[WillAdams]

Does making tools more expensive really benefit anyone other than the companies which own the patents which make them more expensive?

Of these 30,000 injuries per year, how many happen when the blade guards are removed? How many happen when a push stick is not used? How many happen when a person stands in the direction that a piece of wood will be thrown by kickback? Once all those are subtracted are there enough injuries to count?

What if all tablesaw injury cases were tried by a jury of shop teachers?

The best advice I got in shop class was to slowly and quietly count to 10 on my fingers before throwing a power switch and in doing so to envision the operation from beginning to end and all the forces which would be involved, and to remind myself, that I wanted to be able to repeat that cut when the power was turned off.

SawStop goes on about how they will license their patent, but the licensing being offered is a very narrow one and doesn't seem to include the entirety of their patent portfolio, and they have fought very hard to keep tools with similar capabilities out of the U.S. market claiming patent infringement.

[RajT88]

> Does making tools more expensive really benefit anyone other than the companies which own the patents which make them more expensive?

I would pay thousands to avoid losing part of my hand. The increased price is a very good value, tens of dollars.

Look at rearview cameras. Cheap tech. Used to be a 1000+ USD option. Now that they are government mandated the manufacturers figured out how to include them for a couple hundred dollars.

Price goes up, but just a little. Money well spent.

[PaulDavisThe1st]

> I would pay thousands to avoid losing part of my hand.

I cut off the distal segment of my right thumb on a table saw in 1995. The initial bill, before I disputed it and received a "professional courtesy discount", was $25k.

So, you can pay a relatively small price to avoid losing part of your hand, or you can gamble that it will never happen, and then pay a high price for losing part of your hand.

Pretty simple choice to me.

ps.

Doctor: what do want to do with the rest of your life?

Me: well, I'm a programmer right now, but I'd rather be farmer

Doctor: I know a lot of farmers with less digits than you still have, and you'll still be able to hit the space bar as-is.

[atmavatar]

In effect, a SawStop system is like a one-time health insurance payment that prevents you from getting injured in the first place, only without jacking up the price because you used the tool in someone else's garage.

[numbsafari]

Good thing you and the doc weren’t on opposite sides of the tabs v spaces discussion.

Ed: The fact that you can hit the space bar with either hand, whereas the tab would require changing your keyboard layout is not a consideration I had previously considered in this debate.

[PaulDavisThe1st]

You might say that the doc and I were aligned over the tabs vs spaces discussion. That is: tabs to indent, spaces to align.

[Blackthorn]

To be fair, other companies haven't been trying very hard. I hate Felder for this. They have their own tech to drop the sawblade when they sense fingers. And they use it as a form of market segmentation, only offering it on their $30k+ tablesaws and not on their less expensive ones.

> The best advice I got in shop class was to slowly and quietly count to 10 on my fingers before throwing a power switch and in doing so to envision the operation from beginning to end and all the forces which would be involved, and to remind myself, that I wanted to be able to repeat that cut when the power was turned off.

It's great advice, but injuries tend to happen when people become complacent with the operations.

[unsnap_biceps]

You're not required to purchase them if you don't want to. Personally, I have a stopsaw. It has never triggered, so beyond initial purchase price, it hasn't cost me a cent extra, but in the unlikely case where I do something dumb or have an accident, I feel better knowing it won't be life altering and all I'll need to do is replace a blade and a $99 cartridge. That's worth it to me.

[abakker]

likewise, but also worth noting that the saw stop saw is just a...nice saw. Better than the old delta I used to have, better than the powermatic 66 that I grew up using. Probably not as nice as my buddy's $20k sliding Felder saw, but...for the price, a Sawstop is a nice tool and highly competitive in build quality.

[ckozlowski]

This is Stumpy Nubs argument (YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxKkuDduYLk); that patience, forethought, and use of a blade guard and other tools would prevent most injuries. I'm in agreement.

But I don't think that companies are trying to make the tools more expensive. In fact, it was the opposite. SawStop sold high-end saws, other manufacturers did not want to adopt the technology because of the cost it added.

The issue of proper saw safety and use of sawstop technology are two different issues, I believe. And while I agree, the proper safety procedures you cite should be used by everyone, they aren't. In fact, they often aren't. And we can sit here and shake our fingers, but it won't change the overall culture around them. And I think that's the conclusion that regulators have come to as well: They're not going to get people to always use their blade guards or count to 10, so they'll mandate adoption of a technology that mitigates the risk due to people not following directions.

Regarding the licensing, I think that's been addressed by others elsewhere. But in short, SawStop defended their patents in order to license the tech. When the government moved to mandate it, SawStop said they wouldn't enforce their patent, but they're not handing the tech over either. Other companies are free to develop their own method without running afoul of SawStop's patents, or they can license SawStop's tech. To me, it seems like a fair approach that both protects their investment while not putting themselves in a morally questionable position in taking advantage of the upcoming regulation.

[bagels]

Why have airbags in your car? All you have to do is not crash.

[wat10000]

Are you suggesting that injuries don’t count if the operator’s actions contributed to them and they’re not worth preventing?

[WillAdams]

I'm suggesting that people should have a sense of personal responsibility when operating potentially dangerous equipment, and that a person should not be required to pay extra for a business or hobby just because some well-to-do patent lawyer has come up with a business model which has an end-game of requiring that patents from his company be required in products.

[wat10000]

You can’t control what sense of personal responsibility people will or will not have. So saying that they “should” have it means absolutely fuck all.

A requirement for this safety feature would be enacted in order to prevent a large number of accidental mutilations. It might make money for certain people and they might push it for that reason, but that’s not the main purpose for enacting it.

I look forward to your complaint that you’re forced to spend money on seat belts you don’t need.

[danparsonson]

> personal responsibility

Ah personal responsibility! The magic bullet that mitigates all accidents.

All of your personal responsibility will vanish the instant you injure yourself horribly - then you'll be wholly reliant upon numerous other people who will have to deal with the horror of what you've done to yourself, or else be delayed in receiving their own care because of it.

[Spooky23]

Your way of thinking is why things like safety glass, headrests, and seatbelts were kept of of cars for so long.

It’s a fine principled argument, but stay the hell away from product management.

[lazide]

Just wait until you hear about building codes requiring mandatory AFCI and GCFI breakers.

[Slyfox33]

"Just don't make mistakes!"

[onlypassingthru]

> Does making tools more expensive really benefit anyone other than the companies which own the patents which make them more expensive?

When it comes to table saws, you only have to make a mistake once to find out. Almost perfect doesn't cut it. (ba dum bum, tss)

[mlyle]

> Of these 30,000 injuries per year, how many happen when the blade guards are removed? How many happen when a push stick is not used?

Seems like you don't buy into the swiss cheese model of accidents. Because other safety mechanisms and good practices exist, it doesn't mean that there's not reasons to add additional safety. In aviation, we always blamed the pilots for a long time, and it wasn't entirely wrong. However, no matter how much we told pilots "stop crashing and dying!!" they didn't seem to want to stop.

This is there for the day when other things go wrong-- when a tired operator reaches for something he obviously shouldn't; when a blade guard is out of place and someone slips; when someone who isn't sufficiently trained doesn't realize he shouldn't use the table saw.

[bigstrat2003]

> Seems like you don't buy into the swiss cheese model of accidents. Because other safety mechanisms and good practices exist, it doesn't mean that there's not reasons to add additional safety.

I think it's reasonable to say "we have done enough" at some point though. We can debate where the point is, but safety is not an unalloyed good. It has a cost, and reasonable people can disagree over whether a particular safety invention has enough ROI to justify its existence.

For example, we wouldn't countenance banning all motor vehicles even though we could eliminate all car related deaths with that one simple trick. We would get a fair bit of payoff, but the cost would just be too high to justify it. Similarly, if we could inflict a very minor cost on everyone in the world to prevent one death per year, that would be too low of a payoff even though the cost is very low.

So yes, we can always add more layers of defense against accidents (or security incidents). But eventually, the juice isn't worth the squeeze and you stop. So I don't think the Swiss cheese model really can justify any particular intervention by itself; you have to evaluate the specifics of whether the particular intervention is worth it.

[toast0]

> I think it's reasonable to say "we have done enough" at some point though. We can debate where the point is, but safety is not an unalloyed good. It has a cost, and reasonable people can disagree over whether a particular safety invention has enough ROI to justify its existence.

That has to be a point in time decision though. Closed circuit TV backup cameras in cars have been possible since I dunno, probably the 70s, certainly 80s technology could have done it; but they weren't a reasonable intervention (outside of say armored cars for currency transports) until more recently as cameras and displays have gotten less expensive and quality has improved. Also helpful as modern vehicle design has resulted in significantly reduced visibility compared to the past, but that's a rant for a car article :P

[mlyle]

> So I don't think the Swiss cheese model really can justify any particular intervention by itself; you have to evaluate the specifics of whether the particular intervention is worth it.

You don't need to prevent too many maimings to pay for a whole lot of these and their occasional consumables.

Sure, risk homeostasis will claw some of the benefit back, too.

[bsder]

The saw manufacturers all blew off SawStop because they were worried that they would now be liable for any injuries which still occurred.

Simply make table saw manufacturers liable for any injury from the saw and this kind of mechanism will instantly become default.

[Animats]

Yes, they did. They even tried to legislate against SawStop. See "H.R. 8181: Preserving Woodworking Traditions and Blocking Government-Mandated Monopolies Act"[1] Didn't go anywhere.

There is supposedly woodworker opposition.[2] "Many woodworkers argue that the implementation of SawStop technology has disrupted traditional woodworking practices. Some feel that it has altered the craft in a negative way by making it less reliant on skill and attentiveness, instead placing an emphasis on technology to prevent accidents. This shift in focus is seen as a departure from the fundamental principles and values of woodworking." However, no actual woodworkers are quoted, and the author has a tool store, so this is probably astroturf PR. That web site is addressed to people with a semi-religious attitude towards woodworking, not to working carpenters or cabinetmakers.

(Having used circular wood saws, I am all in favor of blade-stop devices.)

[1] https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/118/hr8181/text

[2] https://www.woodworkcenter.com/why-do-woodworkers-hate-the-i...

[bawolff]

> "Many woodworkers argue that the implementation of SawStop technology has disrupted traditional woodworking practices. Some feel that it has altered the craft in a negative way by making it less reliant on skill and attentiveness, instead placing an emphasis on technology to prevent accidents. This shift in focus is seen as a departure from the fundamental principles and values of woodworking."

Wow. This is basically: real men enjoy getting their fingers cut off.

[duskwuff]

Ideologically speaking, it's the same sort of people that opposed seat belt laws in the 1980s on the grounds that they'd encourage risky behavior by drivers. (They don't.)

[DannyBee]

#2 is becuase woodworkers as a group are fairly conservative.

TTI and friends were very effective at riling them up. I belong to a number of significant woodworking forums/etc, and have watched the manipulation over the years firsthand.

This was mostly in the form of "big daddy government wants to make you pay for more saws because of dumb people", so the take they have there around the craft itself is pretty funny.

[bagels]

It's so silly. The saw stop doesn't reduce the amount of skill needed to use it, and you're still free to be as attentive as you like. If they really followed this to its logical conclusion, they'd be using unpowered stone tools to do woodworking.

[dyauspitr]

That’s terrible though. You can’t make knife manufacturers responsible for everything a knife does.

[bsder]

The difference between the accidental damage a knife can do versus what a circular saw can do is night and day. And I say this as someone who needed surgery after cutting through a tendon with a knife. :(

Old school radial saws, for example, basically don't exist anymore at the consumer level. They were simply too dangerous. Slider-type miter saws have almost completely replaced them.

Personally, I would even go so far as to suggest that weekend woodworkers should avoid even having a table saw, period.

The main problem with table saws is that they become a "do all" machine even for those kinds of actions that really shouldn't be done on it. You're already at the table saw, and it's often really convenient to just "sorta kinda" bodge something up on the table saw rather than doing the safe thing and changing the blade, putting together a real jig or using a completely different tool.

If you have a track saw or a cheap CNC instead, the danger level is way, way lower, and the result is probably a lot better.

[dsunds]

Radial arm saws vanished because they were a compromise solution that slider miters made inferior. They are pretty safe as the blade is constrained to travel along the arm for cross cuts and for rips is locked in place. The usual problem is simply stalling the saw. Rip cuts can definitely kick back if you don’t take the time to set them up right including the guard and anti kickback device. They can do it all, cross cut, compound miter, rip, dado. There were some sketchy shaping attachments I’d be hesitant to use. But the main problem is they are large as a big table saw and the changeover time. A table saw and sliding miter is the way to go now. But I still own a radial and if I had the space in my shop would set it up Norm Abram style.

[WillAdams]

Have you checked recent legal cases against gun manufacturers? Some are not too far removed from suing a battery manufacturer because someone took the acid from a battery and used it in an attack?

Traveled to New York City or the U.K. recently? Check your pocket for a locking blade, or an assisted opening knife before-hand.

[Spooky23]

The difference there is they funneled a lot of marketing dollars into pseudo education and astroturfing campaigns to create a sense of hysteria that the boogeyman was coming for the guns, specifically the now dizzying array of AR-15 derivatives and pistols.

That essentially contributed to a gun buying bubble and solider cosplay.

This

[bawolff]

I think the idea is that if someone advertizes their saw as safe, but it isn't, then there should be some liability. Like if you make a fake safety saw or imply its much more safe than it actually is you should get in trouble.

But surely there must be some middle ground between a company making a fake safety saw, and a good faith effort that isn't quite perfect.

[dyauspitr]

I don’t think any saw manufacturer says anything about their safety besides warning you about not using the riving knife and blade guard.

[krisoft]

We are getting confused here.

The claim was "The saw manufacturers all blew off SawStop because they were worried that they would now be liable for any injuries which still occurred."

Meaning that table saw manufacturers were worried if they implement SawStop like safety feature, and they advertise their saws as safer they become liable for times when the technology does not work.

So yes, you appear to be correct what saw manufacturers say about their safety now, but that's not the point we are discussing. The point is that if they add a SawStop like feature and advertise it then they would be talking about the safety of their saws.

[lazide]

People still try, and depending on the public’s mood sometimes it sticks.