On 31 Jan 2005 10:01:08 -0500, dwright
wrote:
The "yea but how will it do in the real world?" question comes up
often. Good question, but it's one that SawStop couldn't have
answered without engineering the saw conservatively and getting them
out in real shops. That's what they've done. There are about 200 in
shops right now. There will probably be 1000 by partway through 2005.
Now we just give Murphy's Law some time to act.

I find SawStop's engineering and testing entirely reasonable. They
haven't taught 100 monkeys to cut wood and then studied the accident
rates and results, but I don't think they needed to. I take it as
obvious that stopping a blade in 1/200 second and dropping it below
the table will substantially reduce injury, and is a worthwhile
addition to a saw design.

FWIW, the same results won't be gotten by just dropping the blade.
Look closely at the side view high speed video on the SawStop site.
The blade stops before it drops. Also, the drop is effected by the
stop. A drop without a stop might take a more complicated mechanism.


So how does the Sawstop distinguish between cutting wood and cutting a
finger? I can't see how it happens that the saw knows the difference.

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...

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

Just curious John - I'm not understanding the point you're trying to relay
with this argument. I don't question the argument itself, but it's purpose.
I've read the sawstop articles, seen the web site, etc. and I've never heard
a claim that it will prevent every conceivable form of table saw accident,
guaranteed, 100%. That one can define a set of circumstances under which
one can overwhelm the advantages of the machine does not do much to disupte
the otherwise admitable benefits of that machine. At best, it only defines
the limitations.


If it was their salesman then it _was_ "the demo".

Well, as a sales guy, I know first hand the benefits of demos. Though not
exhaustive and typically not designed to point out the weakness or
limitations of a product, they do give clear and appropriate evidence of the
intended benefits. It is as much incumbant upon the viewer to realize the
intention of the demo as it is for the demonstrator to articulate that
intention.


Survival 101, never, _ever_ believe the advertising if its being in error
could bring you to harm.


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

--

-Mike-

"Charles Krug" wrote in message
...

So how does the Sawstop distinguish between cutting wood and cutting a
finger? I can't see how it happens that the saw knows the difference.


Take a trip to their web site. It's explained there.
--

-Mike-

SawStop has been very careful to be accurate in their representation
of the machine. The blade brake acts to reduce the severity of
injury that occurs when an operator's body contacts the spinning
blade. Anyone who has witnessed the demo - and it's worth noting
that independent parties such as the FWW staff have tested the brake
and found it to work as claimed - understands that this "reduction in
severity" is substantial. SawStop cannot, however, make specific
performance claims for several reasons:

-- Claim a maximum depth cut of 1/16" (the actual max. typical cut
that they mentioned in early product development discussion) and then
they get sued if someone gets cut 3/32" deep.

-- Claim a maximum depth cut of 1/4" and people say "what's the
point?".

-- How fast the blade stops depends on blade material, tooth count,
tooth geometry, blade body coatings, sharpness, and other factors.
They can't guarantee a particular performance. If they did there
would be plenty of lawyers with high speed cameras waiting to figure
out some qualification they forgot to list and then sue them.

You may be thinking "why buy the product if they can't be held
accountable?" Believe me...there is plenty in the Owner's Manual for
which they will be accountable. They have set up the saw so it won't
operate (unless in Bypass Mode) unless configured properly and the
brake is fully functional. If the spinning blade touches a person
and the brake doesn’t release then SawStop will have plenty of
responsibility. That's good enough for me, and was part of my logic
in buying the saw.

Anyone out there have an owners manual for their car that claims exact
airbag sensing and activation speed? How about claims for how fast
the car can be moving, or what it can hit, without injury to the
driver? They just say that the airbag will activate and may reduce
injury. I don't think they could say more, and I find SawStop's
similar approach honest and straightforward.

On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 10:53:34 -0500, Mike Marlow wrote:

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...

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

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

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

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

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

On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 15:02:12 GMT, Jeff P. wrote:

Really now. Would you prefer that one of the sales reps slides his hand
into the blade? Will that satisfy you? Personally, I'm not rushing out to
buy a Sawstop but it does seem like a very good idea. Just keep waiting,
I'm sure we'll have real world data sometime soon if they're actually
selling any of these.

Well, since the website _still_ says "SawStop is now taking preorders...",
you couldn't buy one if you wanted to.

On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 15:39:40 GMT, Charles Krug wrote:

So how does the Sawstop distinguish between cutting wood and cutting a
finger? I can't see how it happens that the saw knows the difference.

Electrical conductivity. Dry wood won't conduct as well as your
finger will.

No question, even with the blade brake it's a very dangerous saw. The
rear suspension on my friend's pickup still looks a tad low and off
center after hauling it to my shop. I picked up a splinter while
uncrating it. Almost caught a finger between the front rail and a
block while lifting it for the mobile base. Got a bruise on one hip
from bumping while walking too close around it. Nicked a knuckle
tightening one of the setscrews inside the cabinet. So far the
greatest harm, however, has been to my wallet. Ouch!

Dave Hinzwrote:
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 15:02:12 GMT, Jeff P.
wrote:

Really now. Would you prefer that one of the sales reps slides his
hand
into the blade? Will that satisfy you? Personally, I'm not rushing
out to
buy a Sawstop but it does seem like a very good idea. Just keep
waiting,
I'm sure we'll have real world data sometime soon if they're
actually
selling any of these.

Well, since the website _still_ says "SawStop is now taking
preorders...",
you couldn't buy one if you wanted to.[/quote:13afcdffce]

Well...I suppose someone could buy mine from me if they offered
enough.

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

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

-Mike-

Jeff P. wrote:

Well of _course_ it does. How many do you think they would sell if it
cut
the hot dog in half? The question is not what happens in the sales
demonstration, it's what happens in the real world.

Really now. Would you prefer that one of the sales reps slides his hand
into the blade? Will that satisfy you? Personally, I'm not rushing out
to
buy a Sawstop but it does seem like a very good idea. Just keep waiting,
I'm sure we'll have real world data sometime soon if they're actually
selling any of these.

I'm sorry, but I don't see your point. Whether the sales rep uses his hand
or your hand or a hot dog or somebody's weenie is irrelevant. He's not
going to give a demo that makes his product look bad. The fact that it
looks good in a demo has little relevance to its functioning in the real
world unless the use to which it is going to be put is _exactly_ that that
was demonstrated.

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

Mike Marlow wrote:


"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...

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

Just curious John - I'm not understanding the point you're trying to relay
with this argument. I don't question the argument itself, but it's
purpose. I've read the sawstop articles, seen the web site, etc. and I've
never heard a claim that it will prevent every conceivable form of table
saw accident,
guaranteed, 100%. That one can define a set of circumstances under which
one can overwhelm the advantages of the machine does not do much to
disupte
the otherwise admitable benefits of that machine. At best, it only
defines the limitations.

And Sawstop does not "define the limitations" or even suggest that there are
any. Nor do they provide any evidence that their device will actually be
effective in the majority of real accidents.

If it was their salesman then it _was_ "the demo".

Well, as a sales guy,

As a consumer I know not to trust sales guys.

I know first hand the benefits of demos. Though not
exhaustive and typically not designed to point out the weakness or
limitations of a product, they do give clear and appropriate evidence of
the
intended benefits. It is as much incumbant upon the viewer to realize the
intention of the demo as it is for the demonstrator to articulate that
intention.

The thing is, this device is supposed to prevent accidents that can be
maiming or life-threatening. The fact that it can protect a hot dog in a
canned demonstration does not mean that it will actually prevent such
accidents.

Regardless, I am "realizing the intention of the demo" and you seem to be
berating me for it.

Survival 101, never, _ever_ believe the advertising if its being in error
could bring you to harm.


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

I did not claim that it was in error or misleading. I stated that one
should not, as a matter of principle, trust advertising if the advertising
being incorrect can bring one to harm. It's up to the advertiser to prove
that his advertising is accurate, not up to the consumer to disprove it.

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

Mike Marlow wrote:


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

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...

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

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

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

Indeed Dave, but without any sort of statistical evidence on my side, I
would intuitively believe that most accidents with a table saw are the
result of the operator losing focus on the job and getting into the blade
at normal feed speeds, getting loose clothing drawn in,

Will the Sawstop be effective in preventing serious injuries resulting from
"getting loose clothing drawn in"?

or doing too many
things at once and getting into a blade while reaching across the table
for a cutoff,

How fast is one's hand moving while "reaching across the table for a
cutoff"?

and not by other accidents such as falling.


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

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


That's the part I'm not so sure of Dave. As I said, I would believe that
most accidents do happen more in the wood cutting process than by falls,
etc.

What one believes and what is true are not always the same.

Even so - they aren't advertising it to be something that it's not.
They're advertising it to control a specific type of contact. Even if
that type of contact only happened 2% of the time, it's still not an
advertising
error.

Nobody has claimed that it is "an advertising error". They want me to give
them my money and put up with their potentially annoying and inconvenient
gadget in order to be more safe. It's their job to answer my objections.
If they best they can do is "maybe that kind of accident is rare but we
don't really know" then they're not doing so effectively.

Worst case would be that it would be a device that really didn't
have much of a market.

Bingo.

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

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...

Will the Sawstop be effective in preventing serious injuries resulting
from
"getting loose clothing drawn in"?

I don't know. I'd guess it could - just based on the way it works
otherwise. Maybe not preventing all serious injury, but quite possibly
reducing the amount of injury. But then again - they don't claim that it
will prevent serious injury from loose clothing being drawn in.


How fast is one's hand moving while "reaching across the table for a
cutoff"?

Generally, pretty slowly. Somewhere around the speed that it feeds at.
Again - how would the speed of a person's hand be in conflict with what they
are offering?


What one believes and what is true are not always the same.

Quite true, but do you have any more evidence than I do which would suggest
that my beliefs are incorrect?


Even so - they aren't advertising it to be something that it's not.
They're advertising it to control a specific type of contact. Even if
that type of contact only happened 2% of the time, it's still not an
advertising
error.

Nobody has claimed that it is "an advertising error".

Actually, I took those three words directly from a preceeding post, so
somebody did indeed suggest that.

They want me to give
them my money and put up with their potentially annoying and inconvenient
gadget in order to be more safe. It's their job to answer my objections.
If they best they can do is "maybe that kind of accident is rare but we
don't really know" then they're not doing so effectively.

What they do want, that I think we both vehamently disagree with is to force
their proprietary technology on all new saws. In that, I agree with your
objections, but for a different reason. I object in the name of not needing
a nanny to decide what safety devices I need to have - especially when that
nanny is the one who stands to benefit soley if such a requirement came to
be. That said, the claims that they have put on the table seem to be valid
claims. They haven't claimed to address all forms of accident, only certain
forms.


--

-Mike-

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
Mike Marlow wrote:

And Sawstop does not "define the limitations" or even suggest that there
are
any. Nor do they provide any evidence that their device will actually be
effective in the majority of real accidents.

That's where we probably disagree in principle. I don't believe they are
under any obligation to define the limitations or suggest there are any.
They advertise and demonstrate it in a very specific way. That is the
extent of their claim. Anything, no... everything has limitations, yet how
often do you see an exhaustive list of them in a product advertisement?
There's no need to. When the advertising and demonstrations of a product
make clear what its intent is, then it's kind of simple. Of course, once
the liability lawyers get done with this there will be all sorts of
disclaimors, but that's because we live in a world of stupid people who are
smart enough to sue over their own stupidity.


If it was their salesman then it _was_ "the demo".

Well, as a sales guy,

As a consumer I know not to trust sales guys.

That's a funny statement.


Regardless, I am "realizing the intention of the demo" and you seem to be
berating me for it.

Berating? Geeze, I only made one comment and that was in direct response to
your comment.


Survival 101, never, _ever_ believe the advertising if its being in
error
could bring you to harm.


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

I did not claim that it was in error or misleading. I stated that one
should not, as a matter of principle, trust advertising if the advertising
being incorrect can bring one to harm. It's up to the advertiser to prove
that his advertising is accurate, not up to the consumer to disprove it.

I misunderstood your previous comment. Sorry.


--

-Mike-

Well then, I guess you shouldn't buy one. Not that they'll ever be for sale
anyway! The demo's I've seen are proof enough of it's effectiveness. That
being said, I won't ever get one anyway.
--
Jeff P.

"A new study shows that licking the sweat off a frog
can cure depression. The down side is, the minute
you stop licking, the frog gets depressed again." - Jay Leno


Check out my woodshop at: www.sawdustcentral.com


"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
Jeff P. wrote:

Well of _course_ it does. How many do you think they would sell if it
cut
the hot dog in half? The question is not what happens in the sales
demonstration, it's what happens in the real world.

Really now. Would you prefer that one of the sales reps slides his hand
into the blade? Will that satisfy you? Personally, I'm not rushing out
to
buy a Sawstop but it does seem like a very good idea. Just keep
waiting,
I'm sure we'll have real world data sometime soon if they're actually
selling any of these.

I'm sorry, but I don't see your point. Whether the sales rep uses his
hand
or your hand or a hot dog or somebody's weenie is irrelevant. He's not
going to give a demo that makes his product look bad. The fact that it
looks good in a demo has little relevance to its functioning in the real
world unless the use to which it is going to be put is _exactly_ that that
was demonstrated.

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

I've been seeing a lot about this lately, some thoughts:

1. Historically, if you build something that takes away the need to think
about what you are doing, people will stop thinking. Case in point - when
airbags were first put into cars, there were people who stopped wearing
seatbelts (because the airbag will save me, right?). The last thing anyone
needs to do around a table saw (or router, etc...) is get complacent and
stop paying attention to what is going on, because they are "confident" that
the machine will save them if they do something stupid.

2. If don't feel comfortable with a device, that if it misfires, is going
to destroy my $100+ saw blade, the safety device itself, and possibly
damage the saw. All in the name of protecting me from what is,
statistically, a very very low risk. Even though the consequences of this
type of accident are catastrophic, the risk of occurrence is low to justify
the cost. Besides there are two devices already on the market which protect
against this type of accident: one comes with almost every saw made and
sits over the spinning blade to prevent your touching it, and the other
every woodworker is already equipped with it is located between your ears.

3. I've seen a number of those demonstrations. If the damn thing is so
effective and perfectly reliable how about a demo where the sales guy runs
is hand into the blade, I don't care if it prevents the saw from cutting
hotdogs. After all, I have seen demo's of body armor where the guy actually
takes a bullet, in my view a bullet to the chest is a lot more risky that
running your finger into the saw blade.

4. I mean no offense to those who will feel safer having a saw that is
equipped with one of these devices, more power to you, just don't force it
on the rest of us.

Parting shot (refer to number 1.) - "If your design something that is idiot
proof, they will build a better idiot!"

John C

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
Jeff P. wrote:

Well, all I know is that when they demonstrate the thing with a hot dog
it
stops virtually instantaneously. The dog has just a slight knick in it.

Well of _course_ it does. How many do you think they would sell if it cut
the hot dog in half? The question is not what happens in the sales
demonstration, it's what happens in the real world.

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

Mike Marlow wrote:


"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...

Will the Sawstop be effective in preventing serious injuries resulting
from
"getting loose clothing drawn in"?

I don't know. I'd guess it could - just based on the way it works
otherwise.

If you want to trust your personal safety to guesswork be my guest.

Maybe not preventing all serious injury, but quite possibly
reducing the amount of injury.

Or possibly making it more severe as the blade drops below the table with
the clothing entangled?

But then again - they don't claim that it
will prevent serious injury from loose clothing being drawn in.

You're the one who brought that up as a possible scenario.

How fast is one's hand moving while "reaching across the table for a
cutoff"?

Generally, pretty slowly. Somewhere around the speed that it feeds at.
Again - how would the speed of a person's hand be in conflict with what
they are offering?

They state it stops the saw in a certain time--not "instantly" but in a 5
milliseconds. One's hand moves a certain distance in 5 milliseconds. If it
moves far enough then one loses a finger before the saw stops. I'd have a
lot more confidence in it if it stopped the blade in 50 microseconds--even
a major league pitcher or a martial arts expert (both of whom can move
their hands unusually fast) _trying_ to cut himself wouldn't be able to get
more than 1/8 inch or so into the blade in that time, but at 5 ms one can
lose a finger at remarkably low speeds.

What one believes and what is true are not always the same.

Quite true, but do you have any more evidence than I do which would
suggest that my beliefs are incorrect?

I don't really care what you personally believe.

Even so - they aren't advertising it to be something that it's not.
They're advertising it to control a specific type of contact. Even if
that type of contact only happened 2% of the time, it's still not an
advertising
error.

Nobody has claimed that it is "an advertising error".

Actually, I took those three words directly from a preceeding post, so
somebody did indeed suggest that.

Well then take it up with them.

They want me to give
them my money and put up with their potentially annoying and inconvenient
gadget in order to be more safe. It's their job to answer my objections.
If they best they can do is "maybe that kind of accident is rare but we
don't really know" then they're not doing so effectively.

What they do want, that I think we both vehamently disagree with is to
force
their proprietary technology on all new saws. In that, I agree with your
objections, but for a different reason. I object in the name of not
needing a nanny to decide what safety devices I need to have - especially
when that nanny is the one who stands to benefit soley if such a
requirement came to
be. That said, the claims that they have put on the table seem to be
valid
claims. They haven't claimed to address all forms of accident, only
certain forms.

Do those "certain forms" need to be addressed more urgently than other
forms?

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

Mike Marlow wrote:


"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
Mike Marlow wrote:

And Sawstop does not "define the limitations" or even suggest that there
are
any. Nor do they provide any evidence that their device will actually be
effective in the majority of real accidents.

That's where we probably disagree in principle. I don't believe they are
under any obligation to define the limitations or suggest there are any.
They advertise and demonstrate it in a very specific way. That is the
extent of their claim. Anything, no... everything has limitations, yet
how often do you see an exhaustive list of them in a product
advertisement?
There's no need to. When the advertising and demonstrations of a product
make clear what its intent is, then it's kind of simple. Of course, once
the liability lawyers get done with this there will be all sorts of
disclaimors, but that's because we live in a world of stupid people who
are smart enough to sue over their own stupidity.

This is not about the legal obligations of advertisers. They've made a
claim. I don't buy their claim. If you do that's your business.

If it was their salesman then it _was_ "the demo".

Well, as a sales guy,

As a consumer I know not to trust sales guys.

That's a funny statement.

Says the sales guy with the vested interest in being trusted. How does one
say "screw you" in Salesmanese? "Trust me".

Regardless, I am "realizing the intention of the demo" and you seem to be
berating me for it.

Berating? Geeze, I only made one comment and that was in direct response
to your comment.


Survival 101, never, _ever_ believe the advertising if its being in
error
could bring you to harm.


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

I did not claim that it was in error or misleading. I stated that one
should not, as a matter of principle, trust advertising if the
advertising
being incorrect can bring one to harm. It's up to the advertiser to
prove that his advertising is accurate, not up to the consumer to
disprove it.

I misunderstood your previous comment. Sorry.


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

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
Mike Marlow wrote:


If you want to trust your personal safety to guesswork be my guest.

I never suggested or stated that I was anxious to trust my safety to
anything outside of myself. In fact, I state exactly otherwise.


Maybe not preventing all serious injury, but quite possibly
reducing the amount of injury.

Or possibly making it more severe as the blade drops below the table with
the clothing entangled?

Perhaps. Like I said, or more accurately, as my position implies, I don't
know, but I'm willing to consider it and to watch for the evidence rather
than demean it absent that evidence.


But then again - they don't claim that it
will prevent serious injury from loose clothing being drawn in.

You're the one who brought that up as a possible scenario.

Yes, but what does that matter? I was speaking to the accuracy of their
claims as objected to by you. Or perhaps as questioned by you.


How fast is one's hand moving while "reaching across the table for a
cutoff"?

Generally, pretty slowly. Somewhere around the speed that it feeds at.
Again - how would the speed of a person's hand be in conflict with what
they are offering?

They state it stops the saw in a certain time--not "instantly" but in a 5
milliseconds. One's hand moves a certain distance in 5 milliseconds. If
it
moves far enough then one loses a finger before the saw stops. I'd have a
lot more confidence in it if it stopped the blade in 50 microseconds--even
a major league pitcher or a martial arts expert (both of whom can move
their hands unusually fast) _trying_ to cut himself wouldn't be able to
get
more than 1/8 inch or so into the blade in that time, but at 5 ms one can
lose a finger at remarkably low speeds.

Yes, they can. As well, they can incur only very minor injuries. The
argument works both ways. My only point in entering this discussion was to
point out that they only claimed very specific benefits and the discussion
prior to that was that they weren't meeting other standards of protection,
even though they never claimed to.


What one believes and what is true are not always the same.

Quite true, but do you have any more evidence than I do which would
suggest that my beliefs are incorrect?

I don't really care what you personally believe.

Then why throw the comment on the floor that you did? OK... I'm guilty of a
little rhetoric from time to time myself.


Even so - they aren't advertising it to be something that it's not.
They're advertising it to control a specific type of contact. Even
if
that type of contact only happened 2% of the time, it's still not an
advertising
error.

Nobody has claimed that it is "an advertising error".

Actually, I took those three words directly from a preceeding post, so
somebody did indeed suggest that.

Well then take it up with them.

I believe I did.


They want me to give
them my money and put up with their potentially annoying and
inconvenient
gadget in order to be more safe. It's their job to answer my
objections.
If they best they can do is "maybe that kind of accident is rare but we
don't really know" then they're not doing so effectively.

What they do want, that I think we both vehamently disagree with is to
force
their proprietary technology on all new saws. In that, I agree with
your
objections, but for a different reason. I object in the name of not
needing a nanny to decide what safety devices I need to have -
especially
when that nanny is the one who stands to benefit soley if such a
requirement came to
be. That said, the claims that they have put on the table seem to be
valid
claims. They haven't claimed to address all forms of accident, only
certain forms.

Do those "certain forms" need to be addressed more urgently than other
forms?

Not unless they're trying to be all things to all people - and they are not.
They are very specifically attempting to address one common form of injury.
It's easy to overlook that and to assign bigger and more encompassing
objectives for them, but the error in that is that neither you nor I work
for them and we don't have the luxury of defining what the objective of
their product is. It's really quite simple. The product seems to do a
certain thing that they claim it will do. What it does not do outside of
that scope is irrelevant. Seat belts hold you in place during a sudden
stop. Are they at all worthwhile? Are there times when they do not prevent
an injury or even lessen an injury? Do they prevent all other injuries that
can occur in a car? No. That does not make the use of seatbelts a waste of
time. All it does is define their application and their benefit.
Remember - the concept is not to eliminate injury, it's to reduce injury.
If sawstop works as it appears to, then it will have accomplished that
objective in the same manner as seat belts contribute to reduced injuries in
cars.
--

-Mike-

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
Mike Marlow wrote:


"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
Mike Marlow wrote:

And Sawstop does not "define the limitations" or even suggest that
there
are
any. Nor do they provide any evidence that their device will actually
be
effective in the majority of real accidents.

That's where we probably disagree in principle. I don't believe they
are
under any obligation to define the limitations or suggest there are any.
They advertise and demonstrate it in a very specific way. That is the
extent of their claim. Anything, no... everything has limitations, yet
how often do you see an exhaustive list of them in a product
advertisement?
There's no need to. When the advertising and demonstrations of a
product
make clear what its intent is, then it's kind of simple. Of course,
once
the liability lawyers get done with this there will be all sorts of
disclaimors, but that's because we live in a world of stupid people who
are smart enough to sue over their own stupidity.

This is not about the legal obligations of advertisers. They've made a
claim. I don't buy their claim. If you do that's your business.

You are certainly entitled not to buy their claim. But... it was you that
raised the strawman argument obligations and advertising. Reference you
quote above where you state that sawstop does not state their limitations,
or even suggest there are any. Throughout this, I've never suggested or
stated that I buy any of their claims, that I believe in their product or
anything of the like. All I have done is question initially, why you seemed
to hold such a contrary opinion of the product and then subesequently, I
responded to a series of red herrings and strawmen that you threw out. So
far, you've really presented a pretty unconvincing argument, but that's ok
because I don't believe you were actually trying to convince anyone else not
to buy a sawstop saw. Good thing.


If it was their salesman then it _was_ "the demo".

Well, as a sales guy,

As a consumer I know not to trust sales guys.

That's a funny statement.

Says the sales guy with the vested interest in being trusted. How does
one
say "screw you" in Salesmanese? "Trust me".

Don't know much about sales do you? But then again, it's always easier to
hang on some cliche - it has more rhetorical value.


--

-Mike-

Mike Marlow wrote:


"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
Mike Marlow wrote:


"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
Mike Marlow wrote:

And Sawstop does not "define the limitations" or even suggest that
there
are
any. Nor do they provide any evidence that their device will actually
be
effective in the majority of real accidents.

That's where we probably disagree in principle. I don't believe they
are
under any obligation to define the limitations or suggest there are
any.
They advertise and demonstrate it in a very specific way. That is the
extent of their claim. Anything, no... everything has limitations, yet
how often do you see an exhaustive list of them in a product
advertisement?
There's no need to. When the advertising and demonstrations of a
product
make clear what its intent is, then it's kind of simple. Of course,
once
the liability lawyers get done with this there will be all sorts of
disclaimors, but that's because we live in a world of stupid people who
are smart enough to sue over their own stupidity.

This is not about the legal obligations of advertisers. They've made a
claim. I don't buy their claim. If you do that's your business.

You are certainly entitled not to buy their claim. But... it was you that
raised the strawman argument obligations and advertising. Reference you
quote above where you state that sawstop does not state their limitations,
or even suggest there are any.

I'm sorry, but you're the one raising the strawman--do yourself a favor and
don't waste your time trying to sell me anything--I don't respond to that
approach.

I did not say that they were "obligated" to do anything, I said that they
had not done certain things. It is you who are twisting that into some
kind of argument about "obligation".

Throughout this, I've never suggested or
stated that I buy any of their claims, that I believe in their product or
anything of the like. All I have done is question initially, why you
seemed to hold such a contrary opinion of the product

Contrary to what? I hold a _negative_ opinion of the product. That is only
"contrary" if the majority opinion is positive, which it does not appear to
be, at least not in this community.

and then
subesequently, I
responded to a series of red herrings and strawmen that you threw out.

Please quote these "red herrings and strawmen". The thing is being marketed
as being a safety device. That being the case it is legitimate to question
its effectiveness in that role.

So
far, you've really presented a pretty unconvincing argument,

I haven't presented any "argument" at all. I've questioned its utility.
And rather than addressing any question of utility you have kept on about
the obligations of advertisers. If anyone is presenting "red herrings and
straw men" it is you.

Let me reiterate--I don't give a hoot in Hell what they advertise or whether
they are obligated to advertise anything. I care whether the damned thing
works well enough to be useful. And their advertising has not made a
convincing case for this.

but that's ok
because I don't believe you were actually trying to convince anyone else
not
to buy a sawstop saw. Good thing.

If you want to buy one be my guest. But don't come crying to me when you
lose your hand in it.

If it was their salesman then it _was_ "the demo".

Well, as a sales guy,

As a consumer I know not to trust sales guys.

That's a funny statement.

Says the sales guy with the vested interest in being trusted. How does
one
say "screw you" in Salesmanese? "Trust me".

Don't know much about sales do you?

More than you clearly. Because if the approach you are using is what you
call "salesmanship" then, well, if you had been in my office trying to sell
me something then about three posts back I would have made sure the door
hit you in the ass on the way out.

Another one you haven't learned. Don't argue with the customer. If he has
a low opinion of salesmen and your behavior reinforces that opinion, which
your behavior is doing, then you are _not_ going to get the sale.

But then again, it's always easier to
hang on some cliche - it has more rhetorical value.

Trust me.

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

Mike Marlow wrote:


"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
Mike Marlow wrote:


If you want to trust your personal safety to guesswork be my guest.

I never suggested or stated that I was anxious to trust my safety to
anything outside of myself. In fact, I state exactly otherwise.


Maybe not preventing all serious injury, but quite possibly
reducing the amount of injury.

Or possibly making it more severe as the blade drops below the table with
the clothing entangled?

Perhaps. Like I said, or more accurately, as my position implies, I don't
know, but I'm willing to consider it and to watch for the evidence rather
than demean it absent that evidence.


But then again - they don't claim that it
will prevent serious injury from loose clothing being drawn in.

You're the one who brought that up as a possible scenario.

Yes, but what does that matter? I was speaking to the accuracy of their
claims as objected to by you. Or perhaps as questioned by you.


How fast is one's hand moving while "reaching across the table for a
cutoff"?

Generally, pretty slowly. Somewhere around the speed that it feeds at.
Again - how would the speed of a person's hand be in conflict with what
they are offering?

They state it stops the saw in a certain time--not "instantly" but in a 5
milliseconds. One's hand moves a certain distance in 5 milliseconds. If
it
moves far enough then one loses a finger before the saw stops. I'd have
a lot more confidence in it if it stopped the blade in 50
microseconds--even a major league pitcher or a martial arts expert (both
of whom can move their hands unusually fast) _trying_ to cut himself
wouldn't be able to
get
more than 1/8 inch or so into the blade in that time, but at 5 ms one can
lose a finger at remarkably low speeds.

Yes, they can. As well, they can incur only very minor injuries. The
argument works both ways.

If you are going to rely on slowness of movement for safety then there is no
need for the Sawstop at all. If you move your hand into the blade slowly
enough then you can stop at exactly the same point at which the hot dog is
stopped in the demonstrations.

My only point in entering this discussion was
to point out that they only claimed very specific benefits and the
discussion prior to that was that they weren't meeting other standards of
protection, even though they never claimed to.

And this is not about their claims, it is about the efficacy of their
device.

What one believes and what is true are not always the same.

Quite true, but do you have any more evidence than I do which would
suggest that my beliefs are incorrect?

I don't really care what you personally believe.

Then why throw the comment on the floor that you did? OK... I'm guilty of
a little rhetoric from time to time myself.

Huh? I don't recall stating in any post that I cared the slightest iota
what you thought about the Sawstop. In fact even if I had, your attitude
is making me care less and less.

Even so - they aren't advertising it to be something that it's not.
They're advertising it to control a specific type of contact. Even
if
that type of contact only happened 2% of the time, it's still not an
advertising
error.

Nobody has claimed that it is "an advertising error".

Actually, I took those three words directly from a preceeding post, so
somebody did indeed suggest that.

Well then take it up with them.

I believe I did.

Then why did you take it up with me?

They want me to give
them my money and put up with their potentially annoying and
inconvenient
gadget in order to be more safe. It's their job to answer my
objections.
If they best they can do is "maybe that kind of accident is rare but
we don't really know" then they're not doing so effectively.

What they do want, that I think we both vehamently disagree with is to
force
their proprietary technology on all new saws. In that, I agree with
your
objections, but for a different reason. I object in the name of not
needing a nanny to decide what safety devices I need to have -
especially
when that nanny is the one who stands to benefit soley if such a
requirement came to
be. That said, the claims that they have put on the table seem to be
valid
claims. They haven't claimed to address all forms of accident, only
certain forms.

Do those "certain forms" need to be addressed more urgently than other
forms?

Not unless they're trying to be all things to all people - and they are
not. They are very specifically attempting to address one common form of
injury.

Are they? Is the "form of injury" that they "address" in fact "common"? Or
is that just your uninformed opinion?

It's easy to overlook that and to assign bigger and more
encompassing objectives for them, but the error in that is that neither
you nor I work for them and we don't have the luxury of defining what the
objective of their product is.

If you don't work for them then why are you working so hard at defending
them?

It's really quite simple. The product seems to do a
certain thing that they claim it will do. What it does not do outside of
that scope is irrelevant. Seat belts hold you in place during a sudden
stop. Are they at all worthwhile?

I'm sorry, but you are once again going off on a tangent by assuming without
any proof whatsoever that the circumstance in which the Sawstop is
effective is one that occurs commonly enough to be a matter of concern.

Are there times when they do not
prevent
an injury or even lessen an injury? Do they prevent all other injuries
that
can occur in a car? No. That does not make the use of seatbelts a waste
of
time. All it does is define their application and their benefit.
Remember - the concept is not to eliminate injury, it's to reduce injury.
If sawstop works as it appears to, then it will have accomplished that
objective in the same manner as seat belts contribute to reduced injuries
in cars.

So how many injuries will it "reduce"? Do you have a number? Or just more
hot air?

I'm sorry, but it's clear that you are more concerned with truth in
advertising than with safety. Which is what I expect from an incompetent
salesman who would rather spend time arguing with strangers on the Internet
than serviceing his paying customers. That being the case it is abundantly
clear that you have nothing to say that is worth my time to listen to.
G'day.


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

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
Mike Marlow wrote:


"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
Mike Marlow wrote:



What one believes and what is true are not always the same.

Quite true, but do you have any more evidence than I do which would
suggest that my beliefs are incorrect?

I don't really care what you personally believe.

Then why throw the comment on the floor that you did? OK... I'm guilty
of
a little rhetoric from time to time myself.

Huh? I don't recall stating in any post that I cared the slightest iota
what you thought about the Sawstop. In fact even if I had, your attitude
is making me care less and less.

My attitude? What exactly is "my attitude"? Througout this discourse you
are the one who has thrown sarcasm in. I merely left your sarcasm in the
included text in order to address the point or lack thereof that you posed.


Even so - they aren't advertising it to be something that it's
not.
They're advertising it to control a specific type of contact.
Even
if
that type of contact only happened 2% of the time, it's still not
an
advertising
error.

Nobody has claimed that it is "an advertising error".

Actually, I took those three words directly from a preceeding post,
so
somebody did indeed suggest that.

Well then take it up with them.

I believe I did.

Then why did you take it up with me?

Have you looked at the included text? It was your comment. It was included
in my reply.



Not unless they're trying to be all things to all people - and they are
not. They are very specifically attempting to address one common form of
injury.

Are they? Is the "form of injury" that they "address" in fact "common"?
Or
is that just your uninformed opinion?

Tag, you're it. I've already admitted that I had no statistical evidence on
my side and was only speaking from what I believed to be the case. Now -
you opinion is somehow more informed?


It's easy to overlook that and to assign bigger and more
encompassing objectives for them, but the error in that is that neither
you nor I work for them and we don't have the luxury of defining what
the
objective of their product is.

If you don't work for them then why are you working so hard at defending
them?

I'm not - why are you working so hard to defame something you no nothing of
and have yet to present a credible argument against?


It's really quite simple. The product seems to do a
certain thing that they claim it will do. What it does not do outside
of
that scope is irrelevant. Seat belts hold you in place during a sudden
stop. Are they at all worthwhile?

I'm sorry, but you are once again going off on a tangent by assuming
without
any proof whatsoever that the circumstance in which the Sawstop is
effective is one that occurs commonly enough to be a matter of concern.

Your evidence? Besides your assertion, that is. You may have it for all I
know and if you do, I will be the first to acknowledge that and credit you
for being educated in that area. But... so far you haven't presented any,
just an objection to the product based on nothing.


Are there times when they do not
prevent
an injury or even lessen an injury? Do they prevent all other injuries
that
can occur in a car? No. That does not make the use of seatbelts a
waste
of
time. All it does is define their application and their benefit.
Remember - the concept is not to eliminate injury, it's to reduce
injury.
If sawstop works as it appears to, then it will have accomplished that
objective in the same manner as seat belts contribute to reduced
injuries
in cars.

So how many injuries will it "reduce"? Do you have a number? Or just
more
hot air?

You are just being difficult John. I entered this discussion hoping for a
reasonable adult discussion and it's really clear from your contributions
that you don't share that hope. Go ahead, keep throwing a bunch of
irrelevant side tracks out there, all it does is demonstrate that you really
don't have anything to say, you just want to be difficult.


I'm sorry, but it's clear that you are more concerned with truth in
advertising than with safety. Which is what I expect from an incompetent
salesman who would rather spend time arguing with strangers on the
Internet
than serviceing his paying customers. That being the case it is
abundantly
clear that you have nothing to say that is worth my time to listen to.
G'day.

Clearly no clue. And just what are you doing? John, you have presented
yourself to be a complete ass in this entire discussion. You would **** to
know how successful I've been. You'd just hate salesmen all the more
because you'd have something more to be jealous of and resentful of. For
all of your "concern for safety", I didn't see your name on any patents for
safety devices. Yeah - all hot air and distractions, that's all you've
presented here. You're right - Good day.

--

-Mike-



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

On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 12:15:10 GMT, "snowdog"
wrote:

1. Historically, if you build something that takes away the need to think
about what you are doing, people will stop thinking.

It's hard to imagine running wood through a table saw
without "the need to think." Maybe you're capable of
that and there may be others like you. But I suspect
that you're in a small minority.

2. If don't feel comfortable with a device, that if it misfires, is going
to destroy my $100+ saw blade, the safety device itself, and possibly
damage the saw. ....

Right there you've listed another reason to keep thinking:
you're going to lose at least $150 if you goof, plus maybe
a nice chunk of wood.

4. I mean no offense to those who will feel safer having a saw that is
equipped with one of these devices, more power to you, just don't force it
on the rest of us.


I don't know of anyone who has posted in this n.g. who has
the wherewithal or the will to force this saw on you. Do you ?

"GregP" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 12:15:10 GMT, "snowdog"
wrote:

1. Historically, if you build something that takes away the need to think
about what you are doing, people will stop thinking.

It's hard to imagine running wood through a table saw
without "the need to think." Maybe you're capable of
that and there may be others like you. But I suspect
that you're in a small minority.

Lets put it this way. If you are on top of a tall building and you are
close to the edge, you will have a tendency to much more careful about what
you do if a railing is not there. Oddly enough the railing doesn't even
have to be strong enough to keep you from going over the edge, just the fact
that it is there is enough to cause you to be less attentive than if it was
not there are all. If you put a device on a saw that will (hopefully) stop
the blade if you touch it, you will have a tendency to do things you
normally would not do on the table saw. Perhaps not use that pushstick that
is just out of reach, or cut a piece that is way too small without the
proper support. It is part of the human condition to get "lazy" when the
percieved level of danger decreases.


2. If don't feel comfortable with a device, that if it misfires, is going
to destroy my $100+ saw blade, the safety device itself, and possibly
damage the saw. ....

Right there you've listed another reason to keep thinking:
you're going to lose at least $150 if you goof, plus maybe
a nice chunk of wood.


I am not goin to argue that in the (unlikely) event a person does make
contact with the blade, the cost of the blade and safety device becomes
trivial, of course it does. However, when you weigh the cost vs. the risk,
I don't believe the risk in this case is great enough to justify the cost.
This is no different than other decisions made in the wood shop, there are
those who will argue you must wear a dust mask at all times in the shop,
because the risk of inhaling the dust that you will generate justifies the
need for the mask. There are others who will only wear a mask (or
respirator) only when working with certain types of wood or other products.
It is a decision each person has to make for himself (or herself).

4. I mean no offense to those who will feel safer having a saw that is
equipped with one of these devices, more power to you, just don't force it
on the rest of us.


I don't know of anyone who has posted in this n.g. who has
the wherewithal or the will to force this saw on you. Do you ?

The makers of this device have petitioned the Federal Government to make
this device mandatory on all tablesaws (I won't argue with you on specific
sizes of saws, suffice it to say that is there ultimate goal). This is
equivalent to forcing it on the general populace. I will grant you that
they probably do not post on this n.g., though I am pretty sure that they
(or someone in their organization) lurk here.

John C.

"snowdog" wrote in message
m...

"GregP" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 12:15:10 GMT, "snowdog"
wrote:

1. Historically, if you build something that takes away the need to
think
about what you are doing, people will stop thinking.

It's hard to imagine running wood through a table saw
without "the need to think." Maybe you're capable of
that and there may be others like you. But I suspect
that you're in a small minority.


I suppose this has the same level of moral hazard as a seat belt. You
don't really need them until you need them, and that one moment of not
thinking does you in. I suppose we all have some pretty good stories about
near misses that we've had or seen along the way. Perhaps from not
thinking. Perhaps from being tired. Possibly from being distracted for a
moment. Maybe from inexperience.



Lets put it this way. If you are on top of a tall building and you are
close to the edge, you will have a tendency to much more careful about
what you do if a railing is not there. Oddly enough the railing doesn't
even have to be strong enough to keep you from going over the edge, just
the fact that it is there is enough to cause you to be less attentive than
if it was not there are all. If you put a device on a saw that will
(hopefully) stop the blade if you touch it, you will have a tendency to do
things you normally would not do on the table saw. Perhaps not use that
pushstick that is just out of reach, or cut a piece that is way too small
without the proper support. It is part of the human condition to get
"lazy" when the percieved level of danger decreases.


2. If don't feel comfortable with a device, that if it misfires, is
going
to destroy my $100+ saw blade, the safety device itself, and possibly
damage the saw. ....

Right there you've listed another reason to keep thinking:
you're going to lose at least $150 if you goof, plus maybe
a nice chunk of wood.


And if it fires correctly will save $30,000 in hospital bills, months of
rehabilitation, and an SWMBO from selling every last tool in the shop.


I am not goin to argue that in the (unlikely) event a person does make
contact with the blade, the cost of the blade and safety device becomes
trivial, of course it does. However, when you weigh the cost vs. the
risk, I don't believe the risk in this case is great enough to justify the
cost. This is no different than other decisions made in the wood shop,
there are those who will argue you must wear a dust mask at all times in
the shop, because the risk of inhaling the dust that you will generate
justifies the need for the mask. There are others who will only wear a
mask (or respirator) only when working with certain types of wood or other
products. It is a decision each person has to make for himself (or
herself).

4. I mean no offense to those who will feel safer having a saw that is
equipped with one of these devices, more power to you, just don't force
it
on the rest of us.


I don't know of anyone who has posted in this n.g. who has
the wherewithal or the will to force this saw on you. Do you ?

The makers of this device have petitioned the Federal Government to make
this device mandatory on all tablesaws (I won't argue with you on specific
sizes of saws, suffice it to say that is there ultimate goal). This is
equivalent to forcing it on the general populace. I will grant you that
they probably do not post on this n.g., though I am pretty sure that they
(or someone in their organization) lurk here.


I don't think it should be a mandatory item. I think it should be
readily available at a reasonable price. I don't have a problem with
someone else cutting their fingers off. I just want to save mine as well as
those of anyone who uses my shop.



John C.




Michael

"Herman Family" /without_any_s/ wrote in message
...



I don't think it should be a mandatory item. I think it should be
readily available at a reasonable price. I don't have a problem with
someone else cutting their fingers off. I just want to save mine as well
as
those of anyone who uses my shop.


I agree that it should not be mandatory. I don't have any idea how
effective it will be in the long run, but I'm willing to see as time plays
out. I don't however see any correlation between an individual not using
sawstop, and the loss of fingers. Too many people have been using table
saws for too many years, with all of their fingers still intact. It's about
more than just a gadget mounted on the saw.
--

-Mike-

On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 12:13:44 GMT, "snowdog"
wrote:


Lets put it this way. If you are on top of a tall building and you are
close to the edge, you will have a tendency to much more careful about what
you do if a railing is not there. Oddly enough the railing doesn't even
have to be strong enough to keep you from going over the edge, just the fact
that it is there is enough to cause you to be less attentive than if it was
not there are all. If you put a device on a saw that will (hopefully) stop
the blade if you touch it, you will have a tendency to do things you
normally would not do on the table saw. Perhaps not use that pushstick that
is just out of reach, or cut a piece that is way too small without the
proper support. It is part of the human condition to get "lazy" when the
percieved level of danger decreases.


I hate high places: I have a hard time standing in front of a
floor-to-ceiling window when I'm up in a tall hotel, tho I used to
paint houses for a living, including very large Victorians...
the need to eat overcame the fear of heights .....

You may be right, there is likely to be a subconscious influence
on how scared you are of the saw with the device on it. But I
wonder about how much that will weigh on someone willing
to lay out the money for this saw. I almost always wear a seat
belt when in a car and my van has airbags. I really don't think
that I drive more carelessly because I know I am safer and
I go slower as I get older. I think that people who are likely
to take more risks - as I was when I was younger - are the ones
most likely to be careless. But I don't think that they are likely
to buy this saw in the first place.


Right there you've listed another reason to keep thinking:
you're going to lose at least $150 if you goof, plus maybe
a nice chunk of wood.

I am not goin to argue that in the (unlikely) event a person does make
contact with the blade, the cost of the blade and safety device becomes
trivial, of course it does. However, when you weigh the cost vs. the risk,
I don't believe the risk in this case is great enough to justify the cost.

What I meant was that the image in my mind of not being
careful resulting in the loss of a sawblade and a cartridge
for $150 or so would make me be more careful, even if
I thought that the device would make me invulnerable.

The makers of this device have petitioned the Federal Government to make
this device mandatory on all tablesaws (I won't argue with you on specific
sizes of saws, suffice it to say that is there ultimate goal). This is
equivalent to forcing it on the general populace.

I don't know if I will buy this saw. I decided to get a band saw
first and get by with it and miter and circular saws for a year or
so before buying a table saw, if ever. If I do, I'd like to consider
this one but I won't if they're still pursuing this regulation.

You're right. I'm going to start a petition to have all airbags and
seatbelts removed from cars. All guards should be removed from all
machinery. All warning signs in places of danger should be removed. People
should know when something is dangerous and act accordingly.

"snowdog" wrote in message
m...

Lets put it this way. If you are on top of a tall building and you are
close to the edge, you will have a tendency to much more careful about
what
you do if a railing is not there. Oddly enough the railing doesn't even
have to be strong enough to keep you from going over the edge, just the
fact
that it is there is enough to cause you to be less attentive than if it
was
not there are all. If you put a device on a saw that will (hopefully)
stop
the blade if you touch it, you will have a tendency to do things you
normally would not do on the table saw. Perhaps not use that pushstick
that
is just out of reach, or cut a piece that is way too small without the
proper support. It is part of the human condition to get "lazy" when the
percieved level of danger decreases.

On Fri, 4 Feb 2005 15:05:37 -0800, "CW" wrote:

People
should know when something is dangerous and act accordingly.


I propose that everyone should be required to wear full NHL approved
hockey goalie protective gear, with the addition of mattresses
strapped on in front and back.

Stiff penalties should be dealt to scofflaws! G

Barry