# USA today article on saw safety



## craftsman on the lake (Dec 27, 2008)

*I'm the one who started this post and I think it's run it's course. Maybe we should just let it rest for now as I think it's been exhausted. Get back to blogging about wood and woodworking. So, I recommend that this posting be read only for now. Everyone, thanks for you input and ideas. It will be interesting to see what does develop over time.*

Boy, I don't wnat to start another sawstop and finger cutting argument. I just saw this article in USA Today and though some might be interested.

Article on Saw safety in USA Today


----------



## Sawkerf (Dec 31, 2009)

I saw that too, and wonder if Glass is really interested in saw safety - or cashing in on his patents.


----------



## JJohnston (May 22, 2009)

Well, it only took them until the 3rd paragraph to invoke the "c" word (children).


----------



## craftsman on the lake (Dec 27, 2008)

Think about it though. I've seen the cabinet saw. It looks like a good machine. Don't you wish you had one, just in case? I know I do every time my old Delta winds up and looks like it could bite me.


----------



## terry603 (Jun 4, 2010)

yup,,fear invoking artical ,,for the non users to feel good about their efforts to keep us all safe. looks like they just changed the word guns to saw.


----------



## JJohnston (May 22, 2009)

I do have one. But I can still think Gass is a creep for the way he tried to get his system mandated. What I don't understand is this: big corporations steal patents from small inventors all the time; why not this time?


----------



## ChrisForthofer (Jan 1, 2010)

For once I would like to see one of these articles where Gass wasnt interviewed and quoted extensively. It just comes off as what I believe it truly is, stirring up public outrage so he can cash in on his patents. Before I get jumped for being a saw stop hater let me point out that ANYTHING dangerous could be made safer with a little tinkering. Why not mandate full roll cages for all vehicles, how many lives would that save? I am tired of this guys fear-mongering to get his technology mandated into use. If he truly "built a better mousetrap" why arent manufacturers lining up to use it? (besides the obvious tinfoil hat, black helicopter conspiracy theories)

Chris.


----------



## Hoakie (May 8, 2007)

I feel it should be a case where if he forces Government mandates, his patent rights should be prematurely forfeited. Especially since he is just interested in keeping people from losing digits…correct?

Don't get me wrong I would love to have one but can't fit it into my budget. I know I am "gambling" by using a TS without this technology, but I don't have much of choice right now so I use every other safety precautions available.


----------



## JJohnston (May 22, 2009)

"I feel it should be a case where if he forces Government mandates, his patent rights should be prematurely forfeited. Especially since he is just interested in keeping people from losing digits…correct?"

Ha! That'll be the day (although I agree).

Does anybody remember Mercedes-Benz' commercials from way back when? One of their selling points is that they actually do this - they let other car manufacturers use their safety patents for free. In their commercials, they would say something like, "You may not have a Mercedes, but chances are, you have Mercedes technology no matter what car you drive."


----------



## Hoakie (May 8, 2007)

Yeah I know it will never happen and it would have serious implications on the entire patent system and entrepreneurial system….but wishful thinking never hurts


----------



## richgreer (Dec 25, 2009)

The first line in this article starts, "As pressure to address debilitating table-saw injuries builds,".

Where is this pressure coming from? I don't think it is coming from the woodworking or carpentry communities. It's coming from "do-gooders" that have probably never used a table saw in their lives.


----------



## SCR0LL3R (May 28, 2010)

I like these 2 parts

"Some say its numerous patents make it impossible for sawmakers to develop their own versions."

...

"Stuart Singer, a lawyer working on the cases at Boies Schiller & Flexner, says the power-tool industry "with millions of dollars in resources" should have made safer saws if Gass could "with things bought at RadioShack.""

Well, it appears to me that the patents are preventing them from doing something similar without lining their competition's (Sawstop brand) pockets. Kind of seems like Sawstop gets a large and unfair market advantage.

It's like when Microsoft had code built into Windows that pre-loads part of internet explorer into memory as part of Windows startup just to make internet explorer seemingly load faster than any of their competitors when you click on it. Netscape sued Microsoft for anticompetitive conduct and won because it's an unfair advantage.

This Sawstop situation is similar in that I'm sure if Netscape payed "royalties" to Microsoft they could have gotten their software incorporated into the Window startup as well.


----------



## RetiredCoastie (Sep 7, 2009)

I'm all for progress and new technologies and the Saw Stop looks to be a fine product that can save some people injuries but I don't want the government telling me what to buy. Where's the safety device for the skill saw, chain saw, router, saber saw..etc etc. Common sense, situational awareness and knowledge of the equipment your operating is essential to the operators safety. In the case of shop classes that I took there was always a discussion regarding safety at the beginning of every days class. For every safety feature that's invented there will always be those that figure a way around it and then when they get injured there will be those that blame the manufacturer because they should be idiot proof. We just have smarter idiots!


----------



## craftsman on the lake (Dec 27, 2008)

I've been called a liberal. Actually I'm a moderate but that's neither here for there… But our Country runs on capitalism. If sawstop was awarded a patent, not easy to do btw and costly, for a number of innovations it means that after exhaustive research and cost the US government decided that he had a device that was new and had potential for use. If it at all infringed on other people's ideas then it wouldn't have been awarded. They are very, very strict on that and thousands of potential patents get refused each year for this reason.

And let's face it. Someone said it's made from parts you could get from Radioshack. Well so is a communications satellite. Things are made from parts. To say that anyone could have thought of this device is foolish. If I said 10 years ago that we should make a saw that distinguishes between a finger and a piece of wood and snaps a blade down into the saw at lightning speed so that you don't even get a cut, you probably would have said, "and what alien technology do you have access to?".

So, the govt. says you're an innovative entrepreneur. Like all other companies the patent says that he deserves royalties for the use of his invention. Our capitalist system says that he can sell his saw, his invention or license it to others. So, why do people think that he should give it away just because you want it? If the government mandates more safety for table saws then the other companies can do it any way they want to. If they can't invent a way like sawstop did they can license his. The family of the intermittent wiper on cars is getting royalties for that invention to this day. It is the American way. And the government mandates other items for general public safety. We have seatbelts. What seems more dangerous, a car without seatbelts or a hooked wiring blade moving at thousands or rpms that you put your fingers within 6 inches of regularly?

In my opinion:
The government is right in looking into possible upgrading of such a dangerous item.
Saw companies have the right to invent and patent their own solutions.
Sawstop has a legal patent for a very innovative device that they deserve to use as they please. If other saw companies can't find a solution, sawstop even has the right to keep it only for their own saws and outsell all others.

People will buy it. Let's face it. If you could, you'd have one wouldn't you? If not it's probably just because on some principle. But if it came with all saws right now you wouldn't be complaining that you had it on your saw; That you'd rather take a chance at losing a few fingers? For those people who want to have fun wondering if they'll have all their fingers in a few years remember, it has a switch to turn it off too.

I have a nephew who's recently gotten into the woodworking habit thanks to doing a couple of projects in my shop. He's got a good job, home and is configuring a shop in his cellar as we speak. I introduced him to the sawstop and told him if I could do it again I'd get one. He's taking delivery today on the 3hp cabinet sawstop. I'm so glad he did. He's 27 years old and I'm confident he has a much better chance of staying whole than a counterpart who chooses another brand. And the first time he nicks his finger and the sawstop slams into the table (if it happens) I'll shudder to think what might have happened if I had guided him otherwise. To me, this is a no-brainer.


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

The first guy who lost his fingers and Gass used in his lawsuit example, had bypassed the built-in safety features of the saw he was using (took off splitter and guard). That guy won his lawsuit against the company for not having SS technology.

Now what happens when a guy buys a SS, turns it to "bypass" mode (bypassing the built-in safety features) and proceeds to cut his fingers off? NOW it's the consumer's fault but not in the earlier case? Yeah, right.


----------



## Wolffarmer (Jul 14, 2009)

They say the technology is "Affordable". Affordable is like nailing jelly to a wall. It looks like the SS system costs at least an extra $200. That would double the price of some saws. Then when it fires off there goes some more $. So you end up with older saws being ran longer, more home made saws, even more unsafe methods of cutting wood being used, people giving up and buying crap from some big box store. $200 bucks added to a high end saw is not hard for a person to pay.

Real question is, Just how far does society need to go to save us from our selves.

just my ramblings

Randy


----------



## Cosmicsniper (Oct 2, 2009)

C on the L:

Very well written from the rights standpoint…I agree totally that Gass has a right to make money off the invention and shouldn't be expected to give it away for free. The thing I love about this country is that the common man with a great idea can indeed become wealthy from it.

I think the issue here is that its a conflict of interest when somebody lobbies the government for increased legislation of something whereas that person also stands to make a profit off of it. Whereas Gass can speak all he wants about how his invention is "a great benefit to the safety of the country and children all around the world," ultimately we all know the actual truth about it…and I'd even give Gass more credit if he'd just admit that. At that point, he'd just be playing the system, which he has a right to do.

For me, it's just the laissez faire aspect of the whole thing. Sometimes I think that if somebody were persuasive enough, they could get the government to outlaw food, simply because there is a risk of choking on it.

People have a right to make and sell whatever productive, legal thing they want. I don't believe that anybody here would want such a thing legislated, particularly if it comes from fear and a lack of expert opinions and facts. The further ramification of such is that it always requires an administration and enforcememt agency. I get the need for the FDA to administer food and drugs. But the last thing I want is to pay taxes to support yet another unnecessary acronym in this country.


----------



## Cosmicsniper (Oct 2, 2009)

And, oh, BTW, none of that will stop me from owning a Sawstop, or Sawstop technology, some day. It's just something that I think is important for me to have.


----------



## Hoakie (May 8, 2007)

Very well stated Comicsniper. I feel the same way, here is what I was composing while you inserted your wisdom 

Craftsman,

I honestly don't disagree with you about a person's right to patent their inventions and reap the financial gains for their invention.

I'll state right now that I'm not a patent attorney, expert nor have I read all the patents the SS technology has been awarded. However I do work in a field where we have to deal with patent issues and do research to make sure what we are doing doesn't infringe on existing patents.

From what I've seen of the patent process, the claims made typically are very broad and often have not been built or reduced to practice. They just have to be proven plausible in the context of the main claim of invention. The patents awarded to SS probably make claims to all methods of stopping the blade by moving an obstruction to stop the momentum, including direct movement into the blade, clamping around the side of the blade, the motor shaft the motor mechanism, or any other possible way conceivable. As a result, there may be enough claims awarded in the patents that it would be impossible not to infringe on the patents without coming up with a technology that doesn't physically come in contact with the moving parts in any way. Therefore, it may be exceedingly difficult for other companies to come up with a competing technology even if they wanted too (human or alien technology). This is why I think it would be unfair to mandate a specific technology while one person/company holds a distinct legal advantage over the competition. If they want to mandate it after it goes off patent that would be much more palatable to me. But beyond that, I do not think it is good practice for the government to get involved and mandate new safety standards every time somebody comes up with a great idea that improves safety. There are plenty of ideas for tools and add-ons that help improve safety on products in every industry. At some point it becomes the consumer's responsibility to make the choice that is right for themselves.

Like I said before, I would buy a Saw Stop if I had the money. I have no problem with the inventor making money off of his invention. I don't have an issue with him raising awareness of power tool safety either. More power to him. But I will never think it is the right or purpose of our government/courts to mandate a safety feature where one person/company stands to gain financially from the law and others would suffer.


----------



## Gregn (Mar 26, 2010)

Technology is fine if its something your willing to pay for. You compared seat belts to a table saw blade. Seat belts are like blade guards they both lessen the chance of injury. Seat belts first became an option before becoming a requirement. It took decades before it became law to have to wear them. Saw stop technology may become an option wanted by some, but shouldn't be forced upon others. I agree that Gass should profit from his technology, but not at the expense of government involvement or frivolous lawsuit. Only through the test of time will this technology prove its self for saws and other power driven cutters.


----------



## ChrisForthofer (Jan 1, 2010)

I dont dispute its slick technology, looks to work great from all that I have seen however let me make this point to the folks that are ok with the government telling private corporations they must incorporate this tech in their non saw stop saws BY LAW (potentialy). How many of you would just roll over and take a 15% property tax increase with no vote, no levy, just some arbitrary politician deciding you arent paying enough. Thats basically what you have here. Gass is using the safety scare tactic angle to cause a GOVERNMENT agency to make a decision that will impact all consumers (with higher prices/royalties) who purchase new table saws. Taking away an individuals freedom to choose features we do or dont want to pay for on a saw and in the process lining a PRIVATE individuals pocket via government law/ruling is wrong, safety issue or not.


----------



## craftsman on the lake (Dec 27, 2008)

Actually their patent is simply a spring loaded device that clunks the saw into a chunk of metal beneath the table when it detects a dielectric change on the blade. Both the device and blade are destroyed in the process. This leaves a multitude of other possibilities for other saw companies to work with.

We have higher and higher gas mileage requirements defined by the government. The car companies have to invent ways to make that happen after the mandates. So, predefining conditions isn't unheard of. Sounds like some people here wold like to have the option of not putting their baby in a car seat just so they can say washington didn't make them do it. Hard to believe but the government does to some good things even if we don't always like it.

I'll bet that if the multitude of saw companies licensed the technology from sawstop (instead of developing their own) it would be available for a hundred or so dollars on a large table saw. They don't want to because then they would be expected to make it available. I'd be willing to bet that some of the major saw makers got together to decide not to do this. Sacrificing potential safety for their corporate convenience.


----------



## Hoakie (May 8, 2007)

Craftsman,

With all due respect, that is only a specific "reduced to practice" form what is in they claim in their patent. If you look at their website, they have hold the following US patents and claim other Patents pending:

6813983, 6826988, 6857345, 6877410, 6880440, 6920814, 6945148, 6945149, 6957601, 6994004, 6997090, 7000514, 7024975, 7055417, 7077039, 7098800, 7100483,7137326, 7171879, 7197969, 7210383, 7225712, 7228772, 7231856, 7284467, 7290472, 7308843, 7347131, 7350444, 7350445, 7353737, 7357056, 7359174, 7377199, 7421315

I haven't gone through all of them but one of the more generic titles is for U.S Pat. 6,920,814. In the abstract the inventors claim

"A woodworking machine is disclosed. The machine includes a cutting tool and a motor adapted to drive the cutting tool. The machine further includes a detection system to detect a dangerous condition between the cutting tool and a person, such as a person coming into contact with the cutting tool. A reaction system is provided to disable the cutting tool, such as by covering, blocking, destroying, wrapping, etc., upon detection by the detection system of the dangerous condition."

This broad claim significantly limits the options for other companies to come up with a novel method of adding equivalent safety measure.

I'm sure the other patents contain a lot of separate patents around other components around the things they invented along the way. Looking at the titles there a numerous patents around the detection system, braking system, etc. I can almost guarantee each of those patents have broader claims that cover much more than the specific technologies used in the current incarnation of the Saw Stop. The reason for broad claims are made are to protect the patent holder so that someone can not just make a small tweak and call it something different from the original patent. It also gives the patent holder freedom to operate and improve upon their reduced to practice design without having to file for a new patent.

You use the gas mileage and seat belt laws as examples, but I'm not sure that that is an entirely valid comparison since the basic patents for seat restraints were granted in 1885 the modern seatbelt in the late 50's thus have not been under protection for a while. Mandating gas mileage requirements is a bit different as well because it is not nearly as specific of an issue as table saw safety and there are a multitude of ways to accomplish improving gas mileage (vehicle weight, aerodynamics, engine type, fuel source, etc). Implementing TS safety pretty much requires you to detect when someone has a body part in contact with the cutting blade and prevent more damage. Right now, that market is pretty well owned by one person and their patents.

Again, I am not against the Saw Stop OR for pushing for higher safety standards in our tools, I just have a problem if the government mandates those standards when there is an unfair playing field.

It would be similar to this: Say a technology company develops a new product "HackStop" that makes it impossible for hackers to infect any computer with a virus. This company hold so many patents on this technology that it is pretty much impossible for any other company to develop anything close without infringing on the patents. Now the government decides that there have been too many people hurt, financially, by hackers getting in hatching a virus and stealing their identities. So they decide that every computer and operating system must have the same level of protection provided by "HackStop". Since it is nearly impossible to do this, the companies are pretty much forced to pay royalties to the owners of the "HackStop" technology in order to comply with the government mandate. I know this is a "Hoakie" example but this logic/precedent could in theory propagate to numerous fields and industries.

I think this is the fear most people have with government mandates….they can be a slippery slope.

But like I said previously, I'm all for the Saw stop and its technology, I'm just not ready to have the start government mandating what companies build and how they build it, especially when it creates an unfair playing field or is beneficial to a specific person or group. Since we are a still a capitalist society, market will drive the demand for the product and the safety it provides. From what I can tell there is quite a market for this technology and over time it will probably become standard….just like seat belts.

my 4 cents


----------



## Sarit (Oct 21, 2009)

It's funny that my daughter's stroller was more likely to amputate a finger than my sawstop.


----------



## Sarit (Oct 21, 2009)

Everyone's willing to pay more for a safer tool. The only question is how much more. Why did nobody complain when UL required riving knives as a listing requirement (not quite a law, but had the same effect)?

Those that complain about Gass aren't upset because he's gonna get money (for something he invented), they complain because the technology is too expensive for their blood. If it only cost dollar more, you wouldn't hear a peep from them. 
If you can't afford a safe table saw, then you definitely can't afford an unsafe saw. Everybody pays for TS accidents, you just don't realize it because you've been paying it all along. 
Take for example Charles Neil. He's provided a wealth of free woodworking knowledge for years. Just watch his story about his incident. 
Remember he was "lucky" because he still has 65% of function in his hand. Now imagine how many Charles Neils we've lost because they weren't so lucky.

I understand nobody wants to be "forced" into paying for something they don't think they need. However, realize that nobody is forcing you to buy a TS either. Nobody is saying that the TS is the only way you can cut wood. If you're adamant that you want to use an inherently more dangerous tool, be prepared to pay for the additional safety features.


----------



## tommyt654 (Dec 16, 2008)

Gass is such a poser. He truly wants to protect us from ourselves. Its pathetic he's pandering to the press now at a larger media. I wonder how much he paid them to get this published. Problem is its not a safer saw to anyone who knows how to properly use a tablesaw period. Its merely a convienance that happens to be overly price.Much like his saws. In the end he will go the way of other tablesaw manufacturers as its another overpriced tool. Granted its well made, but the Unisaw the one of few AMERICAN made tablesaws will continue to be the best selling tablesaw in the world as it has and continues till this day. When Gass gets it thru his head it will be too late and his company will be defunct like others in the past. These actions of his only show how desperate his company is now after 7,8,,9 yrs of production and still making invalid claims that its the most sold tablesaw in the world,Hah what a croc.If that were true he would not have to continue with actions such as this. Once again the Sawslop moles have ventured into the public domain to force their issues and tools on us again. Do us all a favor Stephen,Go Away


----------



## Hoakie (May 8, 2007)

My question is where do these mandates stop?

Do our kitchen blenders, coffee bean grinders, etc., need the saw stop technology since if not used properly we could get our fingers caught in the blades?

How about electrical outlets? Why isn't it mandated that all outlets have technology in them to automatically cut live power from them when there is not an appliance plugged in or at the very least seal the sockets?

What about the finger amputating baby strollers? Wouldn't they be inherently more safe if it were mandated that they had sensors to monitor if anything was in pinch points and not be able to fold up if there was?

I'm sure my vehicle would be inherently less dangerous to me if it were required to be made from 3" thick plate steel, traveled less than 5 mph and be filled with form fitting foam padding that entirely encased me in the cockpit.

Sure all of this technology would be cost more and nobody would feel forced into buying these items because "if you can't afford a "safe" product X then you can't afford an unsafe product X".

I know the examples above seem far-fetched and I honestly don't wear a tinfoil hat…but at some point there is inherent risk in everything we do and everything we buy. The question is, how much responsibility do I take for my own actions and how much responsibility does the government impose? In my mind this really has nothing to do with the inventor.

As for the "nobody is forcing you to buy a TS" argument? You are right, nobody made me buy one but even if I didn't buy one, I can think of ways to accidentally maim or kill myself with just about every tool in my shop that I use to cut or shape wood, power or hand. Just look at the guy who almost bleed out from a chisel accident.

I understand that woodworking uses inherently dangerous tools but I personally accept the risks every time I go into the shop for better or worse.


----------



## Sarit (Oct 21, 2009)

The mandates will stop when we stop getting unintentionally injured or killed by the devices we use.

Let's not confuse a inherently dangerous tool with a track record for creating serious injury (even to highly experienced operators) with other items that don't have a similar track record.

Your examples don't make sense because electrical outlets, blenders, strollers all have safety devices in them to prevent harm. Try sticking your finger in an outlet, see if you can shock yourself. You can't because the design incorporates safety into it. Don't forget, new construction is mandating arc fault protectors in all circuits in all bedrooms. My food processor and coffee grinders won't even run unless the cover is installed. I'm sure it was costlier to make them that way and if you gave the consumer a choice to spend and extra $5 for that safety feature they probably would not. Stollers could have been fitted with hand sensors, but the $5 nylon cover proved to be more effective, thus they now have them.

Nobody is saying that the government (CPSC) should protect you from every conceivable injury. Its job is to identify and mitigate the most dangerous risks that consumers face. Some of you are really taking the work that the CPSC and UL do for granted. You know in other countries people won't leave appliances plugged in, because they might catch fire and burn their houses down.

My argument still holds up because we're talking about proven risks and proven ways of mitigating that risk. And if someone proves that a car w/ 3" steel plate and exploding foam is way safer than a Volvo w/ its 300 airbags, then yes, you should expect one in your driveway soon. (its actually more dangerous to have a very rigid car because all the energy gets transfered to the weakest thing in the car…You!)

And if 10 people are almost dying everyday from chisel accidents, then don't you want some agency to figure out what going on and try to stop it?


----------



## Sarit (Oct 21, 2009)

Let's also talk about REAL personal responsibility. You know how I said that everybody pays for TS accidents, well let's suppose we setup something where people can really do what they say. For instance, lets say that if you decide to buy a saw without sawstop tech, then you can pay a yearly "insurance" premium to some pool of cash. Now if you get injured by an accident that the sawstop tech would have prevented, then all the insurance companies, govt agencies, disability comp, employer sick leave cost, etc would deduct money from that pool. If you decide not to pay the premium, and you have an accident, then you get nothing, nada, zilch. Even if it makes you homeless, you wont even be able to get foodstamps. The cost of the premium would be adjusted so that all would be paid out by the end of the year.
In this scenario, nobody has to pay higher premiums on their regular insurance because you want to use an unsafe saw. Also nobody is forcing you to buy a saw stop or buy insurance. They only ask that you really take personal responsibility if you get hurt and don't buy insurance. Now, given these options, who is planning to take the unsafe saw/no insurance route?


----------



## Hoakie (May 8, 2007)

I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this issue.

I do take personal responsibility as I do pay for private health insurance which is a "pool of money" to cover accidents. I think your example is a bit too idealistic however. For instance, do we need a pool of money like this for every tool or consumer good that doesn't meet some set "pinnacle" of safety standard set by the CPSC? What happens next year when somebody comes up with something that provides better safety than the SS. Are current SS owners immediately put in the group of people who are operating unsafe saws and lose their insurance and have to pay extra until they upgrade? How would this be tracked? What if you just bought your SS a month before? Wouldn't this be the same for our vehicles? I would imagine most of us don't currently drive a vehicle with all the latest and greatest safety features. Should we all be denied coverage or have to pay a yearly tax until we by this year's safest vehicle? Would we be forced into upgrading our vehicles every time a safer vehicle comes on the market?

Would you suggest implementing a gradient pay-in scale based on the tools/items you are using and the risk profile they carry? Basically the insurance industry is already doing this. They are there to help manage the risk across a broad range of people/scenarios. Yes there are some specific types of insurance are out there (Auto, Home, Renters) to handle specific nuances of each. However, these are only split out because they are fairly generalized and affect millions upon millions of people. Trying to do this for something as specific as a table saw would get crazy. I have no problem with insurance companies charging higher premiums for people carrying a larger risk profile or for giving discounts for people that are in a lower risk category. They do this already for smoker/non smoker, drivers over age 25, home alarm system no alarm, trampoline/no trampoline. They could also offer incentives for people/companies to upgrade to safer equipment to help lower their overall risk profile. This way the change would be market driven and not by government mandate.

After the last few bouts, I feel we have ventured far off the topic of wood working and more into the role of government and now the insurance industry. As a result, this will be my last post on the topic in keeping with the wishes of the site.

Bottom line… everyone please be safe around your tools, regardless of which brand you use.

Peace!


----------



## NBeener (Sep 16, 2009)

I've got a million mixed and varied feelings about Gass, and his approach to this.

That said … if and when I look at cabinet saws … the SawStop will surely be on the short list.

And I wear bike helmet, motorcycle helmets, seat belts, have front and side air bags in my car, and wear a kevlar motorcycle riding suit.

I take FULL responsibility for BEING responsible, when participating in potentially dangerous activities, but … like people who pray … will take all the little advantages I can get


----------



## Pop (Aug 6, 2007)

Alright! Now old Gass is at it again. This guy is a rat fink. He has tried every trick in the book to force the use of his paten down the woodworkers of America's throats. I wouldn't buy his saw. The safety issue be darn. I'll not give this son-of-a-gun a penny of my money. Not because of his technology, not because of his saw, because of HIM. Now Gass has gone to CPSC. Inez Tenenbaum and her outfit are a bunch of idiots. It's them and their laws that have shut down almost all of us handcrafted toy makers. Check out the CPSIA law. And, now, their out to mandate our power tools. God help us.

PS: The added cost to our saws is not $200 it's $700 per saw. This cost is at the manufactures level. Now add the wholesale & retail markup and it will be around $1500. That makes that Powermatic saw a $5000 saw. Talk about cutting newbie woodworkers out of the picture.

I really hope there's an especially warm spot in Hell for old Gass if he get this pulled off.

Pop


----------



## Sarit (Oct 21, 2009)

Exactly, where are you getting these numbers from?

I did checkout the CPSIA, but I'm not sure what regulations are stifling you. I see stuff about lead content and labeling for choking hazards.


----------



## stevenmadden (Dec 10, 2009)

It's Funny, I can read a post and say to myself "Yeah, that sounds reasonable. Good argument", and then read the very next post which has an opposite view point and say to myself "Yeah, that sounds reasonable. Good argument". I can see that there is validity to both sides of this argument. On the one hand, more safety is a good thing, who wouldn't want that. On the other hand, who wants more government regulation, we should be able to decide for ourselves. The one argument that I have a hard time following is that Steve Gass is somehow a dirty rotten scoundrel for inventing and, as I see it, promoting some pretty amazing technology. I own the SawStop Industrial 3HP cabinet saw and can say from first hand experience that the saw and the technology are just that, amazing.

By the way, if you feel that the power tool industry is too regulated, or quickly headed in that direction, try being a handgun owner in California. Ridiculous…

Steve


----------



## JBfromMN (Oct 19, 2010)

Not mentioned yet in the Discussion between Craftsman and Hoakie yet is the fact that Gass IS a Patent Attorney.

You can bet he has all the bases covered.


----------



## Pop (Aug 6, 2007)

Sarit, I know you're in love with Sawstop, but having sold the machine and being fairly up to date on data concerning Gass and his product these numbers ($700 per machine) were the cost he gave Delta and other manufacturers to buy a licenses to use his technology on their machines. You didn't read far enough on CPSIA. It's not the lead content that put us out of business. The lead was a Chinese problem. My and most other handmade wooden toy makers have no lead in their products. The kicker was that each run of toy has to have a 3rd party lab issue a certificate that the lead is not present in anything that is used by a child under 12 years old. The lab cost for this is between $700 and $1500 per toy per run. Mattel could care less us small shops can't afford the cost. This law is God awfull. It applies to donations, gifts and resales. Example: If a group of guys got together and built several small chairs and tables for the nursery at their church and didn't get the certification they broke US law.

stevenmadden, It's not the fact he invented the technology that makes him a skunk. It's the fact that being a lawyer he has tried to use the government and justice system to promote his distribution of his technology. After the major manufactures told him no he ran to OSHIA to try to get it mandated on all machines. They refused because it would give him a monopoly. He then went away and built his own machine. Then seeing an opportunity he jumped in the Ryobi suite. Now he's at Consumer Protection. If this fails he will try something else. He's determined to force this gadget and higher machine cost down us woodworker's throats.

Pop


----------



## Sarit (Oct 21, 2009)

In response to Hoakie, 
My idealist scenario was a mental exercise not an actual proposal for a law. The exercise boils down to this:
Suppose there was a way to separate the societal costs of using a tool w/o a safety feature so that the cost was only paid for by those who engaged in that activity. How this would be implemented is not important. Let's just assume that this system was feasible, 100% efficient, and universally accepted as being fair, and was completely automated so that renewing/paying/etc would not cause any inconvenience whatsoever. There is no tool exemption list, people just decide not to join because their tool wouldn't amputate anything (like ppl who live in concrete and steel buildings don't buy termite insurance). At the end, I wondered who would choose to buy the safety tech, who would buy insurance, and who would put it all on the line.

First, I doubt that anyone would willingly choose to put it all on the line.
Then, I think if the insurance was as low as $100/yr, people would probably consider it more economical to finance the added cost of the safety feature, rather than continuously pay for the insurance for as long as they use the machine.
So if the yearly societal costs are high enough compared to the cost of the safety feature, it actually makes sense to force this feature onto the consumer. In fact, the well-informed consumer would have chosen this option when true costs are distributed fairly.


----------



## ChrisForthofer (Jan 1, 2010)

Enough with your utopian speical money pool for non saw stop owners. 3600 hand injuries a year and we are willing to force a private individuals technology down our fellow wood workers throats. 3600 hand injuries?

From the cdc web site

http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/index.html

Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death among those age 5-34 in the U.S. More than 2.3 million adult drivers and passengers were treated in emergency departments as the result of being injured in motor vehicle crashes in 2009.

In a one-year period, the cost of medical care and productivity losses associated with injuries from motor vehicle crashes exceeded $99 billion - with the cost of direct medical care accounting for $17 billion, according to a study by the Centers for Disease Control and PreventionExternal Web Site Icon.

Your willing to throw away your freedom of choice for 3600 fingers when 2.3million people every year are treated in emergency room for car accidents accounting for over 99 BILLION in costs? Wow, just wow.


----------



## Sarit (Oct 21, 2009)

It is true that I love the SawStop, but what makes me post is my disdain for hypocrisy.
I'm not calling anyone a hypocrite, I'm just saying I see in some explanations, aspects that are hypocritical when looked at from a longer point of view.

One argument I see is:
"All regulations are bad. X is a regulation, therefore X must be bad."

Regulations are like guns, they are neither good nor bad. Having the right ones in the right locations are good. The wrong ones in the wrong locations are bad. Let us judge the regulation by its merits, not by the stigma associated with the word "regulation". I do agree that CPSIA is poorly written, and they could have just had an exclusion for runs under 100 items could have a big standard sticker on them saying "Not CPSIA Tested, Buyer Beware", but I digress…

Another argument is:
"Gass is a weasel/rat/etc because he is tried to get SawStop mandated into all TS's and he's using the $1.5 mil court case to push his agenda".

I don't really see why we should hold Gass to any higher standard than any other capitalist in our capitalist economy. He's trying everything he can to make as much money as possible, should we expect any less? Someone mentioned that Powermatic would markup the $700 addition to $1500… that's 114% markup and we're upset w/ Gass? Why is Powermatic in god's graces when they are accounting for $800 of the price? Are we faulting someone for pushing an agenda solely because there is benefit to them? I'm not sure if there is a law that exists that wasn't pushed by someone who stands to benefit from it. Does that mean all laws are created by weasels?
I'm not saying that Gass is immune from criticism. If he were to wine and dine the politicians or use shady means to create statistics skewed in his favor, then yes he would be a rat. But if he is presenting a legitimate case with honest statistics, then how can you say that's wrong? Wouldn't you want the ability to present some idea to the gov't which might have huge financial benefits to you? Conversely, you should expect that the gov't would take the peoples best interest in hand when contemplating the proposal and not simply bend over to corporate desires.

Seriously, if you want to know about some insidious proposals, did you know that Frito-Lay was backing the proposition in CA to legalize pot. (For those of you that don't know, pot gives you the "munchies", a strong desire for junk food, like the kind that Frito Lay makes)


----------



## Sarit (Oct 21, 2009)

Chrisforthofer,

I'm not sure how car safety relates to this discussion. Nobody is saying that we can only have either car safety OR table saw safety.

Are you saying that gov't has no right to improve safety in other areas until they become the #1 issue facing america?

With regard to "giving up freedom". The purpose of my special money pool, is to highlight the fact that at some point, the social costs would be high enough and the cost to implement the safety low enough, that every rational well informed person would make the same choice, to get the sawstop. When that becomes true, is there really any reason to offer a bad choice? I know as American's we pride ourselves on being able to shoot ourselves in the foot, but let me offer an analogy. We all know that you need a license to practice medicine, but that limit's your freedom to let unlicensed people operate on you. Do you feel that much of a loss that I won't be able to remove your appendix (i'll only charge you half your next lowest offer)?

What I think merits discussion here, is at what point the societal costs outweigh the costs of including the technology.


----------



## biglarry (Jan 15, 2011)

I think that it is best to let the government decide what equipment is safe for us woodworkers to use. Eventually they will be paying for all medical bills and they might find woodworking to dangerous to be a hobby. Then they will mandate that woodworking and any other craft should only be left to big corporations that can afford remote controlled machinery where no one can get hurt.


----------



## Pop (Aug 6, 2007)

Gosh biglarry! If they get woodworking just think how long the glass blowers are going to last. LOL

Pop


----------



## tommyt654 (Dec 16, 2008)

What I find interesting is the fact that larger companys have bought into this because they are being coerced with lower insurance rates after Gass I gather has made a point of offering this up as a do it all tools that will result in less jobsite incidents. What ever happened to power feeders. You'll never get your hand near a blade with one and they function quite well and are mobile and can be used on many types of machines. Yet I see the Ins. lobby has bought into his claims about how safe the saw is to operate with no factual applications in a high capacity workload. I'll still agree its a well made in Taiwan tool but would folks not be better served by purchasing a Unisaw since parts availability is better and using a power feeder eliminating the possibility of human contact with the blade. I just can't fathom the saw for any use at the cost since it does no more than give one the perception they are safer when in fact they have the capacity to fail as any tool. I would think its only a matter of time till one does and then where will Sawstop be,just another tablesaw but 1 thats overpriced IMO


----------



## biglarry (Jan 15, 2011)

Tommyt654 mentioned power feeder. I bought a power feeder after having a accident when making molding on a router table with a 3 horse power motor. I find the a router table and shaper more dangerous than a table saw. I use the power feeder on both the router table and the table saw when doing multiple pieces with the same setup.

Just think of the possibilities for inventors to find a way to stop all power tools to stop all injuries.


----------



## Pop (Aug 6, 2007)

Folks, In my opinion the most dangerous tool in a woodshop is a bandsaw. 1. it will cut anything you throw at it and cut it very fast. Go to the meat market and look there you will find a bandsaw very similar to the one in your shop. It will plow through a side of beef no problem. Your hand, fingers, arm etc. are nothing to it. 2. Turn on a jointer, TS, router and listen to it. It sounds mean and it is. The old bandsaw just sits there humming along like the picture of a sweet little harmless friend. It's NOT your friend and it will cut off any body part presented to it. A bandsaw is the fasting cutting saw there is. Yet we put an 1/8 inch blade on and treat it like a scroll saw.

There's no Sawstop for a bandsaw. Why? It moves too fast. There are folks who cut off fingers with a bandsaw and didn't notice until they started wondering were that red paint came from.

Pop


----------



## stevenmadden (Dec 10, 2009)

Pop,

Actually, SawStop does make a bandsaw. You can check it out on their wesite, there is a video of the prototype in action. Not sure when it will hit the sales floor, but you can be sure that I will be one of the first in line.

Steve


----------



## Sarit (Oct 21, 2009)

Tommyt654, do you really think that insurance companies would give anybody a discount, just because some guy says they will have fewer accidents if their customers use their product? Especially since the insurance companies sit on mountains of statistical data regarding accidents in the workplace. You can bet that if an insurance company gives you a discount in exchange for you to do something, then they will profit even more if you take up the offer. Remember insurance companies are capitalists too, they won't give you options that make them less profit.

Pop, it doesn't really matter what's more dangerous. The point is that there is a threshold where enough accidents occur that is makes sense for an available safety device to be mandated. My question that nobody is willing to give me a straight answer to is, what is this threshold? Pop, maybe you can give me an answer? I'm not looking for THE answer. I just want your answer. One statistical point. If you want, you can use my insurance premium cost vs safety device cost as a guideline.

For those of you that don't think there is a threshold that could ever be reached, let me invite you to use my new invention, the QuickCut SawStop. It is a specially modified SawStop, where the arbor bolt is weakened and the spring brake is moved to the back side of the blade. When you turn it on a hotdog is moved towards the blade, which engages the spring brake with enough force to snap the arbor bolt and launch the spinning blade at your head in 5ms. Hence the name QuickCut. Of course my instruction manual clearly states that you shouldn't have any body part above the height of the saw that you don't want severed and since we all know that TS's are dangerous, then nobody sue me if you get hurt.


----------



## Gregn (Mar 26, 2010)

I think Mr. Gass may have heard about other products coming out and so he's pushing the government for regulation to get his product a monopoly. Just heard about the Whirlwind that does the same thing without the damage to your blade or cartridge.
http://www.whirlwindtool.com/
For my money this is a better deal. They even did the hot dog test with this device. So Mr. Gass has some competition on his hands.


----------



## ChrisForthofer (Jan 1, 2010)

Sarit

Auto accidents have everything to do with this. We a talking about a HUGE minority of injuries caused by table saws versus autos. I would venture a guess that more people drive far more often than they run a table saws. Nobody is imposing draconian mandatory features on auto manufacturers yet they account for one of the highest injury rates in the nation. Any "mandatory" safety feature put in place by our fine government officials has been something that has been available on cars long before it was made mandatory.

As for the competition factor, couldnt be happier, competition breeds innovation and presents choices for the manufacturers instead of paying a premium to one individual. Gass can suck it.

Chris


----------



## IrreverentJack (Aug 13, 2010)

Pops- Where are the links? $700 per saw - show the links. Please.

Greg- It will be interesting to find out how David Butler/Whirlwind was treated by the table saw manufacturers, specifically SawStop. -Jack


----------



## Sarit (Oct 21, 2009)

ChrisForthofer,

Let me see if I can paraphrase your point into a more general statement. You tell me if its correct or not.

"X has much more accidents than Y in both frequency and severity. If the government doesn't put mandates on X, then they should not put mandates on Y"

Is this correct?

If it is, then you must agree that if the government does put lots of mandates on X, then your whole theory is shot.

The auto industry is one the most highly regulated "systems" there is. The government thought it was so dangerous, they regulate nearly ever single thing that has to do with cars. He's just a short list of mandates, that affect me directly:

- I can't go over the speed limit
- I must have insurance
- I must have my child in a car seat
- I must buckle my safety belt
- I must yield to emergency vehicles
- I can't hold my cell phone in my hand while driving

That's just the regulations on me. 
You wanna see manufacture mandates? Look here: http://www.nhtsa.gov/cars/rules/import/fmvss/index.html

If those hundreds of rules aren't "draconian" to you, but Gass's one rule is then please explain your definition of draconian to me.

If a feature needs to be tested in the market for a number of years before becoming mandatory, then tell me how many years you need. Don't just hide behind the vague statement. According to their website the first sawstop was made around 2005. That's 6 years now. How many more do you need?

Like I said earlier, car safety is entirely different topic. Yes, there are corollaries to tool safety, but they all end up agreeing with my point. The reason I was trying to immediately shut your argument down is because everyone will start chiming in with their opinion on some other industry and we'll have to replay this whole charade again ad nauseum.


----------



## Resurrected (Jan 11, 2011)

I work safe but there is accidents that could happen, Saw stop is a great product, I never will agree the way they push their product though. Kinda curious if whether they are behind the law suits. So I will wait for some other company to come up with safe equipement and buy theirs. Until then I won't wear my seat belt, helmet and drive a car without airbags. The suit is to hot. BUT I will keep my fingers out of harms way.


----------



## ChrisForthofer (Jan 1, 2010)

Sarit,

No one manufacturer has any financial claim to any of those safety mandates, no one is paying Toyota for their air bag technology or Mercedes for their anti lock brakes. Gass holds the patents to the tech he is trying to legislate everyone having to buy. Secondly, for the technology being around and thus being OK to mandate into "law" you are beyond dense. Consumer demand for those features pushed them into lower priced autos, survival rates for passengers in cars with those options improved and the government joined the party and mandated it be on all cars by year XXXX. Consumer demand has been underwhelming for Gass's invention, now he's trying to get his payday by being an ambulance chaser. With that, I've said my peace, I'm done here.


----------



## tommyt654 (Dec 16, 2008)

Sarit,What planet are you living on cause it ain't here. Yes insurance companys give discounts on safer equipment if in their eyes it saves them money. If you think for one minute Gass has not bothered to contact an Insurance group to discuss getting better rates for companies that use the sawslop your sadly mistaken my friend. This jackwaggon has been doin everything in his power to try to force this overpriced sled on folks in the industry. Even going after the schools with the threat of possible lawsuits if someones child gets hurt and they didn't have that saw when it was available for use. Get over it man, Gass and that company will be long gone in a few more yrs and folks will just have olds used saws they can't get parts for. You do realize its safety mechanism is based on electrics and a computer chip. How many times have we seen failures with those? Furthermore have you ever read his disclaimer in the operations manual,You can't sue him if it fails as he has a liability clause built into it's purchase. Its a joke and so is his machine.


----------



## tommyt654 (Dec 16, 2008)

One more thing tonite before hittin the sack. Everyone seems to keep blaming the tools here,Tablesaw,Shaper,Bandsaw. The most dangerous tool in the workplace is the 1 between your ears. If not used properly it will lead to an injury. For yrs now powertools have had safety features built into them yet we continue to dismantle them or fail to utilize proper safety techniques. If you get hurt 99% of the time its because of something you did not the tool that caused the injury,Night all


----------



## Sarit (Oct 21, 2009)

Jeez, everytime I try to steer people to the fundamental question you guys just can't help yourselves but to get distracted.

Can we all agree to stick to just facts, not characterizations?

tommyt654, you're spewing so much misinformation that I would really like to address, but I know if I do, you'll just be spewing more and drawing the whole discussion off track with it.

Let me make this easy. Let's forget about Gass, lets forget about cars and even table saws. We haven't answered the fundamental question here…

When does societal cost make it necessary for government to mandate something that has financial costs to the consumer? Still nobody wants to give me a straight answer.

Everyone wants to fight over how evil Gass is or how government will take over woodworking or how you want some other technology, yada, yada, yada… Those are the nitty gritty details that you can hammer out later. Let's focus on the same question I've been asking over and over. How bad must something be, before your government can mandate something to mitigate the "badness"?

Let X be the tablesaw/bandsaw/car/whatever dangerous thing you want to use.
Let Y be some safety measure, whatever it is you want it be (powerfeeders, sawstop, whirlwind, training, licensing)
Let S be the money that the society saves per user per year if Y is adopted.
Let C be the fixed cost of Y per user.

Now tell me what's your decision making process based on these terms?

Don't worry about who will make money or who invented what. This is a generalization. But if you need an someone, assume Jesus Christ/Mother Teressa/A guy who lost his whole family to an accident w/ X invented it and what little if any proceeds will go to the victims of accidents w/ X.


----------



## tommyt654 (Dec 16, 2008)

ROFLMAOAU,Sarit theres nothing wrong with tablesaws,Its the user that inheritly is responsible for his action,Don't you get that. But the reason everyone blast Gass is because he want to mandate something purely for profit,Not for safetys sake,Geez your thickheaded. What misinformation am I spewing show me an example of something I said you can prove as misinformation and I'll retract it but otherwise the only person here espouting BC appears to be you,GoooooPackers


----------



## IrreverentJack (Aug 13, 2010)

Here are some links with info/facts/statistics on table saw injuries. These are excellent SawStop histories/timelines. Fine Wood Working had a great series on the Osario/Ryobi suit. This article brings up the insurance companies role in Osario/Ryobi. If anyone disagrees with the information in these links *show me the links your opinions are based on*. I've read that if the CPSC mandates SawStop technology Gass would be forced to allow others to use his patents for a "negotiated" fee. If someone knows about this or has a link, please let me know. -Jack


----------



## Sarit (Oct 21, 2009)

I wish the user would be purely responsible for his actions, but they don't. They will still ask for unemployment, medical coverage, disability, etc, at the expense of me and others who do take the extra precautions. Don't you get that?

I understand he wants to mandate something purely for profit.
Now if the mandate is what should be done (even in your opinion) then why is that bad?
If Behr had the only patent on lead free paint, and the process and licensing cost acceptable by the consumer, and they wanted to mandate that all paint used be lead free, then is Behr evil?

About your misinformation, lets go back to your comment about insurance companies.
Read my post carefully, and you'll see I never said Gass didn't speak to them. When I said "just because some guy says…", the some guy refers to Gass. I was replying to your comment "Yet I see the Ins. lobby has bought into his claims about how safe the saw is to operate with no factual applications in a high capacity workload.". The point is that Ins companies already know the risks of not having sawstop. If they take Gass for his word, and it doesn't live up to expectations, they will be the first to know and can easily withdraw the discount. And now after 6 years, many in high capacity workloads, have the insurance companies regretted their decision? You're trying to imply that Gass is lying to the ins. companies, yet even if he said this will prevent amputations 100% without fail, he still couldn't be accused of lying, can he? If there ever was a safety failure then, I'm sure you'll be the first to use that to say "See it can fail! Its crap!".
Then on top of it all, your tone seems to imply that simply the act of proposing to ins companies a idea that will save their customer money, make them more profitable, and make Gass more money (a win-win-win, no loser scenario) is somehow also evil. I don't know what world you are living in, but in my world those people are praised not cursed. Here you can easily see why I don't want to keep correcting you. This took up half the post to address one point.

You also imply that doing everything he can to make money is also bad. Can you show me any rules of ethics he's violated? Showing how your product reduces liabilty isn't one of them. Nor is petitioning the govenment to get it mandated. I doubt any fortune 500 CEO would behave any different if they were in Gass's position. You seem to have either an irrational hatred of Gass or are naive as to how the world works.


----------



## patcollins (Jul 22, 2010)

As far as insurance companies go I would actually expect them to raise your rates when you tell them you hsave any woodworking equipment safer or not.

My county just mandated all new homes have built in sprinkler systems, guess I will never build a new home here. The sprinklers at work have gone off accidently 3 times in 10 years.


----------

