Saw that article this month (Fine Woodworking) on SawStop. With
thousands of amputations a year occuring with tablesaw accidents, any
bets on how long it takes for this to be a standard feature? It seems to
me that it will get hard for manufacturers to avoid it, if for no other
reason than to head off lawsuits from people who claim that the
manufactures had the option to manufacture a safer saw. And if it works
and is reasonable priced, it is probably a good thing to have as
standard equipment... like seatbelts, airbags, etc.

I don't think it will. as pointed out several times, if it is less than 100%
foolproof, the liabilities faced would increase manyfold.
As an aside, most powertools are inherently dangerous due to their nature.
It is really up to the operator to make things as safe as possible


"tzipple" wrote in message
...
Saw that article this month (Fine Woodworking) on SawStop. With
thousands of amputations a year occuring with tablesaw accidents, any
bets on how long it takes for this to be a standard feature? It seems to
me that it will get hard for manufacturers to avoid it, if for no other
reason than to head off lawsuits from people who claim that the
manufactures had the option to manufacture a safer saw. And if it works
and is reasonable priced, it is probably a good thing to have as
standard equipment... like seatbelts, airbags, etc.

tzipple wrote:

Saw that article this month (Fine Woodworking) on SawStop. With
thousands of amputations a year occuring with tablesaw accidents, any
bets on how long it takes for this to be a standard feature? It seems to
me that it will get hard for manufacturers to avoid it, if for no other
reason than to head off lawsuits from people who claim that the
manufactures had the option to manufacture a safer saw. And if it works
and is reasonable priced, it is probably a good thing to have as
standard equipment... like seatbelts, airbags, etc.
Thousands of Amputations? Damn. Can you site some official figures of
those "thousands" of amputees? I ain't buyin' it...

Philski

"ks" wrote in message news3Uld.85953$E93.37220@clgrps12...
I don't think it will. as pointed out several times, if it is less than
100%
foolproof, the liabilities faced would increase manyfold.
As an aside, most powertools are inherently dangerous due to their nature.
It is really up to the operator to make things as safe as possible


Besides, Saw Stop is not a brand new idea. It's been out long enough for
manufacturers to have looked at it and decided if it was worth installing.
So far, I haven't seen any saws with it.

--

-Mike-





"tzipple" wrote in message
...
Saw that article this month (Fine Woodworking) on SawStop. With
thousands of amputations a year occuring with tablesaw accidents, any
bets on how long it takes for this to be a standard feature? It seems to
me that it will get hard for manufacturers to avoid it, if for no other
reason than to head off lawsuits from people who claim that the
manufactures had the option to manufacture a safer saw. And if it works
and is reasonable priced, it is probably a good thing to have as
standard equipment... like seatbelts, airbags, etc.

philski wrote:

tzipple wrote:

Saw that article this month (Fine Woodworking) on SawStop. With
thousands of amputations a year occuring with tablesaw accidents, any
bets on how long it takes for this to be a standard feature? It seems
to me that it will get hard for manufacturers to avoid it, if for no
other reason than to head off lawsuits from people who claim that the
manufactures had the option to manufacture a safer saw. And if it
works and is reasonable priced, it is probably a good thing to have as
standard equipment... like seatbelts, airbags, etc.

Thousands of Amputations? Damn. Can you site some official figures of
those "thousands" of amputees? I ain't buyin' it...

Philski
Actually, i meant cite (vs. site)

phil(ski)

I've seen the SawStop guys at woodworking shows for years, and the product
is still not widely available. Last check, I think they were still taking
"deposits". Must have one heck of a VC behind them all these years.


"tzipple" wrote in message
...
Saw that article this month (Fine Woodworking) on SawStop. With thousands
of amputations a year occuring with tablesaw accidents, any bets on how
long it takes for this to be a standard feature? It seems to me that it
will get hard for manufacturers to avoid it, if for no other reason than
to head off lawsuits from people who claim that the manufactures had the
option to manufacture a safer saw. And if it works and is reasonable
priced, it is probably a good thing to have as standard equipment... like
seatbelts, airbags, etc.

One of the very best climber cut his finger off on a table saw. They could
have reattached, but then he couldn't have climbed for 6 months and he
wasn't willing to do that; so he went without.

That is one.

philski wrote:

tzipple wrote:

Saw that article this month (Fine Woodworking) on SawStop. With
thousands of amputations a year occuring with tablesaw accidents, any
bets on how long it takes for this to be a standard feature? It seems to
me that it will get hard for manufacturers to avoid it, if for no other
reason than to head off lawsuits from people who claim that the
manufactures had the option to manufacture a safer saw. And if it works
and is reasonable priced, it is probably a good thing to have as
standard equipment... like seatbelts, airbags, etc.
Thousands of Amputations? Damn. Can you site some official figures of
those "thousands" of amputees? I ain't buyin' it...

This was discussed a while back. I found a source of information on this
then--you can find that post at
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=sa...rking+author:J
+author:Clarke&start=10&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&c2coff=1&safe=off&selm=cc2fj7019lo%40news2.newsg uy.com&rnum=11

In short though, in 2002 there were approximately 3503 table-saw
amputations, according to the Consumer Product Safety Commission
http://www.cpsc.gov/library/neiss.html. That site also explains the
methodology--it's based on emergency-room reports though.

Philski

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

"tzipple" wrote in message ...
Saw that article this month (Fine Woodworking) on SawStop. With thousands
of amputations a year occuring with tablesaw accidents, any bets on how
long it takes for this to be a standard feature? It seems to me that it
will get hard for manufacturers to avoid it, if for no other reason than
to head off lawsuits from people who claim that the manufactures had the
option to manufacture a safer saw. And if it works and is reasonable
priced, it is probably a good thing to have as standard equipment... like
seatbelts, airbags, etc.

I think your premise is incorrect. If that were the case the unsafe blade
guards used in North America would have been replaced a long time ago.

Like most things, if the market decides that an extra $X00 per saw is a
worthwhile investment, then some will be fitted. It is usually not up to the
manufacturer to make it safe (unless it is legislated) if there are clear
warnings in the manuals or stickers etc on the machines.

Greg

philski responds:

Saw that article this month (Fine Woodworking) on SawStop. With
thousands of amputations a year occuring with tablesaw accidents, any
bets on how long it takes for this to be a standard feature? It seems to
me that it will get hard for manufacturers to avoid it, if for no other
reason than to head off lawsuits from people who claim that the
manufactures had the option to manufacture a safer saw. And if it works
and is reasonable priced, it is probably a good thing to have as
standard equipment... like seatbelts, airbags, etc.
Thousands of Amputations? Damn. Can you site some official figures of
those "thousands" of amputees? I ain't buyin' it...

Me either. I searched for facts and figures on this a couple, three months ago
when Saw Stop came up for the 32nd or so time. Nothing definitive, lots of
guesswork, so my guess of amputations in the low dozens is as good as any.

I first saw the demo video of the SS back in 2000, IIRC, at IWF in Atlanta. It
was, and remains, impressive, but IMHO what would be more impressive is a
total, simple, solution to kickback that is low in cost. Rough guess: there are
100 times as many injuries from kickback as there are from sticking a body part
into the saw blade.

And I have to wonder, too, if figures exist do they count such "amputations" as
one an uncle of mine got a decade or so ago. He ran his finger tip over the
1/8" or so of blade above the wood, and lost about 1/8" of the fingertip.
Hurts. Bleeds a lot. Amputation or cut?

Charlie Self
"If a politician found he had cannibals among his constituents, he would
promise them missionaries for dinner." H. L. Mencken

"Charlie Self" wrote in message
And I have to wonder, too, if figures exist do they count such
"amputations" as
one an uncle of mine got a decade or so ago. He ran his finger tip over
the
1/8" or so of blade above the wood, and lost about 1/8" of the fingertip.
Hurts. Bleeds a lot. Amputation or cut?

A fingertip probably qualifies. The dictionary defines it as "cut off part
of body: to cut off a limb or other appendage of the body, especially in a
surgical operation". I'd guess if it was something that doesn't grow back,
then it qualifies as being amputated.

Upscale responds:

And I have to wonder, too, if figures exist do they count such
"amputations" as
one an uncle of mine got a decade or so ago. He ran his finger tip over
the
1/8" or so of blade above the wood, and lost about 1/8" of the fingertip.
Hurts. Bleeds a lot. Amputation or cut?

A fingertip probably qualifies. The dictionary defines it as "cut off part
of body: to cut off a limb or other appendage of the body, especially in a
surgical operation". I'd guess if it was something that doesn't grow back,
then it qualifies as being amputated.


You're probably right. But if his fingertips are like mine, he can spare 1/8"
without hitting bone, or at least without hitting it hard. My concept, if not
definition, of amputation has always involved bone.

Enough. This is making my fingernails itch.

Charlie Self
"If a politician found he had cannibals among his constituents, he would
promise them missionaries for dinner." H. L. Mencken

I heard that they are trying to design one that will work with a deli
meat slicer.


--

Larry Wasserman Baltimore, Maryland

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 16:28:02 -0800, ted harris wrote:
In newsave Hinz typed:

That'll be ...problematic... but, as the real "product" still seems to
be vaporware, I don't think that the technology will be the limiting
factor.

A batch of sawstops saws is crossing the ocean as we speak to be delivered
later this month.

We'll see. Until I see one I can buy, or know someone who has, it's
still vaporware. And I thought some had arrived, but had "build
quality problems", the thing with the 'excuse letter' and all that?

Dave

"Lawrence Wasserman" wrote in message
news
I heard that they are trying to design one that will work with a deli
meat slicer.

You mean the blade will stop if someone put a piece of wood in it?

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message

That'll be ...problematic... but, as the real "product" still seems to
be vaporware, be the limiting factor.


It was reported that they were shipping in small numbers. Not quite vapor,
but a very fine mist.

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 21:37:59 GMT, Edwin Pawlowski wrote:

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message

That'll be ...problematic... but, as the real "product" still seems to
be vaporware, be the limiting factor.


It was reported that they were shipping in small numbers. Not quite vapor,
but a very fine mist.

Does anyone know of anyone who has one?

In newsave Hinz typed:
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 17:01:08 GMT, Lawrence Wasserman
wrote:
I heard that they are trying to design one that will work with a deli
meat slicer.

That'll be ...problematic... but, as the real "product" still seems to
be vaporware, I don't think that the technology will be the limiting
factor.

A batch of sawstops saws is crossing the ocean as we speak to be delivered
later this month.
--
Ted Harris

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 01:58:44 GMT, "ks" calmly ranted:

I don't think it will. as pointed out several times, if it is less than 100%
foolproof, the liabilities faced would increase manyfold.
As an aside, most powertools are inherently dangerous due to their nature.
It is really up to the operator to make things as safe as possible

I got the FWW Tools & Shops issue today and the article on SawStop
said that the saw blade is WELDED to the aluminum stop when it's
engaged, meaning that you have to replace BOTH every time it happens.
How'd ya like to replace a $100 Forrest WWII every week?


"tzipple" wrote in message
...
Saw that article this month (Fine Woodworking) on SawStop. With
thousands of amputations a year occuring with tablesaw accidents, any
bets on how long it takes for this to be a standard feature? It seems to
me that it will get hard for manufacturers to avoid it, if for no other
reason than to head off lawsuits from people who claim that the
manufactures had the option to manufacture a safer saw. And if it works
and is reasonable priced, it is probably a good thing to have as
standard equipment... like seatbelts, airbags, etc.



--
The older I get, the better I was.
----------------------------------
http://diversify.com - Better Website Programming

Larry Jaques wrote:

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 01:58:44 GMT, "ks" calmly ranted:

I don't think it will. as pointed out several times, if it is less than 100%
foolproof, the liabilities faced would increase manyfold.
As an aside, most powertools are inherently dangerous due to their nature.
It is really up to the operator to make things as safe as possible

I got the FWW Tools & Shops issue today and the article on SawStop
said that the saw blade is WELDED to the aluminum stop when it's
engaged, meaning that you have to replace BOTH every time it happens.
How'd ya like to replace a $100 Forrest WWII every week?

Larry, do you stick your hand in a spinning saw blade on a weekly basis? ;-)

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

Greetings and Salutations...

On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 19:43:29 -0600, tzipple
wrote:

Saw that article this month (Fine Woodworking) on SawStop. With
thousands of amputations a year occuring with tablesaw accidents, any
bets on how long it takes for this to be a standard feature? It seems to


Well, this has been chewed over a number of times, and,
I have to say that my feelings about it have not changed, having read
the fairly detailed review in the Tools and Shop issue of Fine
Woodworking. I still think that it is something that should not
be "required" by law at all..and if they can sell saws with
it installed, more power to them.

me that it will get hard for manufacturers to avoid it, if for no other
reason than to head off lawsuits from people who claim that the
manufactures had the option to manufacture a safer saw. And if it works
and is reasonable priced, it is probably a good thing to have as
standard equipment... like seatbelts, airbags, etc.

Well, there are a lot of "ifs" there. Actually, I will be
interested to see if the company survives the first lawsuit that
comes when the thing fails and one of those several thousand
amputations occurs anyway. It is a pretty good bet that whoever
sues them will end up owning the company, considering their
advertising copy.
Another design change that they have slipped in, that lowers
it in my eyes, is that the cartridge stop has apparently changed
from plastic to aluminum. While I am sure that this improves the
ability of the device to freeze the blade, the fact that this process
not only stops the saw, but, "welds the stop to the blade", destroying
the blade in the process is NOT a happy thing. It is bad enough to
have to replace a $50-$90 cartridge, but, the idea of getting to
replace a $125 sawblade, or a $200 dado blade set is just NOT a
good selling point to me.
The bottom line is that the only way that a table saw can
be a "safe" tool is for the operator to remain alert and slightly
nervous about the consequences of a screw-up. Having this sort
of thing on the saw will cause the operator to get overconfident,
complacent and sloppy. It is just human nature.
While I don't want to be flippant about the injury rates
listed in the article, I DO want to point out that there are
likely millions (or tens of millions) of usages of saws every year
in the USA. While taken out of context, the idea of thousands of
accidents seems like a lot, in context of the total number of times a
table saw is used, it is a drop in the ocean.
It would also be interesting to know how much training the
injured operators had before their accident. I suspect that it was
minimal.
The bottom line for me is that I would not buy a saw with
this technology installed, and, I really think it is a bad idea
to get the government involved in forcing me to buy one.
Regards
Dave Mundt

The bottom line for me is that I would not buy a saw with
this technology installed, and, I really think it is a bad idea
to get the government involved in forcing me to buy one.
Regards
Dave Mundt

I agree. It's a dangerous tool, and you have to be careful using it. But
then again, I feel the same way about other legislation that gets in my
life, like helmet laws and seatbelt laws. You can't save people from their
own stupidity. I would wear a helmet if I rode a motorcycle, and I wear a
seatbelt in the car, and I would probably buy a saw with this feature if it
were a free or reasonably price option, only because accidents do happen.
But I resent the fact that I'm told that it's mandatory by a bunch of
lawyers and politicians that want to make it look like they're doing
something for their money.

Larry Jaques wrote in
:


I got the FWW Tools & Shops issue today and the article on SawStop
said that the saw blade is WELDED to the aluminum stop when it's
engaged, meaning that you have to replace BOTH every time it happens.
How'd ya like to replace a $100 Forrest WWII every week?


+ the cartridge, but a recent chisel accident to save $29.00 cost me $75.00
in emergency room fees..

Alan

I ain't selling it...

Fine Woodworking's current issue has an article on the StopSaw, now
being sold. Very positive initial article. The number that they use is,
I believe, 3500+ amputations. I do not find that hard to believe if you
count all accidents resulting in finger amputations. I have met enough
woodworkers with 9 1/2 fingers to see this as credible.

philski wrote:
tzipple wrote:

Saw that article this month (Fine Woodworking) on SawStop. With
thousands of amputations a year occuring with tablesaw accidents, any
bets on how long it takes for this to be a standard feature? It seems
to me that it will get hard for manufacturers to avoid it, if for no
other reason than to head off lawsuits from people who claim that the
manufactures had the option to manufacture a safer saw. And if it
works and is reasonable priced, it is probably a good thing to have as
standard equipment... like seatbelts, airbags, etc.

Thousands of Amputations? Damn. Can you site some official figures of
those "thousands" of amputees? I ain't buyin' it...

Philski

According to the article in fine Woodworking, kickback as a source of
injury seemed to be about twice as common as amputation.

By the way, the SawStop has a riving knife, a better kickback solution
than usually found on US saws..

Charlie Self wrote:

philski responds:

Saw that article this month (Fine Woodworking) on SawStop. With
thousands of amputations a year occuring with tablesaw accidents, any
bets on how long it takes for this to be a standard feature? It seems to
me that it will get hard for manufacturers to avoid it, if for no other
reason than to head off lawsuits from people who claim that the
manufactures had the option to manufacture a safer saw. And if it works
and is reasonable priced, it is probably a good thing to have as
standard equipment... like seatbelts, airbags, etc.

Thousands of Amputations? Damn. Can you site some official figures of
those "thousands" of amputees? I ain't buyin' it...


Me either. I searched for facts and figures on this a couple, three months ago
when Saw Stop came up for the 32nd or so time. Nothing definitive, lots of
guesswork, so my guess of amputations in the low dozens is as good as any.

I first saw the demo video of the SS back in 2000, IIRC, at IWF in Atlanta. It
was, and remains, impressive, but IMHO what would be more impressive is a
total, simple, solution to kickback that is low in cost. Rough guess: there are
100 times as many injuries from kickback as there are from sticking a body part
into the saw blade.

And I have to wonder, too, if figures exist do they count such "amputations" as
one an uncle of mine got a decade or so ago. He ran his finger tip over the
1/8" or so of blade above the wood, and lost about 1/8" of the fingertip.
Hurts. Bleeds a lot. Amputation or cut?

Charlie Self
"If a politician found he had cannibals among his constituents, he would
promise them missionaries for dinner." H. L. Mencken

An old discussion and a slippery slope. Should "buyer beware" apply to
all merchandise including food & drugs? All services including banking,
insurance, etc? Usually, we are pretty selective about what protections
ittitate us. Seatbelt requirements in a car are a big deal, but no one
revolts regarding seatbelts on airplanes, for example.

The fact is none of us (well, maybe you do, Mark) have time to research
all potentially dangerous items that we ourchase, are reluctant to fully
trust companies who may have more interest in their bottom line than in
reasonably safe products, and we depend on government to apply basic
standards to a huge range of items and services in order to to protect
us. While one may quibble about particular items or protections, the
general principle seems like a good thing to me.

mark wrote:

The bottom line for me is that I would not buy a saw with
this technology installed, and, I really think it is a bad idea
to get the government involved in forcing me to buy one.
Regards
Dave Mundt


I agree. It's a dangerous tool, and you have to be careful using it. But
then again, I feel the same way about other legislation that gets in my
life, like helmet laws and seatbelt laws. You can't save people from their
own stupidity. I would wear a helmet if I rode a motorcycle, and I wear a
seatbelt in the car, and I would probably buy a saw with this feature if it
were a free or reasonably price option, only because accidents do happen.
But I resent the fact that I'm told that it's mandatory by a bunch of
lawyers and politicians that want to make it look like they're doing
something for their money.

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 22:36:21 -0600, tzipple
wrote:

According to the article in fine Woodworking, kickback as a source of
injury seemed to be about twice as common as amputation.

By the way, the SawStop has a riving knife, a better kickback solution
than usually found on US saws..

now this sounds interesting. we may finally have a US source for
riving knives for taiwan unisaw knockoffs.

I appreciate the point, but I suspect that most people who have worked
in a factory appreciate the value of required safety devices on the
inherently dangerous devices. It is up to the operator to make them as
safe as possible, I agree. It is the responsibility of the manufacturer
to avoid manufacturing a device that is more dangerous than necessary.
If SawStop works as well as the initial reports seem to say, costs an
affordable amount, then the definition of "inherent dangerousness"
changes. They are less inherantly dangerous if manufactured using safer
and available technology.

ks wrote:

I don't think it will. as pointed out several times, if it is less than 100%
foolproof, the liabilities faced would increase manyfold.
As an aside, most powertools are inherently dangerous due to their nature.
It is really up to the operator to make things as safe as possible


"tzipple" wrote in message
...

Saw that article this month (Fine Woodworking) on SawStop. With
thousands of amputations a year occuring with tablesaw accidents, any
bets on how long it takes for this to be a standard feature? It seems to
me that it will get hard for manufacturers to avoid it, if for no other
reason than to head off lawsuits from people who claim that the
manufactures had the option to manufacture a safer saw. And if it works
and is reasonable priced, it is probably a good thing to have as
standard equipment... like seatbelts, airbags, etc.

Replacing a blade is cheaper than a trip to the ER for a hand injury

Larry Jaques wrote:

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 01:58:44 GMT, "ks" calmly ranted:


I don't think it will. as pointed out several times, if it is less than 100%
foolproof, the liabilities faced would increase manyfold.
As an aside, most powertools are inherently dangerous due to their nature.
It is really up to the operator to make things as safe as possible


I got the FWW Tools & Shops issue today and the article on SawStop
said that the saw blade is WELDED to the aluminum stop when it's
engaged, meaning that you have to replace BOTH every time it happens.
How'd ya like to replace a $100 Forrest WWII every week?



"tzipple" wrote in message
...

Saw that article this month (Fine Woodworking) on SawStop. With
thousands of amputations a year occuring with tablesaw accidents, any
bets on how long it takes for this to be a standard feature? It seems to
me that it will get hard for manufacturers to avoid it, if for no other
reason than to head off lawsuits from people who claim that the
manufactures had the option to manufacture a safer saw. And if it works
and is reasonable priced, it is probably a good thing to have as
standard equipment... like seatbelts, airbags, etc.

"mark" wrote in message news:MMemd.912930
then again, I feel the same way about other legislation that gets in my
life, like helmet laws and seatbelt laws. You can't save people from
their
own stupidity. I would wear a helmet if I rode a motorcycle, and I wear a
seatbelt in the car, and I would probably buy a saw with this feature if
it
were a free or reasonably price option, only because accidents do happen.
But I resent the fact that I'm told that it's mandatory by a bunch of
lawyers and politicians that want to make it look like they're doing
something for their money.

I mostly agree with you're take on the legislation of safety products except
for one thing. It isn't only the victim that has to pay for their mistakes.
It's society that pays for the medical cost of repairing your injury and
pays for the long term rehabilitation that people need because they weren't
smart enough to wear a seat belt, helmet or other safety device. You might
claim that not using those devices often results in death and society won't
pay much in that regard, but the reality is that more individuals end up
loving and need radically expensive long term therapy that's a constant
drain on the resources that our collective society provides.

As far as I'm concerned, it's human nature for people to attempt to get away
with whatever they can and that instinct needs to be contained in some way.
Show me a way to do that without legislation and I'll consider it. Until
then, legislation is mostly the only way to stop much of our society from
becoming a drain on itself.

Dave Mundt notes:

snip of sensible responses

The bottom line is that the only way that a table saw can
be a "safe" tool is for the operator to remain alert and slightly
nervous about the consequences of a screw-up.

That's an absolute.

While I don't want to be flippant about the injury rates
listed in the article, I DO want to point out that there are
likely millions (or tens of millions) of usages of saws every year
in the USA. While taken out of context, the idea of thousands of
accidents seems like a lot, in context of the total number of times a
table saw is used, it is a drop in the ocean.

My big gripe is the use of the word "amputations" in place of injuries. I'd
also know where they get their statistics. I sure haven't found them. Of
course, I don't have a marketing impetus to actually spend money looking, but
if I had cites to back up such claims, I think I'd make them available. So far,
I've seen nothing but claims.

Most of us who have been fooling and fiddling with tablesaws over the years
have received injuries of one sort or another, everything from blade-changing
knicks to kickback bruises the size of a draft horse's shoe and, very
occasionally, something more serious. If we're at all wise, we learn from the
smaller incidents and remain slightly in awe of what the tablesaw can do to us
if our attention wanders. If we're not particularly wise, we continue to use
unsafe working methods and eventually get hurt worse. It may not catch up to
the inattentive user today, tomorrow or even next year, but it will catch up.

Charlie Self
"Health nuts are going to feel stupid someday, lying in hospitals dying of
nothing."
Redd Foxx

tzipple responds:

An old discussion and a slippery slope. Should "buyer beware" apply to
all merchandise including food & drugs? All services including banking,
insurance, etc? Usually, we are pretty selective about what protections
ittitate us. Seatbelt requirements in a car are a big deal, but no one
revolts regarding seatbelts on airplanes, for example.

The fact is none of us (well, maybe you do, Mark) have time to research
all potentially dangerous items that we ourchase, are reluctant to fully
trust companies who may have more interest in their bottom line than in
reasonably safe products, and we depend on government to apply basic
standards to a huge range of items and services in order to to protect
us. While one may quibble about particular items or protections, the
general principle seems like a good thing to me.

I think the irritation is not with the inclusion of the seat belt, or the
availability of the safety helmet for motorcyclists, but the making of the use
a legal requirement. I use seatbelts. Back when I was still riding motorcycles,
I used helmets and at least three times, the helmet saved my life, or my
ability to walk. At that time, neither was a legal requirement. I still use
seatbelts every time I use a vehicle, but it is NOT because the state and the
feds tell me I have to.

Possibly my biggest objection to these legalities is the way they grow. A few
states will make, say, helmets mandatory. Survival statistics improve in those
states. The Feds then get a toe in, making state reception of certain road
funds dependent on their having helmet use laws that fit a new Federal
standard. Whoops. A bit further down the slippery slope to big government, de
facto Federal control of a Constitutional state function, using the big stick
called bucks.

Charlie Self
"Health nuts are going to feel stupid someday, lying in hospitals dying of
nothing."
Redd Foxx

tzipple states:

Fine Woodworking's current issue has an article on the StopSaw, now
being sold. Very positive initial article. The number that they use is,
I believe, 3500+ amputations. I do not find that hard to believe if you
count all accidents resulting in finger amputations. I have met enough
woodworkers with 9 1/2 fingers to see this as credible.

I haven't. This is a woodworking area, both personally and professionally, with
three furniture factories (small) in town, and what used to be more (Lane) 40
miles away, and most of the U.S. furniture industry within about three hours
easy drive. There are some amputations around, but far fewer than you'd expect.
I've seen a lot more stub fingers on farmers than I have on woodworkers, and,
while I've seen plenty of both, I've seen a lot more woodworkers.

Charlie Self
"Health nuts are going to feel stupid someday, lying in hospitals dying of
nothing."
Redd Foxx

tzipple writes:

According to the article in fine Woodworking, kickback as a source of
injury seemed to be about twice as common as amputation.

Probably more common than that.


By the way, the SawStop has a riving knife, a better kickback solution
than usually found on US saws..

Yes. That and the European crown style guard would help one helluva lot, at
very low cost to the manufacturers. It's not perfect, but what is? I don't
understand why the manufacturers go on producing overly complex and expensive
guards that are more of a problem than a safety feature. It may be a legal
thing, but that doesn't seem likely. Maybe it's time someone asked all the tool
makers that question out loud. A simple change. A one time change in tooling
and assembly line needs. Over and done with. A major, unspecified, reduction in
kickback problem and in blade injuries, at a probable introductory cost per saw
of under five bucks (less when you figure in the ability to scrap making the
old guards, with their excessive complexity and materials amounts).

Charlie Self
"Health nuts are going to feel stupid someday, lying in hospitals dying of
nothing."
Redd Foxx

"tzipple" wrote in message
...
An old discussion and a slippery slope. Should "buyer beware" apply to all
merchandise including food & drugs? All services including banking,
insurance, etc? Usually, we are pretty selective about what protections
ittitate us. Seatbelt requirements in a car are a big deal, but no one
revolts regarding seatbelts on airplanes, for example.

The fact is none of us (well, maybe you do, Mark) have time to research
all potentially dangerous items that we ourchase, are reluctant to fully
trust companies who may have more interest in their bottom line than in
reasonably safe products, and we depend on government to apply basic
standards to a huge range of items and services in order to to protect us.
While one may quibble about particular items or protections, the general
principle seems like a good thing to me.


I'll agree with that. And seatbelts on airplanes always seemed kind of
ridiculous. I personally feel kinda naked without my car seatbelt on, but I
guess you don't care as much because they're usually loose, they're just a
lap belt, and they're not uncomfortable. Just useless.

So what is a riving knife?

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 18:39:46 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

How'd ya like to replace a $100 Forrest WWII every week?

After the first couple of times, I think I'd decide to use a knife to slice the
wieners for the beanie-weenies


Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS USA

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 12:46:10 GMT, "mark" wrote:

And seatbelts on airplanes always seemed kind of
ridiculous.

At first glance, and with respect to high angle ground impacts you are probably
right that a seat belt isn't going to make a lot of difference.

But, airplanes are much more affected by air currents than are automobiles. When
the aircraft suddenly and unexpectedly encounters a several hundred foot per
minute downdraft, you'll be glad the seatbelt is cinched down good and tight.
Especially if you happen to be the pilot and are holding the control yoke when
the overhead whacks you on the top of the head. I won't start the engine until
all aboard are well belted in.

Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS USA

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 12:46:10 GMT, "mark" wrote:


I'll agree with that. And seatbelts on airplanes always seemed kind of
ridiculous. I personally feel kinda naked without my car seatbelt on, but I
guess you don't care as much because they're usually loose, they're just a
lap belt, and they're not uncomfortable. Just useless.


I don't believe that govts should be able to require adults
to wear seatbelts in autos, though I've always worn them,
but I do see the point in requiring them on commercial
flights: you might not care about whether the person next
to you gets hurt because he is loose, but he may do a
job on you or, say, the little kid on the other side of the aisle,
while he's tossed around because he's unbuckled and the
plane has hit a pocket or the pilot has to make an emergency
maneuver. Crashes are quite rare but incidents are much
less so. I fly a fair amount and I've been in three situations
where things in the4335921047&rd=1 cabin went flying.

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 03:43:42 -0500, "Upscale"
wrote:

"mark" wrote in message news:MMemd.912930
then again, I feel the same way about other legislation that gets in my
life, like helmet laws and seatbelt laws. You can't save people from
their
own stupidity. I would wear a helmet if I rode a motorcycle, and I wear a
seatbelt in the car, and I would probably buy a saw with this feature if
it
were a free or reasonably price option, only because accidents do happen.
But I resent the fact that I'm told that it's mandatory by a bunch of
lawyers and politicians that want to make it look like they're doing
something for their money.

I mostly agree with you're take on the legislation of safety products except
for one thing. It isn't only the victim that has to pay for their mistakes.
It's society that pays for the medical cost of repairing your injury and
pays for the long term rehabilitation that people need because they weren't
smart enough to wear a seat belt, helmet or other safety device. You might
claim that not using those devices often results in death and society won't
pay much in that regard, but the reality is that more individuals end up
loving and need radically expensive long term therapy that's a constant
drain on the resources that our collective society provides.

As far as I'm concerned, it's human nature for people to attempt to get away
with whatever they can and that instinct needs to be contained in some way.
Show me a way to do that without legislation and I'll consider it. Until
then, legislation is mostly the only way to stop much of our society from
becoming a drain on itself.



fair enough.

you gotta balance that with corporate greed. sawstop has the patents
for their product, which requires a saw built especially for it- it
doesn't work as a retrofit. they tried to make their product mandatory
by lobbying for new laws. this would have put all other table saw
makers out of business in the US. this for a product that has no track
record.

In article ,
Larry Jaques wrote:

I got the FWW Tools & Shops issue today and the article on SawStop
said that the saw blade is WELDED to the aluminum stop when it's
engaged, meaning that you have to replace BOTH every time it happens.
How'd ya like to replace a $100 Forrest WWII every week?


If I were cutting off a finger every week, a $100 Forrest blade would be
the least of my worries.

--
Hank Gillette