blade. Now I watch the
blade come to a complete stop before making any adjustments.

I've always recommended that beginning woodworkers learn to "COUNT THE
TEETH OF THE BLADE" before doing anything anywhere near it. I taught
quite a few women over 6 years on safe power tool use and not one of
us so much as got a scratch. I think this is a dumb kinda rule- but it
works. Donna Menke, www.woodworks-by-donna.com, author: The Ultimate
Band Saw Box Book

Rod & Betty Jo wrote:
....

...if any table saw accident is possible is it as well inevitable? ...

You Presbyterian???

--

Brian Henderson wrote:
....

We see far too many people who rely on technology to keep them safe
and just don't bother actually learning how to *BE* safe in the first
place. That's the objection.

I don't believe that's the case in any of the discussion here...

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.

--

"Rod & Betty Jo" wrote in message
...


Just curious....as a major (at least here) sawstop supporter as well as
table saw victim why don't you have one? On another note if any table saw
accident is possible is it as well inevitable? Rod


Good questions, and I'll bring up some things to consider concerning other
comments in this thread so please do not consider that all of these comments
are directed at you.

This is the way I think concerning this topic.

Unfortunately my accident, which still seems like it only happed a few
months ago, happened about 14 years prior to the SawStop being invented.
Why don't I have one now? I am not in the market for a new TS. While many
will say that the SawStop is very expensive and may not be worth the
additional expense, it is marginally more expensive if you plan on buying a
new saw any way. It may only be $500 to $1500 more than a "comparable" saw
in the same class that you may be looking at. Yes $500 to $1500 is a lot
of money to some people including myself. I do however pay a similar amount
"every year" for home owners insurance and the chances of being hurt on the
TS are much greater than my house burning down or being blown away in a
storm. Damages incurred on a TS could be equal in value to those of your
house being blown away or burned down and could be more if the injuries
would affect your livelihood. If you do not need to buy a new saw the
expense is much greater than what you were going to spend. I absolutely do
not propose that every one go out and buy one. I do suggest that the saw be
strongly considered if you are going to buy a new TS. It's like considering
the purchase of a car with or with out air bags. Until you have been
injured you really have not concept of how venerable you are. Once injured
you have had the experience to realize that you simply do not know every
possible way that you can be injured. It could not happen to me and yet it
did. Every one that knows me was in shock because I was soooo careful.
Hummmm.

You asked, if a any table saw accident is possible is it as well inevitable?


Absolutely. So far, Table saw accidents are not on the decline. Will you
eventually get hurt, "maybe" not. Between you and 4 other TS users, the
chances are 5 times greater that one of you will get hurt. We are all human
and we make mistakes. With out fail we all eventually unknowingly let our
guard down. The more you use your saw the more likely it is that at some
time you are going to get hurt.

You always practice proper TS safety because you respect the machine and
know what harm it can do. Are you more comfortable using the saw today
than the very first day you used it? Do you think that you will become
more comfortable with it as time goes by or if you use it every day?
Thinking way back when your parents let you have your first knife, did you
respect it and know what harm it could do? Are you more comfortable using
the knife today than the very first time you used it?
Have you ever cut yourself with a knife even though you had the knowledge
that it could harm you.

You come from a long line wood workers. Your grandfather, your father, you
and your child were and or will become woodworkers. Your grandfather's,
your father's and your child's experience with woodworking equipment will
never have any extended power or extend good luck to protect you from
making a mistake. Your grandfather probably taught your father how to use
and respect a knife. I'll bet your father has cut himself with a knife.
Did you ever think that you would not cut your self because your father
taught you how to handle and use a knife?

The simple fact is, the more safety features a tool has, the less likely an
accident will occur when the inevitable happens. The inevitable would be
you letting your guard down or making a mistake. The TS is unforgiving. It
does not care whether you practice proper safety or not. You CANNOT know
all the steps to prevent any possible accident and practice them 100% of the
time.

If you are in the market for a new TS. Should you discount the SawStop
because of they way the inventor tried to bring the saw/technology to
market? :~) Before answering that question lets all remember that we all
practice proper TS safety. Right? Do we let our guard down at this moment?
Would not considering a saw with more safety devices because of the feelings
we have towards some one or something be practicing good TS safety.

Practicing good TS safety does exclude events that happen when wood is not
being cut.

Did you ever say or know some one that said, that will never happen to me?

"Upscale" wrote in message
...


However, that hasn't stopped me from seriously considering one. I've
examined the Sawtop closely in person and inquired about the possibilility
of cutting down the Sawstop cabinet to lower the table. But, the
additional
mechanical components needed for the safety features in the Sawstop make
it
impossible to lower the table. Other makes of cabinet tablesaws however,
can
be lowered without extensive mechanical modification and that *is*
something
that I'm actively pursuing.


I do not know yore arrangement but rather than modify a saw to be lower,
could you modify or build up the floor around the saw? If you have a
wooden floor could you cut a hole in it and install a lower surface to set
the saw into? Or perhaps build up the floor around equipment that is or is
marginally too tall?

Just a thought.

"Donna" wrote in message
ups.com...

I've always recommended that beginning woodworkers learn to "COUNT THE
TEETH OF THE BLADE" before doing anything anywhere near it. I taught
quite a few women over 6 years on safe power tool use and not one of
us so much as got a scratch. I think this is a dumb kinda rule- but it
works. Donna Menke, www.woodworks-by-donna.com, author: The Ultimate
Band Saw Box Book


Good advise however there is always an exception to every rule. LOL

I had probably counted the teeth on more than a few blades 10 years before
having an accident and some times will nick my self just handling a freshly
sharpened blade.

"Brian Henderson" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 8 Jun 2007 04:31:26 -0500, "Upscale"
wrote:

Whether he actually owns one is mostly irrelevent in this case. As well,
there can be other reasons why a proponent of Sawstop safety might not own
one. Leon is arguing the benefits of the Sawstop in this case against
Brian's "impossible for me to get hurt" responses.

No one has ever said it's impossible to get hurt, but the reason I
haven't gotten hurt isn't because I've got the
safety-equipment-from-hell, it's because I know how to work safely.
Is it possible I might get seriously hurt someday? Sure, anything is
possible. Am I going to be paranoid about it? Nope.

We see far too many people who rely on technology to keep them safe
and just don't bother actually learning how to *BE* safe in the first
place. That's the objection.

Brian I guess what makes your comments seem so naive and scream
"inexperienced" is that you keep fabricating instances that have not
occurred in these threads. No one in this thread that I recall has made
the comment that they are going to rely on technology to keep them safe.

Like most people know, looking down the barrel of a loaded gun is not going
to save your butt if you pull the trigger and the safety is not engaged and
whether the safety is engaged or not it is a dangerous move. I think it
goes with out saying that most mature people realize that nothing is fool
proof and that placing a body part near a blade spinning at 100 mph is still
going to instill a sense of fear regardless if the operator knows that the
safety device will prevent injury 99.99% of the time.

The reason that you have not had an accident yet is because the safety
techniques that you practice have not yet been compromised by the mistakes
that you make. Yes you make mistakes. I know you do. You are not the only
that does not. Given enough use and time a mistake will happen when you are
not practicing a safety technique that you are so far unaware of. If your
grand father or father taught you all the safety measures that they know,
you have not learned all the safety practices. Your comments demonstrate
that.

Leon wrote:
"Brian Henderson" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 8 Jun 2007 04:31:26 -0500, "Upscale"
wrote:

....
...I haven't gotten hurt isn't because I've got the
safety-equipment-from-hell, it's because I know how to work safely.
....
...far too many people who rely on technology to keep them safe...
....

Brian I guess what makes your comments seem so naive and scream
"inexperienced" is that you keep fabricating instances that have not
occurred in these threads. No one in this thread that I recall has made
the comment that they are going to rely on technology to keep them safe.

Like most people know, looking down the barrel of a loaded gun is not going
to save your butt if you pull the trigger and the safety is not engaged and
whether the safety is engaged or not it is a dangerous move. ...

The reason that you have not had an accident yet is because the safety
techniques that you practice have not yet been compromised by the mistakes
that you make. ...

I fully agree, Leon. As another sidebar of this thread has discussed,
some of us here have served on safety review committees doing accident
analyses and root-cause evaluations. It is truly to be amazed by at how
many of these have as at least one cause either willful disregard for
accepted procedure(s) or actual disabling of one or more safety devices
thus allowing or precipitating the injury.

--

Howard,

I am getting ready to make a table saw purchase. I have pretty much decided
on getting the SawStophttp://www.sawstop.com/. It looks like a high quality
saw and the safety features can't be beat. It is about double what I had
...... Thoughts, comments, advice?


Just heard from a local HS shop teacher - he's getting two of them. He
gets a kickback accident ever so often (more rarely, due to his
teaching
skills and the many eyes in the back of his head, I'm sure), but
he simply can not afford a possibility of an amputation accident.

I agree!

Go for it!

MJ Wallace

In article , dpb wrote:

SNIP



As another sidebar of this thread has discussed,
some of us here have served on safety review committees doing accident
analyses and root-cause evaluations. It is truly to be amazed by at how
many of these have as at least one cause either willful disregard for
accepted procedure(s) or actual disabling of one or more safety devices
thus allowing or precipitating the injury.

--

Oh man, did that make my hair stand on end - again. Haven't thought
about it for a long time, but all of a sudden I was back in 1964 sitting
down at a punch press for day after day of punching out zillions of 2
inch parts. Even though the press was old, it was fitted to prevent
getting fingers in the dies. Except that some genius must have thought
that using both hands to lower the press slowed them down too much,
because this one was modified. The left-hand handle was wired down and
the right-handle was wired to a home-brew foot pedal, so that you could
feed with the left hand, retrieve parts with the right hand and operate
the press with ONE FOOT. Even though it scared the **** out of me, I
knew I had to keep my mouth shut and just watch out for myself, or quit
the best paying summer job I could find. I was able to maintain
concentration for a couple of days, but eventually the mind-numbing
repetition took its toll and a couple of times I caught myself getting
out of sequence and reaching to retrieve the part while my foot was
starting to come down to lower the press. Never got hurt, and didn't
hear about anyone else getting hurt, but the experience obviously made
an impression.

And back on topic, if I replace my Jet contractor saw, the Saw Stop will
be high on my list of possibles. Even though I know I am able to prevent
most accidents, some day something may distract me at the wrong moment.

Regards,
PDX David