FWW had a short write up about the first pre-production sawstop cabnet saw.

More pictures at www.sawstop.com. I didn't like thier efforts to force
the technolgy on all saws, but applaud them building a better mousetrap.

"brian roth" wrote in message
om...
FWW had a short write up about the first pre-production sawstop cabnet
saw.

More pictures at www.sawstop.com. I didn't like thier efforts to force
the technolgy on all saws, but applaud them building a better mousetrap.

Taking a long time to get into production though. IIRC it has been over a
year since they started taking orders. The next release of Windows will
probably be out before Saw Stop.
Ed

http://pages.cthome.net/edhome

Ed Pawlowski writes:

"brian roth" wrote in message
. com...
FWW had a short write up about the first pre-production sawstop cabnet
saw.

More pictures at www.sawstop.com. I didn't like thier efforts to force
the technolgy on all saws, but applaud them building a better mousetrap.

Taking a long time to get into production though. IIRC it has been over a
year since they started taking orders. The next release of Windows will
probably be out before Saw Stop.

IIRC, they were taking orders, with pre-production saw models sitting on the
floor, at IWWF in '02. That's well over a year ago, and I'm not sure why anyone
would write those saws up as "new" pre-production models.

Charlie Self
"If you want to know what God thinks of money, just look at the people he gave
it to." Dorothy Parker

"Charlie Self" wrote in message

IIRC, they were taking orders, with pre-production saw models sitting on
the
floor, at IWWF in '02. That's well over a year ago, and I'm not sure why
anyone
would write those saws up as "new" pre-production models.


Two years+ is a long time to wait if you need or want a new saw. I looked
at their web page. Price of the saw seems OK, but they I noticed, the fence
is optional. Gets pricey all of a sudden. I'd like to see it in production
a reasonable cost for those that want to buy them, not be forced into it.
Ed

On 21 Jun 2004 07:45:36 -0700, (brian roth)
vaguely proposed a theory
.......and in reply I say!:

remove ns from my header address to reply via email

FWW had a short write up about the first pre-production sawstop cabnet saw.

More pictures at www.sawstop.com. I didn't like thier efforts to force
the technolgy on all saws, but applaud them building a better mousetrap.


There was some simplistic prat who said "If you invent a better
mousetrap, the world will beat a path to your door." They forgot to
include economics.

IIRc the Saw Stop was a significant part of the cost of a saw.
pphhptht!

IME, WRT the sawstop, as with all "bright ideas" if they
(a) take the long sales view
(b) really care about safety

and rather than trying to enforce their market, they then price the
thing to _sell easily_, (rather than pay for development costs in 6
months), then there is no _need_ for the "enforced view".

Reality. X percent of the saw-using community suffer loss of a weener
sausage during their career or hobby life. Cost your mousetrap at much
more than this, and Govt intervention (insurance lobby groups) is your
only hope.

There are those that _succeed_ in their lobbies. There are those that
fail.

It's a BIG bet. Fail and you will NOT sell. "Ferget you, man!"


If I was going to lobby for mandatory whatever, I would say "What
votes

!!!!!!!!!_use_!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

this thing?"..............table saws? umm......... .....2%

.....Looooser!

Market forces apply. Get the price down.

Airbags? 80+% _use_ the thing it "helps". Winner! Bull**** _or_ not.

"Short people" it kills? 1%.......see stat on weener savers.

I think that they could do quite effectively by making a high quality saw
that is worth the price, then pointing out that the saw could save money in
the long run if health costs are considered.

I saw their site. I'm strongly considering getting one. It would be a
move up from my Ryobi, but I'm getting to the point where the added size,
accuracy, capabilities, and piece of mind are getting to be important.

Michael


"Old Nick" wrote in message
...
On 21 Jun 2004 07:45:36 -0700, (brian roth)
vaguely proposed a theory
......and in reply I say!:

remove ns from my header address to reply via email

FWW had a short write up about the first pre-production sawstop cabnet
saw.

More pictures at www.sawstop.com. I didn't like thier efforts to force
the technolgy on all saws, but applaud them building a better mousetrap.


There was some simplistic prat who said "If you invent a better
mousetrap, the world will beat a path to your door." They forgot to
include economics.

IIRc the Saw Stop was a significant part of the cost of a saw.
pphhptht!

IME, WRT the sawstop, as with all "bright ideas" if they
(a) take the long sales view
(b) really care about safety

and rather than trying to enforce their market, they then price the
thing to _sell easily_, (rather than pay for development costs in 6
months), then there is no _need_ for the "enforced view".

Reality. X percent of the saw-using community suffer loss of a weener
sausage during their career or hobby life. Cost your mousetrap at much
more than this, and Govt intervention (insurance lobby groups) is your
only hope.

There are those that _succeed_ in their lobbies. There are those that
fail.

It's a BIG bet. Fail and you will NOT sell. "Ferget you, man!"


If I was going to lobby for mandatory whatever, I would say "What
votes

!!!!!!!!!_use_!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

this thing?"..............table saws? umm......... .....2%

....Looooser!

Market forces apply. Get the price down.

Airbags? 80+% _use_ the thing it "helps". Winner! Bull**** _or_ not.

"Short people" it kills? 1%.......see stat on weener savers.

Ed Pawlowski notes:

Two years+ is a long time to wait if you need or want a new saw. I looked
at their web page. Price of the saw seems OK, but they I noticed, the fence
is optional. Gets pricey all of a sudden. I'd like to see it in production
a reasonable cost for those that want to buy them, not be forced into it.

Yeah. Me, too, but their attempt at forcing it down people's throats really
turned me off. When you discover the number/percentage of digit removal
accidents on a table saw and compare such costs with the overall cost of the
SawStop, you have to wonder a bit. Yes, it's a tragedy to the guy who loses a
finger or 2. But why should it cost me, and 10,000,000 other table saw owners,
$700 or so each to keep a dozen such people from losing a digit annually.

That forced marketing is probably impossible, anyway, but it would sure stir up
immediate interest in the used table saw markets. Something like 20 years ago,
Black & Decker estimated that there were at least 10,000,000 table saws in the
U.S. which is where I got the above figure as well. At that time, the hobby was
a minor one, relatively speaking. Today, whoooweee!

The biggest problem seems to actually be fear of loss, not actual loss, of a
digit. I'd like to see some accurate, and certified, figures on table saw
ownership versus amputation, or partial amputation, injuries, which seem to be
all the SawStop is aimed at preventing. But I still wouldn't want legislation
telling me that the next time I got a table saw, I'd have to double its price
to pay for safety equipment I won't buy on my own.

Charlie Self
"If you want to know what God thinks of money, just look at the people he gave
it to." Dorothy Parker

This saw technology is being developed for the long term. Should this
technology succeed, it will become a required feature on all saws of every
application.

Examples of this type of marketing abound. Seat belts, airbags, anit-lock
brakes, life jackets, emergency locator beacons, anti kickback, guards of
every size and shape.

Trust me when I say, as soon as the technology makes it past the commercial
world where OSHA and the insurance companies force it on all machines
operated by employees, it won't be long before its on every saw.

Dave


"Charlie Self" wrote in message
...
Ed Pawlowski notes:

Two years+ is a long time to wait if you need or want a new saw. I
looked
at their web page. Price of the saw seems OK, but they I noticed, the
fence
is optional. Gets pricey all of a sudden. I'd like to see it in
production
a reasonable cost for those that want to buy them, not be forced into it.

Yeah. Me, too, but their attempt at forcing it down people's throats
really
turned me off. When you discover the number/percentage of digit removal
accidents on a table saw and compare such costs with the overall cost of
the
SawStop, you have to wonder a bit. Yes, it's a tragedy to the guy who
loses a
finger or 2. But why should it cost me, and 10,000,000 other table saw
owners,
$700 or so each to keep a dozen such people from losing a digit annually.

That forced marketing is probably impossible, anyway, but it would sure
stir up
immediate interest in the used table saw markets. Something like 20 years
ago,
Black & Decker estimated that there were at least 10,000,000 table saws in
the
U.S. which is where I got the above figure as well. At that time, the
hobby was
a minor one, relatively speaking. Today, whoooweee!

The biggest problem seems to actually be fear of loss, not actual loss, of
a
digit. I'd like to see some accurate, and certified, figures on table saw

ownership versus amputation, or partial amputation, injuries, which seem
to be
all the SawStop is aimed at preventing. But I still wouldn't want
legislation
telling me that the next time I got a table saw, I'd have to double its
price
to pay for safety equipment I won't buy on my own.

Charlie Self
"If you want to know what God thinks of money, just look at the people he
gave
it to." Dorothy Parker






Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com


----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

TeamCasa writes:

This saw technology is being developed for the long term. Should this
technology succeed, it will become a required feature on all saws of every
application.

I can just see dropping a bandsaw blade below the table instantaneously.

Examples of this type of marketing abound. Seat belts, airbags, anit-lock
brakes, life jackets, emergency locator beacons, anti kickback, guards of
every size and shape.

You're writing of life and death or major injury situations there, applying to
many thousands of deaths or injuries. That simply is not the case with
amputation and partial amputation injuries.

Trust me when I say, as soon as the technology makes it past the commercial
world where OSHA and the insurance companies force it on all machines
operated by employees, it won't be long before its on every saw.

When will it "make it past the commercial world" when it can be forced on every
saw? It may be required on commercial saws, but damned few tablesaws sold are
commercial use models, in comparison to the overall market.

Charlie Self
"If you want to know what God thinks of money, just look at the people he gave
it to." Dorothy Parker

But wouldn't most folks already own a suitable fence?

If you have to have it to be insured in the future, you can bet it'll be at
a minimum license fee, like the air bags.

"Charlie Self" wrote in message
...
Ed Pawlowski notes:

Two years+ is a long time to wait if you need or want a new saw. I
looked
at their web page. Price of the saw seems OK, but they I noticed, the
fence
is optional. Gets pricey all of a sudden. I'd like to see it in
production
a reasonable cost for those that want to buy them, not be forced into it.

Yeah. Me, too, but their attempt at forcing it down people's throats
really
turned me off. When you discover the number/percentage of digit removal
accidents on a table saw and compare such costs with the overall cost of
the
SawStop, you have to wonder a bit.

Old Nick wrote:

On 21 Jun 2004 07:45:36 -0700, (brian roth)
vaguely proposed a theory
......and in reply I say!:

remove ns from my header address to reply via email

FWW had a short write up about the first pre-production sawstop cabnet
saw.

More pictures at www.sawstop.com. I didn't like thier efforts to force
the technolgy on all saws, but applaud them building a better mousetrap.


There was some simplistic prat who said "If you invent a better
mousetrap, the world will beat a path to your door." They forgot to
include economics.

IIRc the Saw Stop was a significant part of the cost of a saw.
pphhptht!

IME, WRT the sawstop, as with all "bright ideas" if they
(a) take the long sales view
(b) really care about safety

and rather than trying to enforce their market, they then price the
thing to _sell easily_, (rather than pay for development costs in 6
months), then there is no _need_ for the "enforced view".

Reality. X percent of the saw-using community suffer loss of a weener
sausage during their career or hobby life. Cost your mousetrap at much
more than this, and Govt intervention (insurance lobby groups) is your
only hope.

There are those that _succeed_ in their lobbies. There are those that
fail.

It's a BIG bet. Fail and you will NOT sell. "Ferget you, man!"


If I was going to lobby for mandatory whatever, I would say "What
votes

!!!!!!!!!_use_!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

this thing?"..............table saws? umm......... .....2%

....Looooser!

Market forces apply. Get the price down.

Airbags? 80+% _use_ the thing it "helps". Winner! Bull**** _or_ not.

Huh? I don't personally know _anybody_ who has _used_ an airbag. If "80%"
actually USED them then I would expect to know _somebody_ who had.

"Short people" it kills? 1%.......see stat on weener savers.

1% of what? It kills 1% of short people? 1% of airbags kill short people?
Something else?

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

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:

Taking a long time to get into production though. IIRC it has been over a
year since they started taking orders. The next release of Windows will
probably be out before Saw Stop.

With the price of the SawStop Microsoft will probably three of four other
releases out before anyone orders one.

--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA
(Remove "SPAM" from email address to reply)

If by used, you mean had one deploy in an accident, then my wife has
used one and I know of at least 2 people where I work that had them
deploy in an accident. I am not siding with the original author nor his
figures just saying that I know of 3 people.

J. Clarke wrote:
Old Nick wrote:


On 21 Jun 2004 07:45:36 -0700, (brian roth)
vaguely proposed a theory
......and in reply I say!:

remove ns from my header address to reply via email


FWW had a short write up about the first pre-production sawstop cabnet
saw.

More pictures at www.sawstop.com. I didn't like thier efforts to force
the technolgy on all saws, but applaud them building a better mousetrap.


There was some simplistic prat who said "If you invent a better
mousetrap, the world will beat a path to your door." They forgot to
include economics.

IIRc the Saw Stop was a significant part of the cost of a saw.
pphhptht!

IME, WRT the sawstop, as with all "bright ideas" if they
(a) take the long sales view
(b) really care about safety

and rather than trying to enforce their market, they then price the
thing to _sell easily_, (rather than pay for development costs in 6
months), then there is no _need_ for the "enforced view".

Reality. X percent of the saw-using community suffer loss of a weener
sausage during their career or hobby life. Cost your mousetrap at much
more than this, and Govt intervention (insurance lobby groups) is your
only hope.

There are those that _succeed_ in their lobbies. There are those that
fail.

It's a BIG bet. Fail and you will NOT sell. "Ferget you, man!"


If I was going to lobby for mandatory whatever, I would say "What
votes

!!!!!!!!!_use_!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

this thing?"..............table saws? umm......... .....2%

....Looooser!

Market forces apply. Get the price down.

Airbags? 80+% _use_ the thing it "helps". Winner! Bull**** _or_ not.


Huh? I don't personally know _anybody_ who has _used_ an airbag. If "80%"
actually USED them then I would expect to know _somebody_ who had.


"Short people" it kills? 1%.......see stat on weener savers.


1% of what? It kills 1% of short people? 1% of airbags kill short people?
Something else?


--
---

BRuce

If there's one thing _not_ to use as a bad example of regulation, it's the
airbag.

For folks who don't have sense enough to use belts, they're lifesavers.
I've noticed a big reduction in head injuries in my little county from
deployed bags. It's always a relief to survey the scene and not see that
impact star in the windshield.

I have cut seven fatals from seatbelts in twenty years, four of which also
had airbags deploy, but when the engine is in the passenger compartment, or
the door intrudes past the center console, I don't think anything will work.
Of ejected, two of probably 20 survived.

Oh yeah, hundreds who wore the belts were collared and boarded as precaution
only.

BRuce wrote in message news:1087853629.777278@sj-nntpcache-5...
If by used, you mean had one deploy in an accident, then my wife has
used one and I know of at least 2 people where I work that had them
deploy in an accident. I am not siding with the original author nor his
figures just saying that I know of 3 people.

J. Clarke wrote:

Huh? I don't personally know _anybody_ who has _used_ an airbag. If
"80%"
actually USED them then I would expect to know _somebody_ who had.


"Short people" it kills? 1%.......see stat on weener savers.


1% of what? It kills 1% of short people? 1% of airbags kill short
people?
Something else?

"brian roth" wrote in message
om...
FWW had a short write up about the first pre-production sawstop cabnet
saw.

More pictures at www.sawstop.com. I didn't like thier efforts to force
the technolgy on all saws, but applaud them building a better mousetrap.

For some interesting reading, look at the Power Tool Institute (industry
group) comment to the CPSC petition contained in pgs. 35-69 of this file:
http://www.cpsc.gov/LIBRARY/FOIA/FOI.../REDUCEPT2.pdf
and pgs.1-29 of this file:
http://www.cpsc.gov/LIBRARY/FOIA/FOI.../REDUCEPT3.pdf

Alot of reading, some of which is legalese, but alot of food for thought.
Some highlights:

-- Testing of a prototype Sawstop showed a very high rate of false trips
(alot of detail given in the comment)

-- The UL standard for tablesaws (UL987) is under review for addition of a
requirement for a mandatory riving knife

-- Estimated US tablesaw population is 6 million with sales of about 750k
per year. They have some back of the envelope stats that claim on a per saw
cut basis that injuries are rare. I would take that analysis with a big
grain of salt.

Personally, I think the Sawstop concept is great, but would want to see some
hard real-world data that shows it works. Even if it does, it shouldn't be
a mandated feature.

Tim

On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 18:58:42 -0400, George george@least wrote:
If there's one thing _not_ to use as a bad example of regulation, it's the
airbag.

For folks who don't have sense enough to use belts, they're lifesavers.

Not really. The airbag is designed for them to be in position. Airbags will
only be in the right place if the patient is held in place by the seat
belts - they work _with_ the belts, not _instead of_. They are
going to do their little "partially or fully ejected" trick without
belts, no matter if the airbags go off or not. If they're not where the
airbag expects them to be, _that_ is when you'll see more airbag-assisted
injuries - if your face is in the big pillow when it goes bang, it's
gonna hurt. Still softer than the glass, but...

I've noticed a big reduction in head injuries in my little county from
deployed bags. It's always a relief to survey the scene and not see that
impact star in the windshield.

I don't think I've been to a scene with deployed bags and windshield
"football sign", but I'm not sure if that's specifically because of the
bags, or because of the people driving cars with, vs. without.

I have cut seven fatals from seatbelts in twenty years, four of which also
had airbags deploy, but when the engine is in the passenger compartment, or
the door intrudes past the center console, I don't think anything will work.
Of ejected, two of probably 20 survived.

You do not want to be ejected. You _especially_ do not want to be
partially ejected (translation: head sticking out when the car rolls on
top of it).

Oh yeah, hundreds who wore the belts were collared and boarded as precaution
only.

Yup. If the car is smacked hard enough to deploy the airbags, it's pretty
much trashed anyway - better to let the car's safety systems work together
to help you out. What this has to do with, what, Roundup on weeds, well,
who knows. But, people who say airbags aren't a valuable life-saving
development must have limited exposure to crashes and the results
of them.

Dave Hinz
(ff/emt)

George wrote:

If there's one thing _not_ to use as a bad example of regulation, it's the
airbag.

For folks who don't have sense enough to use belts, they're lifesavers.
I've noticed a big reduction in head injuries in my little county from
deployed bags. It's always a relief to survey the scene and not see that
impact star in the windshield.

I have cut seven fatals from seatbelts in twenty years, four of which also
had airbags deploy, but when the engine is in the passenger compartment,
or the door intrudes past the center console, I don't think anything will
work. Of ejected, two of probably 20 survived.

Oh yeah, hundreds who wore the belts were collared and boarded as
precaution only.

And how many people die because they think the airbag is a substitute for a
seat belt? And if it's such a good idea then why couldn't the airbag
manufacturers sell it to the FAA or the various racing organizations? Has
there been a reduction in highway fatalities since airbags were mandated?

BRuce wrote in message news:1087853629.777278@sj-nntpcache-5...
If by used, you mean had one deploy in an accident, then my wife has
used one and I know of at least 2 people where I work that had them
deploy in an accident. I am not siding with the original author nor his
figures just saying that I know of 3 people.

J. Clarke wrote:

Huh? I don't personally know _anybody_ who has _used_ an airbag. If
"80%"
actually USED them then I would expect to know _somebody_ who had.


"Short people" it kills? 1%.......see stat on weener savers.


1% of what? It kills 1% of short people? 1% of airbags kill short
people?
Something else?


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

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 18:58:42 -0400, George george@least wrote:
If there's one thing _not_ to use as a bad example of regulation, it's
the
airbag.

For folks who don't have sense enough to use belts, they're lifesavers.

Not really. The airbag is designed for them to be in position. Airbags
will
only be in the right place if the patient is held in place by the seat
belts - they work _with_ the belts, not _instead of_. They are
going to do their little "partially or fully ejected" trick without
belts, no matter if the airbags go off or not. If they're not where the
airbag expects them to be, _that_ is when you'll see more airbag-assisted
injuries - if your face is in the big pillow when it goes bang, it's
gonna hurt. Still softer than the glass, but...

I've noticed a big reduction in head injuries in my little county from
deployed bags. It's always a relief to survey the scene and not see
that
impact star in the windshield.

I don't think I've been to a scene with deployed bags and windshield
"football sign", but I'm not sure if that's specifically because of the
bags, or because of the people driving cars with, vs. without.

I have cut seven fatals from seatbelts in twenty years, four of which
also
had airbags deploy, but when the engine is in the passenger compartment,
or
the door intrudes past the center console, I don't think anything will
work.
Of ejected, two of probably 20 survived.

You do not want to be ejected. You _especially_ do not want to be
partially ejected (translation: head sticking out when the car rolls on
top of it).

Oh yeah, hundreds who wore the belts were collared and boarded as
precaution
only.

Yup. If the car is smacked hard enough to deploy the airbags, it's pretty
much trashed anyway - better to let the car's safety systems work together
to help you out. What this has to do with, what, Roundup on weeds, well,
who knows. But, people who say airbags aren't a valuable life-saving
development must have limited exposure to crashes and the results
of them.

Dave Hinz
(ff/emt)


I've also been to a number of accidents where airbags and seatbelts were
used. Seatbelts save lives. Shoulder harnesses safe faces. Airbags go a
bit further. I've been absolutely amazed at the level of damage to some
vehicles with no serious injury to the occupants of the vehicle. That's not
to say there wasn't the famous shoulder harness stripe down the chest, but
certainly no head impact.

The only injury I've seen from airbags is a burn or abrasion. One fellow
had the reverse image of his car logo impressed into his arm from the airbag
cover. I'll take that level of injury any day.

Michael (also an emt)


I strongly suspect that the reason airbags started to be popular in the late
80's and early 90's is that the patent (probably mid 60's) ran out and so no
one would have to pay royalties.

"Herman Family" /without_any_s/ wrote in message
...
I strongly suspect that the reason airbags started to be popular in the
late
80's and early 90's is that the patent (probably mid 60's) ran out and so
no
one would have to pay royalties.

Perhaps my memory is failing me, but I seem to recall a car commercial
(Mercedes, Volvo?) a while back that talked about having the patent on
airbags but choosing not to enforce it.

todd

Herman Family wrote:


"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 18:58:42 -0400, George george@least wrote:
If there's one thing _not_ to use as a bad example of regulation, it's
the
airbag.

For folks who don't have sense enough to use belts, they're lifesavers.

Not really. The airbag is designed for them to be in position. Airbags
will
only be in the right place if the patient is held in place by the seat
belts - they work _with_ the belts, not _instead of_. They are
going to do their little "partially or fully ejected" trick without
belts, no matter if the airbags go off or not. If they're not where the
airbag expects them to be, _that_ is when you'll see more airbag-assisted
injuries - if your face is in the big pillow when it goes bang, it's
gonna hurt. Still softer than the glass, but...

I've noticed a big reduction in head injuries in my little county from
deployed bags. It's always a relief to survey the scene and not see
that
impact star in the windshield.

I don't think I've been to a scene with deployed bags and windshield
"football sign", but I'm not sure if that's specifically because of the
bags, or because of the people driving cars with, vs. without.

I have cut seven fatals from seatbelts in twenty years, four of which
also
had airbags deploy, but when the engine is in the passenger
compartment,
or
the door intrudes past the center console, I don't think anything will
work.
Of ejected, two of probably 20 survived.

You do not want to be ejected. You _especially_ do not want to be
partially ejected (translation: head sticking out when the car rolls on
top of it).

Oh yeah, hundreds who wore the belts were collared and boarded as
precaution
only.

Yup. If the car is smacked hard enough to deploy the airbags, it's
pretty much trashed anyway - better to let the car's safety systems work
together
to help you out. What this has to do with, what, Roundup on weeds, well,
who knows. But, people who say airbags aren't a valuable life-saving
development must have limited exposure to crashes and the results
of them.

Dave Hinz
(ff/emt)


I've also been to a number of accidents where airbags and seatbelts were
used. Seatbelts save lives. Shoulder harnesses safe faces. Airbags go a
bit further. I've been absolutely amazed at the level of damage to some
vehicles with no serious injury to the occupants of the vehicle. That's
not to say there wasn't the famous shoulder harness stripe down the chest,
but certainly no head impact.

The only injury I've seen from airbags is a burn or abrasion. One fellow
had the reverse image of his car logo impressed into his arm from the
airbag
cover. I'll take that level of injury any day.

Michael (also an emt)


I strongly suspect that the reason airbags started to be popular in the
late 80's and early 90's is that the patent (probably mid 60's) ran out
and so no one would have to pay royalties.

The reason airbags became popular is that in 1984 the NHTSA enacted a
regulation requiring all new cars to have passive restraints, and in 1993
amended that regulation to require airbags. Had nothing to do with patent
expiration and everything to do with being forced by the government to
install them.

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

"George" george@least wrote in message
...
But wouldn't most folks already own a suitable fence?


Good point. The fence from my Craftsman saw with 22" table could probably
be made to fit. When I bought my new saw I went and bought a new fence with
it. How dumb was that?
Ed

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
And how many people die because they think the airbag is a substitute for
a
seat belt?

My WAG is that people who think an airbag is a substitute for a seat belt
wouldn't be wearing the seat belt even if the airbag was not present.

And if it's such a good idea then why couldn't the airbag
manufacturers sell it to the FAA or the various racing organizations?

Maybe there's a difference between a 60mph crash and a 160mph crash that
changes the usefulness of the airbag.

Has
there been a reduction in highway fatalities since airbags were mandated?

Well, the fatality rate per 100 million vehicle miles traveled was at a
historic low of 1.51 in 2002. I don't know when airbags went into
widespread use, but the fatality rate has dropped or stayed the same every
year since at least 1994, which was the earliest table I could find in the
60 seconds I searched for it. From 1994 to 2002, the fatality rate has
dropped 13%. Is all of the decrease due to airbags? I doubt it. I'm sure
you can factor in safer vehicles and increased seat belt use (it's gone up
from 61% in '97 to 79% now), plus a few other effects.

todd

"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in message
...

"George" george@least wrote in message
...
But wouldn't most folks already own a suitable fence?


Good point. The fence from my Craftsman saw with 22" table could probably
be made to fit. When I bought my new saw I went and bought a new fence
with
it. How dumb was that?
Ed

Ed, Ed, Ed. You must have money growing on trees going out and splurging
for a new fence when you had a perfectly good Craftsman fence available.
Seriously, I have what I believe is a decent fence in the Delta Unifence,
but if I sold my saw and bought a new one, I would expect that the fence
would go with it. I don't have a lot of data to go on here. I've only
bought one table saw up to now and the fence came attached.

todd

Charlie,
Unfortunately {or fortunately - if you believe in Darwinism}, the ONE piece
of absolutely vital Safety Equipment can't be either bought or legislated.

The one between your ears.

Regards & Good Luck,
Ron Magen
Backyard Boatshop
{as I mentioned to JT . . . still have all my fingers & toes, my OEM teeth &
eyes, and enough hair to be a 'donor' }

"Charlie Self" wrote ...
SNIP
But I still wouldn't want legislation telling me that the next time I got a
table saw, I'd have to double its price to pay for safety equipment I won't
buy on my own.

Charlie Self

On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 00:10:03 -0400, "J. Clarke" wrote:



And how many people die because they think the airbag is a substitute for a
seat belt? And if it's such a good idea then why couldn't the airbag
manufacturers sell it to the FAA or the various racing organizations? Has
there been a reduction in highway fatalities since airbags were mandated?



Working strictly from memory, I seem to recall that during the '50s and '60s there was something on the order of 50k highway
fatalities per year in the US. Nowadays, I believe it is closer to 30k. If those numbers are correct, I'd say the highways are
somewhat safer today than they were 50 years ago. I'll leave it to someone else to attribute the reason for the improvement.

Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS USA

Ron Magen responds:

Charlie,
Unfortunately {or fortunately - if you believe in Darwinism}, the ONE piece
of absolutely vital Safety Equipment can't be either bought or legislated.

The one between your ears.

Regards & Good Luck,
Ron Magen
Backyard Boatshop
{as I mentioned to JT . . . still have all my fingers & toes, my OEM teeth &
eyes, and enough hair to be a 'donor' }

"Charlie Self" wrote ...
SNIP
But I still wouldn't want legislation telling me that the next time I got a
table saw, I'd have to double its price to pay for safety equipment I won't
buy on my own.

True enough. A quick OSHA check shows that in 1999 there were 3 reported
incidences of table saw accidents, 2 with amputations and 1 with partial. The
following year saw 1 injury reported, no amputations. The reports all indicate
a degree of Darwinism in action, and, of course, don't show a full spectrum of
amateur and pro workers, but do give an indication of the scarcity of the type
of wounds the SawStop is designed to prevent.

There just are no overall figures, at least that I can locate, that show what
kindo of real value this device might have. And reading recently of false
indications causing the SawStop to activate makes me even more leery of its
forced use. Those may or may not be true. There really needs to be some
industry study in this area.

Charlie Self
"If you want to know what God thinks of money, just look at the people he gave
it to." Dorothy Parker

Yep, had some of those "automatic" seatbelts which qualified, initially.
Now, of course, the law has been modified.

As we know from recent M$oft legislation, you've gotta give it away if it
becomes popular....

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...

The reason airbags became popular is that in 1984 the NHTSA enacted a
regulation requiring all new cars to have passive restraints, and in 1993
amended that regulation to require airbags. Had nothing to do with patent
expiration and everything to do with being forced by the government to
install them.

And with more miles and vehicles, too.

MI just went to primary seatbelt enforcement a year or so ago, because that,
as I mentioned earlier, is the best restraint.

I'm sure that remark about what idiots think about is really
tongue-in-cheek. Something is still better than nothing, and idiots seldom
have any thoughts which interest me, anyway.

"Tom Veatch" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 00:10:03 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:



And how many people die because they think the airbag is a substitute for
a
seat belt? And if it's such a good idea then why couldn't the airbag
manufacturers sell it to the FAA or the various racing organizations?
Has
there been a reduction in highway fatalities since airbags were mandated?



Working strictly from memory, I seem to recall that during the '50s and
'60s there was something on the order of 50k highway
fatalities per year in the US. Nowadays, I believe it is closer to 30k. If
those numbers are correct, I'd say the highways are
somewhat safer today than they were 50 years ago. I'll leave it to someone
else to attribute the reason for the improvement.

Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS USA

In article , "J. Clarke" wrote:

And how many people die because they think the airbag is a substitute for a
seat belt? And if it's such a good idea then why couldn't the airbag
manufacturers sell it to the FAA or the various racing organizations? Has
there been a reduction in highway fatalities since airbags were mandated?

Why not the FAA? Because it's pointless. Most deaths in aircraft crashes are
caused by fire, either directly or by smoke inhalation, not by impact
injuries.

Why not racing organizations? Pointless again. It's evidently escaped your
notice that fatalities in auto racing are actually rather rare events; roll
bars and five-point harnesses do a pretty good job of protecting the drivers.
Furthermore, racing crashes tend mostly to be sideswipes, either with another
car or with a retaining wall. It's difficult to see that airbags would provide
any meaningful additional protection. Particularly in collisions at 200+ MPH.

Whether there has been a reduction in highway fatalities since airbags were
mandated is irrelevant: most collisions occur on secondary roads.

In the United States at least, fatalities from automobile accidents have been
declining for a number of years, even though the number of cars and the number
of drivers have been increasing, and the distance driven per driver per year
has been increasing even faster. I won't claim that's due entirely to airbags;
obviously other factors such as mandatory seat belt laws, seat belt education,
and numerous improvements in the design of both vehicles and roads have
contributed to the decline as well, but it would be silly to think that
airbags have had no effect.

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

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

In article , "Herman Family" /without_any_s/ wrote:

The only injury I've seen from airbags is a burn or abrasion. One fellow
had the reverse image of his car logo impressed into his arm from the airbag
cover. I'll take that level of injury any day.

SWMBO and I saw a different type of airbag injury when we stopped to help
another motorist who had just hit a deer. He'd been holding the steering wheel
by the spokes instead of by the rim. When the airbag deployed, it threw his
right hand back into his face, giving him a fat lip and a cut on the back of
his hand (from his teeth). He had no other injuries, despite squarely hitting
a good-sized doe at about 70 mph. Neither the deer nor the car survived.

The real irony here is that we were on our way out to the forest to go deer
hunting -- and that was the only deer we saw all day. :-(

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

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

Doug Miller wrote:

In article , "J. Clarke"
wrote:

And how many people die because they think the airbag is a substitute for
a
seat belt? And if it's such a good idea then why couldn't the airbag
manufacturers sell it to the FAA or the various racing organizations? Has
there been a reduction in highway fatalities since airbags were mandated?

Why not the FAA? Because it's pointless. Most deaths in aircraft crashes
are caused by fire, either directly or by smoke inhalation, not by impact
injuries.

Why not racing organizations? Pointless again. It's evidently escaped your
notice that fatalities in auto racing are actually rather rare events;
roll bars and five-point harnesses do a pretty good job of protecting the
drivers. Furthermore, racing crashes tend mostly to be sideswipes, either
with another car or with a retaining wall. It's difficult to see that
airbags would provide any meaningful additional protection. Particularly
in collisions at 200+ MPH.

No, it has not "escaped my notice". My point obviously escaped yours.

Whether there has been a reduction in highway fatalities since airbags
were mandated is irrelevant: most collisions occur on secondary roads.

Never mind, if you are picking at points this trivial I'm not wasting any
more time on you.

In the United States at least, fatalities from automobile accidents have
been declining for a number of years, even though the number of cars and
the number of drivers have been increasing, and the distance driven per
driver per year has been increasing even faster. I won't claim that's due
entirely to airbags; obviously other factors such as mandatory seat belt
laws, seat belt education, and numerous improvements in the design of both
vehicles and roads have contributed to the decline as well, but it would
be silly to think that airbags have had no effect

I notice that you do not mention the increased quality and availability of
trauma care.


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

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

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

On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 13:01:58 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:


Why not racing organizations? Pointless again. It's evidently escaped your
notice that fatalities in auto racing are actually rather rare events; roll
bars and five-point harnesses do a pretty good job of protecting the drivers.
Furthermore, racing crashes tend mostly to be sideswipes, either with another
car or with a retaining wall. It's difficult to see that airbags would provide
any meaningful additional protection. Particularly in collisions at 200+ MPH.


and consider the consequences of a false deployment of that air bag at
200 MPH in a cluster of cars when one bumps into another....

wrote in message

and consider the consequences of a false deployment of that air bag at
200 MPH in a cluster of cars when one bumps into another....

Senseless statement. About as bad as saying that seat belts are dangerous
because you might accidentally choke yourself with one.

"Upscale" wrote in message
.cable.rogers.com...
wrote in message

and consider the consequences of a false deployment of that air bag at
200 MPH in a cluster of cars when one bumps into another....

Senseless statement. About as bad as saying that seat belts are dangerous
because you might accidentally choke yourself with one.

Are you friggin' kidding? Have you ever watched a NASCAR race? How often
do the cars bump each other from behind? I'll answer it for you...it
happens a lot. There's a very real danger of having a false deployment
under those conditions. And at this point, I'd hazard a guess to say the
additional safety to be had by an air bag in a Cup car is minimal on top of
four-point harnesses and a HANS device. I'd also say it's dubious that an
air bag would even be an effective aid in a 160mph collision

todd

In article , "J. Clarke" wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:

In article , "J. Clarke"
wrote:

And how many people die because they think the airbag is a substitute for
a
seat belt? And if it's such a good idea then why couldn't the airbag
manufacturers sell it to the FAA or the various racing organizations? Has
there been a reduction in highway fatalities since airbags were mandated?

Why not the FAA? Because it's pointless. Most deaths in aircraft crashes
are caused by fire, either directly or by smoke inhalation, not by impact
injuries.

Why not racing organizations? Pointless again. It's evidently escaped your
notice that fatalities in auto racing are actually rather rare events;
roll bars and five-point harnesses do a pretty good job of protecting the
drivers. Furthermore, racing crashes tend mostly to be sideswipes, either
with another car or with a retaining wall. It's difficult to see that
airbags would provide any meaningful additional protection. Particularly
in collisions at 200+ MPH.

No, it has not "escaped my notice". My point obviously escaped yours.

I guess it did. I wasn't completely sure that you had one there to begin with.

My point was that the merits of using airbags in passenger automobiles are not
diminished in the least by the failure to employ airbags in other situations
where they are manifestly far less useful.

Whether there has been a reduction in highway fatalities since airbags
were mandated is irrelevant: most collisions occur on secondary roads.

Never mind, if you are picking at points this trivial I'm not wasting any
more time on you.

Perhaps you should have been more precise with your terminology. :-)

In the United States at least, fatalities from automobile accidents have
been declining for a number of years, even though the number of cars and
the number of drivers have been increasing, and the distance driven per
driver per year has been increasing even faster. I won't claim that's due
entirely to airbags; obviously other factors such as mandatory seat belt
laws, seat belt education, and numerous improvements in the design of both
vehicles and roads have contributed to the decline as well, but it would
be silly to think that airbags have had no effect

I notice that you do not mention the increased quality and availability of
trauma care.

So I missed that one. Doesn't change the final conclusion: it would be silly
to think that airbags have had no effect.

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

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

In article le.rogers.com, "Upscale" wrote:
wrote in message

and consider the consequences of a false deployment of that air bag at
200 MPH in a cluster of cars when one bumps into another....

Senseless statement. About as bad as saying that seat belts are dangerous
because you might accidentally choke yourself with one.

I don't see that as a "senseless" statement at all. Have you ever watched
stock car racing? Seems like those guys bump into each other all the time.
Some of those bumps are surely hard enough to deploy airbags in a car so
equipped. And it's got to be thoroughly disconcerting to have one of those
things go off in your face when you're not expecting it. Being startled at 200
mph is a Bad Thing.

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

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 18:19:53 GMT, "Upscale"
wrote:

wrote in message

and consider the consequences of a false deployment of that air bag at
200 MPH in a cluster of cars when one bumps into another....

Senseless statement. About as bad as saying that seat belts are dangerous
because you might accidentally choke yourself with one.



nope.

on the race track with all of the jostling for position and stiff
suspensions and whatnot the opportunities for false deployments is
much higher than for the highway. at 200MPH the result is certain to
involve the loss of control of a race car, generally in the middle of
a pack of other race cars. I'd guess airbags in race cars would cause
more accidents than they would be worth, IN THAT ENVIRONMENT.

for that matter, seatbelts DO present a choking hazard. I don't know
how much of one, but it is not zero, probably highest for kids and
very short people. however, they present a net gain in safety for
passenger vehicles.

One of the reasons for the adjustable height types. And child seats.

Standard seatbelt injuries are clavicles (collarbones) and for those wearing
them high on their bellies, against advice, possible spleen. Other than
that, abrasions.

Seems the only thing that works as advertised, even when you do nothing
right, is that airbag.

wrote in message
...


for that matter, seatbelts DO present a choking hazard. I don't know
how much of one, but it is not zero, probably highest for kids and
very short people. however, they present a net gain in safety for
passenger vehicles.

George wrote:

One of the reasons for the adjustable height types. And child seats.

Standard seatbelt injuries are clavicles (collarbones) and for those wearing
them high on their bellies, against advice, possible spleen. Other than
that, abrasions.

Seems the only thing that works as advertised, even when you do nothing
right, is that airbag.

wrote in message
...


for that matter, seatbelts DO present a choking hazard. I don't know
how much of one, but it is not zero, probably highest for kids and
very short people. however, they present a net gain in safety for
passenger vehicles.



tell that to the several hundred people who have died as a
result of airbags. Granted, air bags are better than just
seat belts, but they DO sometimes result in death when deployed.

dave

"George" george@least wrote in message
...
One of the reasons for the adjustable height types. And child seats.

Standard seatbelt injuries are clavicles (collarbones) and for those
wearing
them high on their bellies, against advice, possible spleen. Other than
that, abrasions.

Seems the only thing that works as advertised, even when you do nothing
right, is that airbag.

If I came away from a crash at 200 mph with just a broken clavicle I'd be
very happy, thank you.

I have direct knowledge of the value of seat belts. I was aligning cars on
the false grid while a race was running when an MG was forced off the track
by another racer. The MG slid on gravel straight onto the end of the metal
Armco barrier. The barrier speared completely through the center of the car
and extended for 6 feet beyond its rear end. (I have photos of this)

When the dust cleared and I saw what had happened I didn't want to get any
closer. But the driver walked out, saved by the engine block that had
deflected the Armco and by his seat belts. I saw him in the control tower
later that day and he said that all he got were belt bruises.

Mark me on the anti-air bag side for race cars. There is no resemblance
between driving at racing speeds and driving on the highway, and the false
deployment of an air bag in a Cup car would be a disaster.

Bob