On Wed, 24 May 2017 09:05:35 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 5/23/2017 9:59 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 23 May 2017 20:49:04 -0500, Gordon Shumway
wrote:

On Tue, 23 May 2017 21:30:02 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 23 May 2017 19:50:04 -0500, Gordon Shumway
wrote:

On Tue, 23 May 2017 20:40:42 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 22 May 2017 23:31:07 -0500, Gordon Shumway
wrote:

On Mon, 22 May 2017 22:43:51 -0400, woodchucker wrote:

http://www.finehomebuilding.com/2017...ules-tablesaws

If they mandate a "safer" saw the population will build a better idiot. It's a miracle our forefathers
survive?

What are they going to do about circular saws? Bandsaws? Box
cutters?

Maybe this is a start?

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...nHxV0qZaPI0TM:

Don't get it.

Or: http://tinyurl.com/lyak5sa

Good idea but it's not a circular saw.

What do you expect for only a few minutes work?

Fair enough.

Seriously, people do some incredibly dumb stuff with circular saw,
like cutting off their leg. They need government to protect them!


I imagine it is being worked on. Same idea but it has to be made
smaller but it certainly won't be on thr $29.99 model.

I'd prefer to see them work on smarter people.

On Wed, 24 May 2017 15:23:56 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 5/24/2017 3:12 PM, dpb wrote:
On 05/23/2017 11:32 AM, Leon wrote:
...

Understood but the author right off the bat indicated that the proposal
was for how high the blade must be when using a stand in, a hot dog, in
place of a human finger.


Another case of never letting the facts get in they way for a fantastic
story. And or not proofing before publishing.

From the CPSC document directly one finds:

"Specifically, the proposed rule would establish a performance standard
such that table saws, when powered on, must limit the depth of cut to
3.5 mm when a test probe, acting as a surrogate for a human body/finger,
contacts a spinning blade at a radial approach of 1.0 m/s."


The FHB blurb is

"The proposal requires that table saws limit the depth of cut to 3.5
millimeters when a stand-in for a human finger ... contacts the
spinning blade while approaching at 1 meter per second."

Can't really blame the FHB person here; the verbiage on cut depth is
identically quoted; just removed "surrogate" as probably being
out-of-depth for the audience... and threw in the hotdog; it doesn't
show up anywhere in the CPSC convoluted description of a "test probe".



Jeez! You have to wonder why there needs to be a regulation on blade
depth height for demonstration purposes, The brake works at any depth.

I read it as the saw must only cut your weenie to a depth of 3.5mm.

Maybe some blades are flying apart during the demonstration and keeping
the blade low in the cabinet lessens the chance of shrapnel flying out
and hitting some one.

On Wed, 24 May 2017 11:07:05 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 5/24/2017 10:01 AM, Larry Kraus wrote:




I've read only a tiny portion of the 431 pages, but have not yet seen
any mention of restricting the sale or use of existing saws.

They won't bother the consumer, but workmans comp insurance companies
have been pressuring commercial shops for a few years already.

That's understandable. If there truly is a problem, insurance
companies will know how to mitigate their exposure. The consumer has
a choice. The problem comes when government bureaucrats make rules
they have no skin in.

wrote:


Jeez! You have to wonder why there needs to be a regulation on blade
depth height for demonstration purposes, The brake works at any depth.

I read it as the saw must only cut your weenie to a depth of 3.5mm.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxK3vPUlIn4

On Thu, 25 May 2017 01:39:17 +0000, Spalted Walt
wrote:

wrote:


Jeez! You have to wonder why there needs to be a regulation on blade
depth height for demonstration purposes, The brake works at any depth.

I read it as the saw must only cut your weenie to a depth of 3.5mm.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxK3vPUlIn4

I was going to say "more than 3.5mm" but on second thought, maybe not.

"J. Clarke" wrote in
:


When I added mine, it became the 11th total.



I put my two cents in. The site only asked for your comment and first and
last name, plus simple classification so they know from whence you comment.
Most of us will probably be Individual/Consumer.

Nice to see I didn't have to create an account.

Puckdropper
--
http://www.puckdroppersplace.us/rec.woodworking
A mini archive of some of rec.woodworking's best and worst!

wrote:
Hope there are more posts to the site. It is easy to do. I can tell you
all that someone listens to these sometimes, but if you don't voice your
opinion, it will be assumed that the issue is of no importance to you. I
would like to have had a bit of time to edit this, but I saw that the
surrounding issues around this proposed regulation had already been
closed to comments. I wanted to get on it and get it out before I forgot or was too busy.

Here's what I posted:

I have been in the construction trades for 40 years off and on. I have
been an owner operator of a small carpentry and woodworking business for
about 35 of those years. In my experience there is a great deal of
similarity in the observance of safety issues between the home shop
worker as well as the professional. In short, the similarity is that
both casual user and professional need training and education, not
additional safety appliances or devices added to tools. Some of the
appartus required over the years have a valid place in both the home shop
as well as in a professional setting, but others are removed, ignored or
not maintained at an operational level.

I truly believe based on my own personal experience of instructing and
overseeing employees and job sites that the saw brake devices will be
disabled or wired around to make the saws work without them. Anything
that would stop work that would be attributed to the saw brake would
cause it to be disabled in some fashion. Doubtful that it would be reset
and rearmed for proper function after a job stoppage. Also, the loss of
a blade that could cost as much as $300 from the mechanism firing would
certainly make any small business man think about rearming the saw brake
device. Besides the down time on the job, a firing of the device will
require that a qualified technician of some sort reinstall the
replacement firing mechanism of the brake. Additionally, there will be a
need to purchase and have on hand another firing device, adding not only
to the expense of the saw brake device, but putting the contractor at
risk of not being able to locate a replacement which would cause more job
site down time. NO doubt that occasion would cause the contractor to
"wire around" the problem. IF the device ever fired off by accident or
by a bad reading, a contractor will be looking at the purchase of a new
blade, a new brake stop firing device as well as all the down time for
(possibly) several employees while the machine is reequipped and reset.
If there is ever a false positive, then certainly a contractor will work
hard to permanently disable the saw blade brake. I strongly believe this
additional device that adds to the cost of a saw will be seen by most
professionals as not only unnecessary, but as an irritant to be disabled
at the first opportunity.

My experience with homeowners/non professionals and their saws is
different. Almost all home accidents come from an occurrence known as
"kickback". This happens when a saw is used incorrectly. The wood being
cut is put in a position that binds the blade against the guiding device
(a "fence" or "miter gauge") or the wood is no longer fed in a straight
line into the blade causing the saw to aggressively grab the wood rather
than cut it. This grab will cause the wood to be removed from the
operator's grasp and will often "kickback" the wood towards or into the
operator or off the table of the saw. The saw makers and the government
have provided different devices to help mitigate this problem, but I very
rarely go into a home shop where the recommended table saw safety devices
are being used, or used properly. Kickback is a technique issue and
rarely happens with proper use of the table saw. it is important to note
that a saw braking mechanism will NOT prevent or mitigate the occurrence
kickback in any way.

I rarely see hands or digits cut by table saws in a home or professional
environment. Very rarely. Most people that use them have a healthy
respect for the tool due to its size and power, and using the tool give
ther operator a tremendous sense of its power. Almost all operators have
a very healthy respect for this tool and use it carefully. I truly
believe that if there was an effective blade braking device attached to a
table saw then most operators would become overconfident and lazy,
knowing that if they have a lapse of judgement of concentration, they
wouldn't suffer any risk of injury. In the particular case of the table
saw, a very healthy fear of the machine is a great thing and does more to
prevent injury than any attached device.

In closing, I hope you can see that while some safety devices are good
ideas, the idea of a saw blade brake is not. Not for the hobbyist or the
professional. Although for two very different reasons, neither would
benefit from it. This is an issue that has been around for years now,
and while the saw blade brake technology certainly has its place, most
are overwhelmingly against it, and mandating it would be of little or no
value to table saw users.

Thank you for your time and attention.


Wow Robert, you really are not familiar with the SS at all it would seem.
Replacing the brake takes a couple of minutes. Have you not seen a demo?
As far as not having a spare replacement brake goes, why would you not have
one on hand? Would you drive out of town with out a spare tire? :-)

On Thursday, May 25, 2017 at 5:27:36 AM UTC-4, Leon wrote:
wrote:
Hope there are more posts to the site. It is easy to do. I can tell you
all that someone listens to these sometimes, but if you don't voice your
opinion, it will be assumed that the issue is of no importance to you. I
would like to have had a bit of time to edit this, but I saw that the
surrounding issues around this proposed regulation had already been
closed to comments. I wanted to get on it and get it out before I forgot or was too busy.

Here's what I posted:

I have been in the construction trades for 40 years off and on. I have
been an owner operator of a small carpentry and woodworking business for
about 35 of those years. In my experience there is a great deal of
similarity in the observance of safety issues between the home shop
worker as well as the professional. In short, the similarity is that
both casual user and professional need training and education, not
additional safety appliances or devices added to tools. Some of the
appartus required over the years have a valid place in both the home shop
as well as in a professional setting, but others are removed, ignored or
not maintained at an operational level.

I truly believe based on my own personal experience of instructing and
overseeing employees and job sites that the saw brake devices will be
disabled or wired around to make the saws work without them. Anything
that would stop work that would be attributed to the saw brake would
cause it to be disabled in some fashion. Doubtful that it would be reset
and rearmed for proper function after a job stoppage. Also, the loss of
a blade that could cost as much as $300 from the mechanism firing would
certainly make any small business man think about rearming the saw brake
device. Besides the down time on the job, a firing of the device will
require that a qualified technician of some sort reinstall the
replacement firing mechanism of the brake. Additionally, there will be a
need to purchase and have on hand another firing device, adding not only
to the expense of the saw brake device, but putting the contractor at
risk of not being able to locate a replacement which would cause more job
site down time. NO doubt that occasion would cause the contractor to
"wire around" the problem. IF the device ever fired off by accident or
by a bad reading, a contractor will be looking at the purchase of a new
blade, a new brake stop firing device as well as all the down time for
(possibly) several employees while the machine is reequipped and reset.
If there is ever a false positive, then certainly a contractor will work
hard to permanently disable the saw blade brake. I strongly believe this
additional device that adds to the cost of a saw will be seen by most
professionals as not only unnecessary, but as an irritant to be disabled
at the first opportunity.

My experience with homeowners/non professionals and their saws is
different. Almost all home accidents come from an occurrence known as
"kickback". This happens when a saw is used incorrectly. The wood being
cut is put in a position that binds the blade against the guiding device
(a "fence" or "miter gauge") or the wood is no longer fed in a straight
line into the blade causing the saw to aggressively grab the wood rather
than cut it. This grab will cause the wood to be removed from the
operator's grasp and will often "kickback" the wood towards or into the
operator or off the table of the saw. The saw makers and the government
have provided different devices to help mitigate this problem, but I very
rarely go into a home shop where the recommended table saw safety devices
are being used, or used properly. Kickback is a technique issue and
rarely happens with proper use of the table saw. it is important to note
that a saw braking mechanism will NOT prevent or mitigate the occurrence
kickback in any way.

I rarely see hands or digits cut by table saws in a home or professional
environment. Very rarely. Most people that use them have a healthy
respect for the tool due to its size and power, and using the tool give
ther operator a tremendous sense of its power. Almost all operators have
a very healthy respect for this tool and use it carefully. I truly
believe that if there was an effective blade braking device attached to a
table saw then most operators would become overconfident and lazy,
knowing that if they have a lapse of judgement of concentration, they
wouldn't suffer any risk of injury. In the particular case of the table
saw, a very healthy fear of the machine is a great thing and does more to
prevent injury than any attached device.

In closing, I hope you can see that while some safety devices are good
ideas, the idea of a saw blade brake is not. Not for the hobbyist or the
professional. Although for two very different reasons, neither would
benefit from it. This is an issue that has been around for years now,
and while the saw blade brake technology certainly has its place, most
are overwhelmingly against it, and mandating it would be of little or no
value to table saw users.

Thank you for your time and attention.


Wow Robert, you really are not familiar with the SS at all it would seem.
Replacing the brake takes a couple of minutes. Have you not seen a demo?
As far as not having a spare replacement brake goes, why would you not have
one on hand? Would you drive out of town with out a spare tire? :-)

I'll take a shot at that:

Job site saws will be used by workers who may not know how to, and aren't
responsible for, fixing equipment when it breaks down. The job site could be
a workshop or a construction site.

In the case of a construction site, it's easy to imagine that the replacment parts
and/or qualified personnel may not always be readily available.

In either case, the replacment parts had better be under lock and key or they are
going to be stolen by the workers who have brake-mandated table saws at home.

On 5/25/2017 6:55 AM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Thursday, May 25, 2017 at 5:27:36 AM UTC-4, Leon wrote:
wrote:
Hope there are more posts to the site. It is easy to do. I can tell you
all that someone listens to these sometimes, but if you don't voice your
opinion, it will be assumed that the issue is of no importance to you. I
would like to have had a bit of time to edit this, but I saw that the
surrounding issues around this proposed regulation had already been
closed to comments. I wanted to get on it and get it out before I forgot or was too busy.

Here's what I posted:

I have been in the construction trades for 40 years off and on. I have
been an owner operator of a small carpentry and woodworking business for
about 35 of those years. In my experience there is a great deal of
similarity in the observance of safety issues between the home shop
worker as well as the professional. In short, the similarity is that
both casual user and professional need training and education, not
additional safety appliances or devices added to tools. Some of the
appartus required over the years have a valid place in both the home shop
as well as in a professional setting, but others are removed, ignored or
not maintained at an operational level.

I truly believe based on my own personal experience of instructing and
overseeing employees and job sites that the saw brake devices will be
disabled or wired around to make the saws work without them. Anything
that would stop work that would be attributed to the saw brake would
cause it to be disabled in some fashion. Doubtful that it would be reset
and rearmed for proper function after a job stoppage. Also, the loss of
a blade that could cost as much as $300 from the mechanism firing would
certainly make any small business man think about rearming the saw brake
device. Besides the down time on the job, a firing of the device will
require that a qualified technician of some sort reinstall the
replacement firing mechanism of the brake. Additionally, there will be a
need to purchase and have on hand another firing device, adding not only
to the expense of the saw brake device, but putting the contractor at
risk of not being able to locate a replacement which would cause more job
site down time. NO doubt that occasion would cause the contractor to
"wire around" the problem. IF the device ever fired off by accident or
by a bad reading, a contractor will be looking at the purchase of a new
blade, a new brake stop firing device as well as all the down time for
(possibly) several employees while the machine is reequipped and reset.
If there is ever a false positive, then certainly a contractor will work
hard to permanently disable the saw blade brake. I strongly believe this
additional device that adds to the cost of a saw will be seen by most
professionals as not only unnecessary, but as an irritant to be disabled
at the first opportunity.

My experience with homeowners/non professionals and their saws is
different. Almost all home accidents come from an occurrence known as
"kickback". This happens when a saw is used incorrectly. The wood being
cut is put in a position that binds the blade against the guiding device
(a "fence" or "miter gauge") or the wood is no longer fed in a straight
line into the blade causing the saw to aggressively grab the wood rather
than cut it. This grab will cause the wood to be removed from the
operator's grasp and will often "kickback" the wood towards or into the
operator or off the table of the saw. The saw makers and the government
have provided different devices to help mitigate this problem, but I very
rarely go into a home shop where the recommended table saw safety devices
are being used, or used properly. Kickback is a technique issue and
rarely happens with proper use of the table saw. it is important to note
that a saw braking mechanism will NOT prevent or mitigate the occurrence
kickback in any way.

I rarely see hands or digits cut by table saws in a home or professional
environment. Very rarely. Most people that use them have a healthy
respect for the tool due to its size and power, and using the tool give
ther operator a tremendous sense of its power. Almost all operators have
a very healthy respect for this tool and use it carefully. I truly
believe that if there was an effective blade braking device attached to a
table saw then most operators would become overconfident and lazy,
knowing that if they have a lapse of judgement of concentration, they
wouldn't suffer any risk of injury. In the particular case of the table
saw, a very healthy fear of the machine is a great thing and does more to
prevent injury than any attached device.

In closing, I hope you can see that while some safety devices are good
ideas, the idea of a saw blade brake is not. Not for the hobbyist or the
professional. Although for two very different reasons, neither would
benefit from it. This is an issue that has been around for years now,
and while the saw blade brake technology certainly has its place, most
are overwhelmingly against it, and mandating it would be of little or no
value to table saw users.

Thank you for your time and attention.


Wow Robert, you really are not familiar with the SS at all it would seem.
Replacing the brake takes a couple of minutes. Have you not seen a demo?
As far as not having a spare replacement brake goes, why would you not have
one on hand? Would you drive out of town with out a spare tire? :-)

I'll take a shot at that:

Job site saws will be used by workers who may not know how to, and aren't
responsible for, fixing equipment when it breaks down. The job site could be
a workshop or a construction site.

In the case of a construction site, it's easy to imagine that the replacment parts
and/or qualified personnel may not always be readily available.

In either case, the replacment parts had better be under lock and key or they are
going to be stolen by the workers who have brake-mandated table saws at home.



You all make good points. I've seen many safety devices disconnected
and procedures ignored. You may open a safety gate to slick out a piced
of crap in a mold, but I've never seen anyone lock out and tag out to
do that, as required. There will be a lot of problems in independent
shops, but you will get good compliance in utilities and places that are
hard ass on safety and compliance.

The independent shops will comply after the first saw accident,
especially if OSHA is notified.

On 05/25/2017 8:01 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 5/25/2017 6:55 AM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Thursday, May 25, 2017 at 5:27:36 AM UTC-4, Leon wrote:
wrote:
....

Here's what I posted:

....[impassioned plea elided solely for brevity]...

In closing, I hope you can see that while some safety devices are good
ideas, the idea of a saw blade brake is not. Not for the hobbyist or the
professional. Although for two very different reasons, neither would
benefit from it. This is an issue that has been around for years now,
and while the saw blade brake technology certainly has its place, most
are overwhelmingly against it, and mandating it would be of little
or no value to table saw users.

Thank you for your time and attention.


....

Replacing the brake takes a couple of minutes. Have you not seen a demo?
As far as not having a spare replacement brake goes, why would you
not have one on hand? Would you drive out of town with out a spare tire? :-)

I'll take a shot at that:

....

In the case of a construction site, it's easy to imagine that the
replacment parts and/or qualified personnel may not always be readily available.

....

You all make good points. I've seen many safety devices disconnected and
procedures ignored. You may open a safety gate to slick out a piced of
crap in a mold, but I've never seen anyone lock out and tag out to do
that, as required. There will be a lot of problems in independent shops,
but you will get good compliance in utilities and places that are hard
ass on safety and compliance.

The independent shops will comply after the first saw accident,
especially if OSHA is notified.

My take is while such arguments may fill volumes of comments, CPSC has
already pretty-much dismissed them if one reads the comments addressed
in the submittal; they've come up with the regulator's view that the
only thing that has value is additional regulation and whether the
regulated are happy about or not isn't of particular concern.

The one of potential cost/downtime has at least some negative impact on
the cost:benefit ratio and I'm not sure I saw that particular cost
addressed altho as noted I've not gotten all the way thru the details as
of yet. What would be important would be some way to have estimates on
what those numbers really would turn out to be and if one could
rationally make them significant-enough to help turn what they currently
have as quite large positives owing, of course, to the fact that a
single emergency-room visit is quite a high number and their statistics
on incident numbers are quite large. (Whether those are at all
realistic is another issue but I don't know there's a way to dispute
them but somehow I suspect reporting isn't the best as far as relating
the actual injury to the root cause).

--

On 5/25/2017 5:55 AM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Thursday, May 25, 2017 at 5:27:36 AM UTC-4, Leon wrote:
wrote:
Hope there are more posts to the site. It is easy to do. I can tell you
all that someone listens to these sometimes, but if you don't voice your
opinion, it will be assumed that the issue is of no importance to you. I
would like to have had a bit of time to edit this, but I saw that the
surrounding issues around this proposed regulation had already been
closed to comments. I wanted to get on it and get it out before I forgot or was too busy.

Here's what I posted:

I have been in the construction trades for 40 years off and on. I have
been an owner operator of a small carpentry and woodworking business for
about 35 of those years. In my experience there is a great deal of
similarity in the observance of safety issues between the home shop
worker as well as the professional. In short, the similarity is that
both casual user and professional need training and education, not
additional safety appliances or devices added to tools. Some of the
appartus required over the years have a valid place in both the home shop
as well as in a professional setting, but others are removed, ignored or
not maintained at an operational level.

I truly believe based on my own personal experience of instructing and
overseeing employees and job sites that the saw brake devices will be
disabled or wired around to make the saws work without them. Anything
that would stop work that would be attributed to the saw brake would
cause it to be disabled in some fashion. Doubtful that it would be reset
and rearmed for proper function after a job stoppage. Also, the loss of
a blade that could cost as much as $300 from the mechanism firing would
certainly make any small business man think about rearming the saw brake
device. Besides the down time on the job, a firing of the device will
require that a qualified technician of some sort reinstall the
replacement firing mechanism of the brake. Additionally, there will be a
need to purchase and have on hand another firing device, adding not only
to the expense of the saw brake device, but putting the contractor at
risk of not being able to locate a replacement which would cause more job
site down time. NO doubt that occasion would cause the contractor to
"wire around" the problem. IF the device ever fired off by accident or
by a bad reading, a contractor will be looking at the purchase of a new
blade, a new brake stop firing device as well as all the down time for
(possibly) several employees while the machine is reequipped and reset.
If there is ever a false positive, then certainly a contractor will work
hard to permanently disable the saw blade brake. I strongly believe this
additional device that adds to the cost of a saw will be seen by most
professionals as not only unnecessary, but as an irritant to be disabled
at the first opportunity.

My experience with homeowners/non professionals and their saws is
different. Almost all home accidents come from an occurrence known as
"kickback". This happens when a saw is used incorrectly. The wood being
cut is put in a position that binds the blade against the guiding device
(a "fence" or "miter gauge") or the wood is no longer fed in a straight
line into the blade causing the saw to aggressively grab the wood rather
than cut it. This grab will cause the wood to be removed from the
operator's grasp and will often "kickback" the wood towards or into the
operator or off the table of the saw. The saw makers and the government
have provided different devices to help mitigate this problem, but I very
rarely go into a home shop where the recommended table saw safety devices
are being used, or used properly. Kickback is a technique issue and
rarely happens with proper use of the table saw. it is important to note
that a saw braking mechanism will NOT prevent or mitigate the occurrence
kickback in any way.

I rarely see hands or digits cut by table saws in a home or professional
environment. Very rarely. Most people that use them have a healthy
respect for the tool due to its size and power, and using the tool give
ther operator a tremendous sense of its power. Almost all operators have
a very healthy respect for this tool and use it carefully. I truly
believe that if there was an effective blade braking device attached to a
table saw then most operators would become overconfident and lazy,
knowing that if they have a lapse of judgement of concentration, they
wouldn't suffer any risk of injury. In the particular case of the table
saw, a very healthy fear of the machine is a great thing and does more to
prevent injury than any attached device.

In closing, I hope you can see that while some safety devices are good
ideas, the idea of a saw blade brake is not. Not for the hobbyist or the
professional. Although for two very different reasons, neither would
benefit from it. This is an issue that has been around for years now,
and while the saw blade brake technology certainly has its place, most
are overwhelmingly against it, and mandating it would be of little or no
value to table saw users.

Thank you for your time and attention.


Wow Robert, you really are not familiar with the SS at all it would seem.
Replacing the brake takes a couple of minutes. Have you not seen a demo?
As far as not having a spare replacement brake goes, why would you not have
one on hand? Would you drive out of town with out a spare tire? :-)

I'll take a shot at that:

Job site saws will be used by workers who may not know how to, and aren't
responsible for, fixing equipment when it breaks down. The job site could be
a workshop or a construction site.

First off the triggering of a SawStop brake does not require a repair.
It is designed to have the brake trigger and to be removed and replaced
multiple time a day. I do this on my SawStop sometimes 4 times a day.

In the case of the SawStop, brake replacement is simpler than changing
the blade, AND no tools are required to replace the brake. The only
tool needed is a wrench to take the nut off of the arbor to remove the
blade. If your crew can't do that you have other problems.


In the case of a construction site, it's easy to imagine that the replacment parts
and/or qualified personnel may not always be readily available.

Well, a qualified person with a SawStop could be your 10 year old
daughter. If you are skilled enough to replace the blade or turn on the
saw you are qualified to replace the brake.
A replacement brake and maybe a blade is all you would need. If you go
to a job site with out spare blades that is a problem in itself. If you
use a job site saw with a replaceable brake and do not have a spare that
is also a problem in itself, not a saw issue. Would you go to a job site
with only one trash bag or would you carry spares? AND I wonder how many
contractors carry a spare arbor nut? Those get dropped and lost more
often than you think.

I can see your argument and the concerns but right now these are not
issues that exist. The only saws available with safety features to stop
or drop the blade are simple to perform the replace of the mechanisms.



In either case, the replacment parts had better be under lock and key or they are
going to be stolen by the workers who have brake-mandated table saws at home.

No more likely to be stolen than any other item, like a circular saw,
drill, spare blades, etc. And for that matter the brakes are quite
small and can easily be hidden in a vehicle or locked in a tool box like
any other tools that you don't want to walk off. The brakes for a
SawStop are smaller than a small box of drill bits or two packs of
cigarettes.

Now having said all of this I have 4 years experience with owning and
operating a SawStop. None of these worries have been an issue.
I will also say that I have triggered my dado set brake and that was my
own fault, and the saw was well out of warranty. No damage was done to
the dado set but SawStop replaced the brake at no cost to me anyway. I
did have a spare however, now I have more spares. To detail that a bit
more, I had switched from a normal blade brake to a dado set brake. The
air gap needs to be set when changing from 10" to 8" blades. This is a
matter of turning a hex head bolt two complete turns, that hex head bolt
is painted yellow and you look right at it when you remove the table
insert. I am clueless why I did not do it this time.

Yes this could happen on the job site too but that was operator error
and the blade brake is intended to protect the worker from operator
error. It is more likely the worker would do something to trigger the
brake that would cause an injury.

And I realize that many or at least a few feel that they do not need the
protection. I am not one of them, I cut half of my thumb off 28 years
ago because I did not have this technology available. The accident was
my fault but happened after I finished my cut and turned the saw off.
The SawStop would have prevented it.

And maybe on the job site you have a trigger during a cut, and you don't
have a spare brake. 99% of the time that is not going to be a big deal
as missing 4-5 hours getting another brake is much better than the time
spent going to the ER and later possibly rehab and certainly workmans
comp going up.

Food for thought. It's 1895 and you are walking out of the general
store to load your wagon with the dry goods you just purchased. As you
are unhitching your horse you hear Mr. Bigshot coming down the muddy
street in his new fangeled horseless carriage. Hold on to your horse so
that he does not get spooked and dart out into the path of Mr. Bigshot.
Damn that machine, it makes a lot of noise, belches out smoke, and does
not stop short for anyone. The contraption is a menace to society.

Three years later, same circumstances, except this time Mr. Bigshot is
driving his new "automobile". It is so much better than the one he was
driving just a few years ago, the new one has brakes!

Imagine driving vehicles today with out brakes because some one way back
when thought that they could control their vehicle and bring it to a
stop with out brakes.

Wow Robert, you really are not familiar with the SS at all it would
seem.
Replacing the brake takes a couple of minutes. Have you not seen a
demo?
As far as not having a spare replacement brake goes, why would you
not have
one on hand? Would you drive out of town with out a spare tire? :-)

I'll take a shot at that:

Job site saws will be used by workers who may not know how to, and aren't
responsible for, fixing equipment when it breaks down. The job site
could be
a workshop or a construction site.

In the case of a construction site, it's easy to imagine that the
replacment parts
and/or qualified personnel may not always be readily available.

In either case, the replacment parts had better be under lock and key
or they are
going to be stolen by the workers who have brake-mandated table saws
at home.



You all make good points. I've seen many safety devices disconnected
and procedures ignored. You may open a safety gate to slick out a piced
of crap in a mold, but I've never seen anyone lock out and tag out to
do that, as required. There will be a lot of problems in independent
shops, but you will get good compliance in utilities and places that are
hard ass on safety and compliance.

The independent shops will comply after the first saw accident,
especially if OSHA is notified.

Uh Huh.

On 5/24/2017 5:32 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Wednesday, May 24, 2017 at 4:24:10 PM UTC-4, Leon wrote:
On 5/24/2017 3:12 PM, dpb wrote:
On 05/23/2017 11:32 AM, Leon wrote:
...

Understood but the author right off the bat indicated that the proposal
was for how high the blade must be when using a stand in, a hot dog, in
place of a human finger.


Another case of never letting the facts get in they way for a fantastic
story. And or not proofing before publishing.

From the CPSC document directly one finds:

"Specifically, the proposed rule would establish a performance standard
such that table saws, when powered on, must limit the depth of cut to
3.5 mm when a test probe, acting as a surrogate for a human body/finger,
contacts a spinning blade at a radial approach of 1.0 m/s."


The FHB blurb is

"The proposal requires that table saws limit the depth of cut to 3.5
millimeters when a stand-in for a human finger ... contacts the
spinning blade while approaching at 1 meter per second."

Can't really blame the FHB person here; the verbiage on cut depth is
identically quoted; just removed "surrogate" as probably being
out-of-depth for the audience... and threw in the hotdog; it doesn't
show up anywhere in the CPSC convoluted description of a "test probe".



Jeez! You have to wonder why there needs to be a regulation on blade
depth height for demonstration purposes, The brake works at any depth.


Maybe I'm missing something but I took the words "depth of cut" to be the depth of
cut on the surrogate finger before the blade stops. 3.5mm is only 0.138". That's not
even a tooth above the table.

Maybe one of us is.

"Specifically, the proposed rule would establish a performance standard
such that table saws, when powered on, must limit the depth of cut to
3.5 mm when a test probe, acting as a surrogate for a human body/finger,
contacts a spinning blade at a radial approach of 1.0 m/s.


This specifically states that the limit of the cut must be limited to
3.5mm WHEN A TEST PROBE, ACTING AS A SURROGATE contacts the spinning blade.


The way you see it which is contrary to what was actually stated does
make much much much more sense than the way I see it and how it was
actually written.

Most likely what they meant to say was what you said, although it did
not say that. LOL

I seriously thought that the power hungry committees wanted to regulate
how any and all saws must be capable of being used for demonstrations
vs. actually being used.

They should have said that the blade can not cut more than 3.5mm into
the operator during normal use.

On 5/24/2017 6:37 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 24 May 2017 15:23:56 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 5/24/2017 3:12 PM, dpb wrote:
On 05/23/2017 11:32 AM, Leon wrote:
...

Understood but the author right off the bat indicated that the proposal
was for how high the blade must be when using a stand in, a hot dog, in
place of a human finger.


Another case of never letting the facts get in they way for a fantastic
story. And or not proofing before publishing.

From the CPSC document directly one finds:

"Specifically, the proposed rule would establish a performance standard
such that table saws, when powered on, must limit the depth of cut to
3.5 mm when a test probe, acting as a surrogate for a human body/finger,
contacts a spinning blade at a radial approach of 1.0 m/s."


The FHB blurb is

"The proposal requires that table saws limit the depth of cut to 3.5
millimeters when a stand-in for a human finger ... contacts the
spinning blade while approaching at 1 meter per second."

Can't really blame the FHB person here; the verbiage on cut depth is
identically quoted; just removed "surrogate" as probably being
out-of-depth for the audience... and threw in the hotdog; it doesn't
show up anywhere in the CPSC convoluted description of a "test probe".



Jeez! You have to wonder why there needs to be a regulation on blade
depth height for demonstration purposes, The brake works at any depth.

I read it as the saw must only cut your weenie to a depth of 3.5mm.

LOL, That is exactly what it said...

On 5/25/2017 10:48 AM, Leon wrote:

First off the triggering of a SawStop brake does not require a repair.
It is designed to have the brake trigger and to be removed and replaced
multiple time a day. I do this on my SawStop sometimes 4 times a day.
If you are getting your finger in the blade four times per day
triggering the saw stop, you are the person this thing is designed for.
I would suggest you stop and read the safety manual and pay more
attention to what you are doing when around a saw of any kind.

Most of us have been using table saws for many years, some have never
got their finger in the blade. Some like me have only got a finger
against the blade once in 50 years. In that case a saw stop would have
only complicated the problem, as it was a STUPID mistakes. I cut the
finger on the blade and did not cut it off.

--
2017: The year we lean to play the great game of Euchre

On 5/25/2017 10:08 AM, Keith Nuttle wrote:
On 5/25/2017 10:48 AM, Leon wrote:

First off the triggering of a SawStop brake does not require a repair.
It is designed to have the brake trigger and to be removed and
replaced multiple time a day. I do this on my SawStop sometimes 4
times a day.

Wow you really made me look like the town fool by taking my comment out
of context.

FWIW that is when I change the brake out 4 times a day.

If you had re-posted the part where I mentioned that you have to switch
brakes when changing from a 10" to 8" blade....

You would not be looking like the fool.





If you are getting your finger in the blade four times per day
triggering the saw stop, you are the person this thing is designed for.
I would suggest you stop and read the safety manual and pay more
attention to what you are doing when around a saw of any kind.

Most of us have been using table saws for many years, some have never
got their finger in the blade. Some like me have only got a finger
against the blade once in 50 years. In that case a saw stop would have
only complicated the problem, as it was a STUPID mistakes. I cut the
finger on the blade and did not cut it off.

You said,

Most of us have been using table saws for many years, "some" have never
got their finger in the blade. "Some" like you have only got a finger
against the blade in 50 years.

Thank goodness the rest of the "many" did not make the mistake you made.
You Sir, are a candidate for a Saw Stop. It happened once, it can
happen again.

On Thu, 25 May 2017 09:01:00 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 5/25/2017 6:55 AM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Thursday, May 25, 2017 at 5:27:36 AM UTC-4, Leon wrote:
wrote:
Hope there are more posts to the site. It is easy to do. I can tell you
all that someone listens to these sometimes, but if you don't voice your
opinion, it will be assumed that the issue is of no importance to you. I
would like to have had a bit of time to edit this, but I saw that the
surrounding issues around this proposed regulation had already been
closed to comments. I wanted to get on it and get it out before I forgot or was too busy.

Here's what I posted:

I have been in the construction trades for 40 years off and on. I have
been an owner operator of a small carpentry and woodworking business for
about 35 of those years. In my experience there is a great deal of
similarity in the observance of safety issues between the home shop
worker as well as the professional. In short, the similarity is that
both casual user and professional need training and education, not
additional safety appliances or devices added to tools. Some of the
appartus required over the years have a valid place in both the home shop
as well as in a professional setting, but others are removed, ignored or
not maintained at an operational level.

I truly believe based on my own personal experience of instructing and
overseeing employees and job sites that the saw brake devices will be
disabled or wired around to make the saws work without them. Anything
that would stop work that would be attributed to the saw brake would
cause it to be disabled in some fashion. Doubtful that it would be reset
and rearmed for proper function after a job stoppage. Also, the loss of
a blade that could cost as much as $300 from the mechanism firing would
certainly make any small business man think about rearming the saw brake
device. Besides the down time on the job, a firing of the device will
require that a qualified technician of some sort reinstall the
replacement firing mechanism of the brake. Additionally, there will be a
need to purchase and have on hand another firing device, adding not only
to the expense of the saw brake device, but putting the contractor at
risk of not being able to locate a replacement which would cause more job
site down time. NO doubt that occasion would cause the contractor to
"wire around" the problem. IF the device ever fired off by accident or
by a bad reading, a contractor will be looking at the purchase of a new
blade, a new brake stop firing device as well as all the down time for
(possibly) several employees while the machine is reequipped and reset.
If there is ever a false positive, then certainly a contractor will work
hard to permanently disable the saw blade brake. I strongly believe this
additional device that adds to the cost of a saw will be seen by most
professionals as not only unnecessary, but as an irritant to be disabled
at the first opportunity.

My experience with homeowners/non professionals and their saws is
different. Almost all home accidents come from an occurrence known as
"kickback". This happens when a saw is used incorrectly. The wood being
cut is put in a position that binds the blade against the guiding device
(a "fence" or "miter gauge") or the wood is no longer fed in a straight
line into the blade causing the saw to aggressively grab the wood rather
than cut it. This grab will cause the wood to be removed from the
operator's grasp and will often "kickback" the wood towards or into the
operator or off the table of the saw. The saw makers and the government
have provided different devices to help mitigate this problem, but I very
rarely go into a home shop where the recommended table saw safety devices
are being used, or used properly. Kickback is a technique issue and
rarely happens with proper use of the table saw. it is important to note
that a saw braking mechanism will NOT prevent or mitigate the occurrence
kickback in any way.

I rarely see hands or digits cut by table saws in a home or professional
environment. Very rarely. Most people that use them have a healthy
respect for the tool due to its size and power, and using the tool give
ther operator a tremendous sense of its power. Almost all operators have
a very healthy respect for this tool and use it carefully. I truly
believe that if there was an effective blade braking device attached to a
table saw then most operators would become overconfident and lazy,
knowing that if they have a lapse of judgement of concentration, they
wouldn't suffer any risk of injury. In the particular case of the table
saw, a very healthy fear of the machine is a great thing and does more to
prevent injury than any attached device.

In closing, I hope you can see that while some safety devices are good
ideas, the idea of a saw blade brake is not. Not for the hobbyist or the
professional. Although for two very different reasons, neither would
benefit from it. This is an issue that has been around for years now,
and while the saw blade brake technology certainly has its place, most
are overwhelmingly against it, and mandating it would be of little or no
value to table saw users.

Thank you for your time and attention.


Wow Robert, you really are not familiar with the SS at all it would seem.
Replacing the brake takes a couple of minutes. Have you not seen a demo?
As far as not having a spare replacement brake goes, why would you not have
one on hand? Would you drive out of town with out a spare tire? :-)

I'll take a shot at that:

Job site saws will be used by workers who may not know how to, and aren't
responsible for, fixing equipment when it breaks down. The job site could be
a workshop or a construction site.

In the case of a construction site, it's easy to imagine that the replacment parts
and/or qualified personnel may not always be readily available.

In either case, the replacment parts had better be under lock and key or they are
going to be stolen by the workers who have brake-mandated table saws at home.



You all make good points. I've seen many safety devices disconnected
and procedures ignored. You may open a safety gate to slick out a piced
of crap in a mold, but I've never seen anyone lock out and tag out to
do that, as required. There will be a lot of problems in independent
shops, but you will get good compliance in utilities and places that are
hard ass on safety and compliance.

The independent shops will comply after the first saw accident,
especially if OSHA is notified.

Or their insurance cancelled.

On Thu, 25 May 2017 09:47:56 -0500, dpb wrote:

On 05/25/2017 8:01 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 5/25/2017 6:55 AM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Thursday, May 25, 2017 at 5:27:36 AM UTC-4, Leon wrote:
wrote:
...

Here's what I posted:

...[impassioned plea elided solely for brevity]...

In closing, I hope you can see that while some safety devices are good
ideas, the idea of a saw blade brake is not. Not for the hobbyist or the
professional. Although for two very different reasons, neither would
benefit from it. This is an issue that has been around for years now,
and while the saw blade brake technology certainly has its place, most
are overwhelmingly against it, and mandating it would be of little
or no value to table saw users.

Thank you for your time and attention.


...

Replacing the brake takes a couple of minutes. Have you not seen a demo?
As far as not having a spare replacement brake goes, why would you
not have one on hand? Would you drive out of town with out a spare tire? :-)

I'll take a shot at that:

...

In the case of a construction site, it's easy to imagine that the
replacment parts and/or qualified personnel may not always be readily available.

...

You all make good points. I've seen many safety devices disconnected and
procedures ignored. You may open a safety gate to slick out a piced of
crap in a mold, but I've never seen anyone lock out and tag out to do
that, as required. There will be a lot of problems in independent shops,
but you will get good compliance in utilities and places that are hard
ass on safety and compliance.

The independent shops will comply after the first saw accident,
especially if OSHA is notified.

My take is while such arguments may fill volumes of comments, CPSC has
already pretty-much dismissed them if one reads the comments addressed
in the submittal; they've come up with the regulator's view that the
only thing that has value is additional regulation and whether the
regulated are happy about or not isn't of particular concern.

Typical bureaucrat's attitude - my mind is made up, facts? What are
those?

The one of potential cost/downtime has at least some negative impact on
the cost:benefit ratio and I'm not sure I saw that particular cost
addressed altho as noted I've not gotten all the way thru the details as
of yet. What would be important would be some way to have estimates on
what those numbers really would turn out to be and if one could
rationally make them significant-enough to help turn what they currently
have as quite large positives owing, of course, to the fact that a
single emergency-room visit is quite a high number and their statistics
on incident numbers are quite large. (Whether those are at all
realistic is another issue but I don't know there's a way to dispute
them but somehow I suspect reporting isn't the best as far as relating
the actual injury to the root cause).

Regulators don't care about (and likely don't understand) cost/benefit
analysis. OTOH, insurance companies are pretty good at giving the
customer the cost numbers.

I wonder what two regulations the CSPC is going to give up for this
one?

On Thu, 25 May 2017 11:08:49 -0400, Keith Nuttle
wrote:

On 5/25/2017 10:48 AM, Leon wrote:

First off the triggering of a SawStop brake does not require a repair.
It is designed to have the brake trigger and to be removed and replaced
multiple time a day. I do this on my SawStop sometimes 4 times a day.
If you are getting your finger in the blade four times per day
triggering the saw stop, you are the person this thing is designed for.
I would suggest you stop and read the safety manual and pay more
attention to what you are doing when around a saw of any kind.

Most of us have been using table saws for many years, some have never
got their finger in the blade. Some like me have only got a finger
against the blade once in 50 years. In that case a saw stop would have
only complicated the problem, as it was a STUPID mistakes. I cut the
finger on the blade and did not cut it off.

I've had a couple of nasty cuts off my saw. Of course it wasn't
running either time. SS wouldn't have helped, though it wouldn't have
cost a cartridge, either.

On 05/25/2017 11:57 AM, wrote:
....

Regulators don't care about (and likely don't understand) cost/benefit
analysis. OTOH, insurance companies are pretty good at giving the
customer the cost numbers.

Au contraire; they're required by law to perform same--

"According to section 9(f)(1) of the CPSA, before promulgating a
consumer product safety rule, ..."
....
"The Commission also must find that expected benefits of the rule bear a
reasonable relationship to its costs and that the rule imposes the least
burdensome requirements which prevent or adequately reduce the risk of
injury for which the rule is being promulgated. Id.2058(f)(3)(E)&(F)."

From Section II, "Statutory Authority", pp 3ff of the CPSC
[RIN 3041-AC31]
Docket No. CPSC-2011-0074
Safety Standard Addressing Blade-Contact Injuries on Table Saws
AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety Commission.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

In the SUMMARY: section, the following is found as the conclusion of
said summary--

"The proposed rule would address an estimated 54,800 medically treated
blade-contact injuries annually. The Commission estimates that the
proposed rule’s aggregate net benefits on an annual basis could range
from about $625 million to about $2,300 million."

Now, you're going to be hard pressed to find additional cost of blades
and brakes to overcome $2.3B in predicted benefits.

--

On 05/25/2017 10:08 AM, Keith Nuttle wrote:
....

... Some like me have only got a finger
against the blade once in 50 years. In that case a saw stop would have
only complicated the problem, as it was a STUPID mistakes. I cut the
finger on the blade and did not cut it off.

I'm hard pressed to understand the above...how would having SS have
complicated the problem, operator stupidity or not?

If the saw weren't running at the time and just gashed against a tooth,
sure, it wouldn't have made any difference in the result but how would
it complicate?

If it were running (and my understanding is the brake/sensor is active
even during coastdown, right, Leon?) then the cause of the contact isn't
the issue but removing the blade from the location likely would reduce
the severity.

Can you explain the circumstances; if there is something here to use
against the imposition of the rule I'm all for trying to figure out how
to cast it.

I have nothing against SS technology; it truthfully probably will save a
significant number of injuries from being nearly as serious as otherwise
might be.

As others, I'm just against the imposition of forced rules that benefit
a particular person/persons/company at their specific bidding. The
intro to the CPSC proposed rule admits right up front that

"On April 15, 2003, Stephen Gass, David Fanning, and James Fulmer, et
al. (petitioners) requested that the CPSC require performance standards
for a system to reduce or prevent injuries from contact with the blade
of a table saw. The petitioners are members of SawStop, LLC, and
its parent company, SD3, LLC (collectively, SawStop). ..."

It's nothing but a way to exact tribute from the other manufacturers by
forcing them to license their (SS's) technology that they were unable to
reach common ground over before Gass went off and formed SS. That it's
all about money rather than safety is amply demonstrated by their
aggressive defense of patents against Bosch.

That is, imo, simply wrong use of government.

--

On 05/25/2017 1:05 PM, dpb wrote:
....

"The proposed rule would address an estimated 54,800 medically treated
blade-contact injuries annually. The Commission estimates that the
proposed rule’s aggregate net benefits on an annual basis could range
from about $625 million to about $2,300 million."

Now, you're going to be hard pressed to find additional cost of blades
and brakes to overcome $2.3B in predicted benefits.

BTW, that's a range of $11,400 - $42,000 per incident. Needless to say,
they're not counting just a knick and a bandaid in the statistics, here,
altho it surely don't take long to rack up $10K in an emergency room visit.

--

On 5/25/2017 1:17 PM, dpb wrote:
On 05/25/2017 10:08 AM, Keith Nuttle wrote:
...

... Some like me have only got a finger
against the blade once in 50 years. In that case a saw stop would have
only complicated the problem, as it was a STUPID mistakes. I cut the
finger on the blade and did not cut it off.

I'm hard pressed to understand the above...how would having SS have
complicated the problem, operator stupidity or not?

If the saw weren't running at the time and just gashed against a tooth,
sure, it wouldn't have made any difference in the result but how would
it complicate?

If it were running (and my understanding is the brake/sensor is active
even during coastdown, right, Leon?)

Correct, I confirmed that with SS before ordering.

On 5/25/2017 1:53 PM, dpb wrote:
On 05/25/2017 1:05 PM, dpb wrote:
...

"The proposed rule would address an estimated 54,800 medically treated
blade-contact injuries annually. The Commission estimates that the
proposed rule’s aggregate net benefits on an annual basis could range
from about $625 million to about $2,300 million."

Now, you're going to be hard pressed to find additional cost of blades
and brakes to overcome $2.3B in predicted benefits.

BTW, that's a range of $11,400 - $42,000 per incident. Needless to say,
they're not counting just a knick and a bandaid in the statistics, here,
altho it surely don't take long to rack up $10K in an emergency room visit.

--



My share of the cost to close my thumb to half length was $600 + a
couple of plastic surgeons office visits to observe healing and remove
stitches. That was in 1989.

On 05/25/2017 2:12 PM, Leon wrote:
On 5/25/2017 1:53 PM, dpb wrote:
On 05/25/2017 1:05 PM, dpb wrote:
...

"The proposed rule would address an estimated 54,800 medically treated
blade-contact injuries annually. The Commission estimates that the
proposed rule’s aggregate net benefits on an annual basis could range
from about $625 million to about $2,300 million."

Now, you're going to be hard pressed to find additional cost of blades
and brakes to overcome $2.3B in predicted benefits.

BTW, that's a range of $11,400 - $42,000 per incident. Needless to
say, they're not counting just a knick and a bandaid in the
statistics, here, altho it surely don't take long to rack up $10K in
an emergency room visit.

--



My share of the cost to close my thumb to half length was $600 + a
couple of plastic surgeons office visits to observe healing and remove
stitches. That was in 1989.

That would probably easily reach $5K now and that might not even touch
it, I'd guess.

The number in all this that floors me as seeming to be just
inconceivable is the 54,800. That's 150/day on a 365-day year, if you
give contractors working 6-day weeks it'd be 175/day, every day! That,
I just can't believe is really so, but I know of no way to refute it
without way more time/effort than have to devote to the task. And, all
I know of is the same database they're quoting, so if it's somehow all
mucked, where's an independent set of data with which to counter...

On 5/25/2017 3:02 PM, dpb wrote:
On 05/25/2017 2:12 PM, Leon wrote:
On 5/25/2017 1:53 PM, dpb wrote:
On 05/25/2017 1:05 PM, dpb wrote:
...

"The proposed rule would address an estimated 54,800 medically treated
blade-contact injuries annually. The Commission estimates that the
proposed rule’s aggregate net benefits on an annual basis could range
from about $625 million to about $2,300 million."

Now, you're going to be hard pressed to find additional cost of blades
and brakes to overcome $2.3B in predicted benefits.

BTW, that's a range of $11,400 - $42,000 per incident. Needless to
say, they're not counting just a knick and a bandaid in the
statistics, here, altho it surely don't take long to rack up $10K in
an emergency room visit.

--



My share of the cost to close my thumb to half length was $600 + a
couple of plastic surgeons office visits to observe healing and remove
stitches. That was in 1989.

That would probably easily reach $5K now and that might not even touch
it, I'd guess.

The number in all this that floors me as seeming to be just
inconceivable is the 54,800. That's 150/day on a 365-day year, if you
give contractors working 6-day weeks it'd be 175/day, every day! That,
I just can't believe is really so, but I know of no way to refute it
without way more time/effort than have to devote to the task. And, all
I know of is the same database they're quoting, so if it's somehow all
mucked, where's an independent set of data with which to counter...

It is a large number but on average only 3.5 people per day for each
state. And that is skewed because the population differs greatly from
state to state but I think it evens out.
One would think with rules and regulations roofers might not be falling
off of roofs. In our neighborhood in a 6 month period, when the homes
were still being built, ambulances came out on 2 occasions to deal with
a worker that fell off a roof.
Even back in 1989 when I cut my thumb the surgeon asked how it
happened. I told him I was woodworking and he finished the sentence
with, and you were using a table saw. He mentioned that they see 2-3 TS
accidents weekly, in that hospital alone. Multiply that by the 30 plus
hospitals back then, in Houston, and consider that is one city. The
numbers add up.

On 5/25/2017 11:27 AM, Leon wrote:
On 5/25/2017 10:08 AM, Keith Nuttle wrote:
On 5/25/2017 10:48 AM, Leon wrote:

First off the triggering of a SawStop brake does not require a
repair. It is designed to have the brake trigger and to be removed
and replaced multiple time a day. I do this on my SawStop sometimes
4 times a day.

Wow you really made me look like the town fool by taking my comment out
of context.

FWIW that is when I change the brake out 4 times a day.

If you had re-posted the part where I mentioned that you have to switch
brakes when changing from a 10" to 8" blade....

You would not be looking like the fool.





If you are getting your finger in the blade four times per day
triggering the saw stop, you are the person this thing is designed
for. I would suggest you stop and read the safety manual and pay
more attention to what you are doing when around a saw of any kind.

Most of us have been using table saws for many years, some have never
got their finger in the blade. Some like me have only got a finger
against the blade once in 50 years. In that case a saw stop would
have only complicated the problem, as it was a STUPID mistakes. I cut
the finger on the blade and did not cut it off.

You said,

Most of us have been using table saws for many years, "some" have never
got their finger in the blade. "Some" like you have only got a finger
against the blade in 50 years.

Thank goodness the rest of the "many" did not make the mistake you made.
You Sir, are a candidate for a Saw Stop. It happened once, it can
happen again.


Sorry, I am a poor reader.

That just jumped out when I read it.

KN


--
2017: The year we lean to play the great game of Euchre

On 5/25/2017 4:37 PM, Leon wrote:
On 5/25/2017 3:02 PM, dpb wrote:
On 05/25/2017 2:12 PM, Leon wrote:
On 5/25/2017 1:53 PM, dpb wrote:
On 05/25/2017 1:05 PM, dpb wrote:
...

"The proposed rule would address an estimated 54,800 medically treated
blade-contact injuries annually. The Commission estimates that the
proposed rule’s aggregate net benefits on an annual basis could range
from about $625 million to about $2,300 million."

Now, you're going to be hard pressed to find additional cost of blades
and brakes to overcome $2.3B in predicted benefits.

BTW, that's a range of $11,400 - $42,000 per incident. Needless to
say, they're not counting just a knick and a bandaid in the
statistics, here, altho it surely don't take long to rack up $10K in
an emergency room visit.

--



My share of the cost to close my thumb to half length was $600 + a
couple of plastic surgeons office visits to observe healing and remove
stitches. That was in 1989.

That would probably easily reach $5K now and that might not even touch
it, I'd guess.

The number in all this that floors me as seeming to be just
inconceivable is the 54,800. That's 150/day on a 365-day year, if you
give contractors working 6-day weeks it'd be 175/day, every day!
That, I just can't believe is really so, but I know of no way to
refute it without way more time/effort than have to devote to the
task. And, all I know of is the same database they're quoting, so if
it's somehow all mucked, where's an independent set of data with which
to counter...

It is a large number but on average only 3.5 people per day for each
state. And that is skewed because the population differs greatly from
state to state but I think it evens out.
One would think with rules and regulations roofers might not be falling
off of roofs. In our neighborhood in a 6 month period, when the homes
were still being built, ambulances came out on 2 occasions to deal with
a worker that fell off a roof.
Even back in 1989 when I cut my thumb the surgeon asked how it
happened. I told him I was woodworking and he finished the sentence
with, and you were using a table saw. He mentioned that they see 2-3 TS
accidents weekly, in that hospital alone. Multiply that by the 30 plus
hospitals back then, in Houston, and consider that is one city. The
numbers add up.





When we had our shop roof replaced, the guys had a barrier at the wall
and every one of them used a harness. This was a roofer that does a lot
of commercial/industrial stuff. The local small contractors doing
residential seem to disregard many of the rules.

I too wondered about the numbers buy I'm often startles at numbers for
skateboard and bicycles too. Much higher than I'd guess.

On 05/25/2017 2:07 PM, Leon wrote:
On 5/25/2017 1:17 PM, dpb wrote:
....

If it were running (and my understanding is the brake/sensor is active
even during coastdown, right, Leon?)

Correct, I confirmed that with SS before ordering.

One other operational scenario came to mind...

I know there's a bypass mode for very green wood that otherwise shorts
out the system; if one were to use up the brake cartridge on hand, will
the saw operate in bypass mode?

--

On Thu, 25 May 2017 13:05:05 -0500, dpb wrote:

Au contraire; they're required by law to perform same--

But how well do they perform, most are getting they're 20 in before
retirement, most likely they have been promoted to their point of
incompetence as is the way with bureaucracies.

On Thu, 25 May 2017 13:05:05 -0500, dpb wrote:

On 05/25/2017 11:57 AM, wrote:
...

Regulators don't care about (and likely don't understand) cost/benefit
analysis. OTOH, insurance companies are pretty good at giving the
customer the cost numbers.

Au contraire; they're required by law to perform same--

"According to section 9(f)(1) of the CPSA, before promulgating a
consumer product safety rule, ..."
...
"The Commission also must find that expected benefits of the rule bear a
reasonable relationship to its costs and that the rule imposes the least
burdensome requirements which prevent or adequately reduce the risk of
injury for which the rule is being promulgated. Id.2058(f)(3)(E)&(F)."

From Section II, "Statutory Authority", pp 3ff of the CPSC
[RIN 3041-AC31]
Docket No. CPSC-2011-0074
Safety Standard Addressing Blade-Contact Injuries on Table Saws
AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety Commission.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

In the SUMMARY: section, the following is found as the conclusion of
said summary--

"The proposed rule would address an estimated 54,800 medically treated
blade-contact injuries annually. The Commission estimates that the
proposed rule’s aggregate net benefits on an annual basis could range
from about $625 million to about $2,300 million."

Now, you're going to be hard pressed to find additional cost of blades
and brakes to overcome $2.3B in predicted benefits.

I don't see any productivity numbers or opportunity costs in there.

On 05/25/2017 5:56 PM, wrote:
....

I don't see any productivity numbers or opportunity costs in there.

That's the summary net, not the analysis.

And note I didn't say I thought it necessarily was a great (or even
good) one; just that they're required to at least go through the motions.

If fact, if one wanted to contest the implementation, I suspect there's
a good spot to attack but it would take more in-depth analysis than just
writing "I disagree" to make a strong enough argument that they would
actually have to do something in response.

--

On Thu, 25 May 2017 17:35:21 -0500, dpb wrote:

On 05/25/2017 2:07 PM, Leon wrote:
On 5/25/2017 1:17 PM, dpb wrote:
...

If it were running (and my understanding is the brake/sensor is active
even during coastdown, right, Leon?)

Correct, I confirmed that with SS before ordering.

One other operational scenario came to mind...

I know there's a bypass mode for very green wood that otherwise shorts
out the system; if one were to use up the brake cartridge on hand, will
the saw operate in bypass mode?

If I understand the question, I don't think so. AFAIK, the cartridge
is required for the saw to operate. Tripping the "stop" drives the
aluminum block into the blade taking both out and both need to be
replaced before the saw is functional again.

On Thu, 25 May 2017 18:02:11 -0500, dpb wrote:

On 05/25/2017 5:56 PM, wrote:
...

I don't see any productivity numbers or opportunity costs in there.

That's the summary net, not the analysis.

And note I didn't say I thought it necessarily was a great (or even
good) one; just that they're required to at least go through the motions.

If fact, if one wanted to contest the implementation, I suspect there's
a good spot to attack but it would take more in-depth analysis than just
writing "I disagree" to make a strong enough argument that they would
actually have to do something in response.

It would be good if the information were available. Of course none of
this is because they didn't even look.

On 05/25/2017 6:07 PM, wrote:
....

It would be good if the information were available. Of course none of
this is because they didn't even look.

Sorry, ya' lost me there...

The full proposal is here

:https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/Proposed%20Rule%20-%20Safety%20Standard%20for%20Blade-Contact%20Injuries%20on%20Table%20Saws%20-%20January%2017%202017.pdf

there are links to the rest of the Docket file that you can track down
from there (albeit I've not looked at other than the above document)
that should have essentially everything they've developed.

--

On Thu, 25 May 2017 18:40:42 -0500, dpb wrote:

On 05/25/2017 6:07 PM, wrote:
...

It would be good if the information were available. Of course none of
this is because they didn't even look.

Sorry, ya' lost me there...

The information lost time, lost opportunity... IOW, _all_ of the
costs on those who are affected by the rule.

The full proposal is here

:https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/Proposed%20Rule%20-%20Safety%20Standard%20for%20Blade-Contact%20Injuries%20on%20Table%20Saws%20-%20January%2017%202017.pdf

there are links to the rest of the Docket file that you can track down
from there (albeit I've not looked at other than the above document)
that should have essentially everything they've developed.

On 05/25/2017 7:11 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 25 May 2017 18:40:42 -0500, wrote:

On 05/25/2017 6:07 PM, wrote:
...

It would be good if the information were available. Of course none of
this is because they didn't even look.

Sorry, ya' lost me there...

The information lost time, lost opportunity... IOW, _all_ of the
costs on those who are affected by the rule.
...

You can read the analysis/report...as noted, the quote was just the one
sentence bottom line executive summary blurb.

--

On 5/25/2017 3:38 PM, Keith Nuttle wrote:
On 5/25/2017 11:27 AM, Leon wrote:
On 5/25/2017 10:08 AM, Keith Nuttle wrote:
On 5/25/2017 10:48 AM, Leon wrote:

First off the triggering of a SawStop brake does not require a
repair. It is designed to have the brake trigger and to be removed
and replaced multiple time a day. I do this on my SawStop sometimes
4 times a day.

Wow you really made me look like the town fool by taking my comment
out of context.

FWIW that is when I change the brake out 4 times a day.

If you had re-posted the part where I mentioned that you have to
switch brakes when changing from a 10" to 8" blade....

You would not be looking like the fool.





If you are getting your finger in the blade four times per day
triggering the saw stop, you are the person this thing is designed
for. I would suggest you stop and read the safety manual and pay
more attention to what you are doing when around a saw of any kind.

Most of us have been using table saws for many years, some have never
got their finger in the blade. Some like me have only got a finger
against the blade once in 50 years. In that case a saw stop would
have only complicated the problem, as it was a STUPID mistakes. I cut
the finger on the blade and did not cut it off.

You said,

Most of us have been using table saws for many years, "some" have
never got their finger in the blade. "Some" like you have only got a
finger against the blade in 50 years.

Thank goodness the rest of the "many" did not make the mistake you made.
You Sir, are a candidate for a Saw Stop. It happened once, it can
happen again.


Sorry, I am a poor reader.

That just jumped out when I read it.

KN



No hard feelings Keith. ;~)

On 5/25/2017 5:35 PM, dpb wrote:
On 05/25/2017 2:07 PM, Leon wrote:
On 5/25/2017 1:17 PM, dpb wrote:
...

If it were running (and my understanding is the brake/sensor is active
even during coastdown, right, Leon?)

Correct, I confirmed that with SS before ordering.

One other operational scenario came to mind...

I know there's a bypass mode for very green wood that otherwise shorts
out the system; if one were to use up the brake cartridge on hand, will
the saw operate in bypass mode?

--



I have not tried it but the purpose for the "key" operated bypass is to
prevent the brake from triggering. I do not think the saw will operate
with no brake. The brake is part of the boot process. LOL, Yes you
can't just walk up and turn it on if it is completely shut down. There
are 3 switches that have to be turned on for the saw to operate.

There is the master switch near the bottom on the saw, it can be locked
in the off position, then the boot switch which runs diagnostics and
"warms up the brake". When the lights stop blinking and the green light
remains on you can then turn on the saw. In the winter it takes longer
to boot as the brake has to be warmed more.
I leave the main and boot switches on during the day so that the saw
actually turns on immediately when I want.

With all that behind me, I have cut wet treated lumber, once, and forgot
to run the bypass. The blade began to cut but the motor shut off and
the blade stopped spinning. There was no brake trigger but trouble
codes blinked until I removed the wood. I thought surely the brake
would trigger, as an after thought. I guess the saw can differentiate
between meat and wet wood. ;~) I'm not sure I would want to test that
again.

On 05/25/2017 10:44 PM, Leon wrote:
On 5/25/2017 5:35 PM, dpb wrote:
....

I know there's a bypass mode for very green wood that otherwise shorts
out the system; if one were to use up the brake cartridge on hand,
will the saw operate in bypass mode?
....

There is the master switch near the bottom on the saw, it can be locked
in the off position, then the boot switch which runs diagnostics and
"warms up the brake". When the lights stop blinking and the green light
remains on you can then turn on the saw. ...


So other than a direct complete external bypass to the motor itself it
wouldn't run is what I get out of that...so the complaint that if didn't
have a spare on hand one's out of business until get one is so.

Just curious if there were a way to do as Robert suggested of disabling
the system to keep going...

--