Monday, February 07, 2011
A SawStop Killer?
The Wood Whisperer: "A recent article on USA Today’s website states that the Consumer Products Safety Commission is on a mission to prevent debilitating tablesaw injuries. The goal? To require saw-makers to include “flesh-detecting technology” in their tablesaws, much like they are now required to include riving knives. The driving force behind all this is Steve Gass, the patent lawyer and inventor of SawStop. Regardless of how one feels about Sawstop, the company or the technology, it seems that most folks view government intervention as a major negative. As responsible saw owners, most of us know that proper training and safe practices are the best way to prevent accidents.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
I worked with a guy who believed that accidents happen when people stop being afraid of the danger. Fear of a tool or of a task demanding a certain respect: don't misuse this or it will chop your fingers off. Used a Saw Stop this summer at a children's theater in residence at a high school. Our shop was the school's wood shop. Shop teachers didn't like the Saw Stop because they were worried it would eliminate this respect for potential damage. If you learn on a tool that can't hurt you, you will eventually run into a tool that can hurt you with potential disastrous results. I agree with this. I don't think changing the technology of the tool (though making a tool more safe is always helpful) is the way to go. I think better education and a deeper respect for the dangers of the saw will help keep accidents down.
I too think that it is silly to require saw makers to incorporate this technology; we have all heard stories of these things 'mis-firing' all of the time and prompting time spent on replacing and resetting parts. The USA today article to which this article links gives very little data on table saw-specific injuries - just about total money spent on saw-related injuries.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it; if the developer of the technology is behind this drive, people should see through it and maintain the status quo.
I definitely agree with what Matt has to say, yet there are many others who believe changing the technology is a better way of going about it. Since that is the direction we currently seem to be heading in, the Whirlwind, from what this author knows about it, seems to be a better alternative to the SawStop. One of the major reasons a lot of people don't like the SawStop is because it gets triggered by other things besides your body, and stops when it doesn't need to. With that, the expense of replacing the blade that gets ruined becomes quite expensive. The Whirlwind, even if it has a similar problem and does get triggered when it doesn't really need to, doesn't ruin the blade. And while it may be annoying that it might stop at inconvenient times, at least it's not subjecting you to undo expenses.
Matt is absolutely right. When someone using a tool loses their sense of fear about injury, that is when they are in the most danger. Without that fear, people become unfocused and inattentive while they're working. It seems to me that regardless of how effective the saw stop is, people will be against it for the same reasons as saw stops past. If saw makers are forced to incorporate it, users will still take it out because of comfort. Also, if what Tiffany mentioned is true about the Saw Stop being triggered by even more than oneself, it seems like they are just waiting to be removed.
I'm curious whether or not requiring this technology in a table saw, and thus making the saw more expensive, has also been a deterrent to people buying the saw. I'm not an expert, but I would imagine a table saw is not a tool that you upgrade every few years; therefore, it's going to take quite a while before all table saws in use in the country have a saw stop. Its also unfair to force people to make the upgrade if they can't afford to make it. And eventually, technicians will run into a shop without a new table saw, and will need to know how to work without the new technology.
I think that if saw-stops were required the biggest change would not be immediately seen in the attitude towards the tool from a safety perspective, but from a monetary one. The sawstop itself costs twice as much as a standard table saw and the maintenance fees that occur when replacing the stopping mechanism would drastically change a shops operational expenses, especially in an educational setting where someone is more likely to mistakingly set off the sawstop mechanism.Sure your insurance may notice that you have a sawstop and cut you a break but what about all the other tools in the shop that don't have similar guards? I have the feeling that the savings over time would just be seen in an operational expense.
Of course there begs the discussion on how you can't put a price on safety, except one can't ignore that it's expensive...
I think this could potentially backfire for the creators of SawStop. Technology isn't always perfect and can fail, I feel that if you become dependent on technology you become lazy and that's when the worst accidents happen. If you become lazy with a saw there are dire consequences. One day you could become lazy and that same day the technology of the SawStop could possibly fail and then you don't have fingers anymore. I also agree with Matt, fear of a machine adds respect to the machine and with this fear you won't become lazy while cutting wood and being careful is more reliable than the best technology I think.
All it takes is for SawStop to fail even once and it'll be almost worthless. If someone loses a finger despite the SawStop, they'll regret the new attitude they are inducing. I agree that the best way to reduce injury is education and taking care to be mindful of the dangers of the saw. By putting this tool in secondary schools and becoming lax on stressing safety, children will not learn the cautionary habits that apply to many other tools.
I am glad, however, that there is a potential competitor. Without active capitalism SawStop has no reason to work toward improving their product. I think its a huge selling point for the Whirlwind to be able to be added onto any already owned saw. That and the fact that you don't need to replace the blade or internal mechanism every time it activates, is better for customers financially.
I agree with the consensus. Most injuries happen during the beginning stages of experience.(Before you learn what kick-back is) And then there is a rash of injuries that happen when a person is in a hurry, fatigued or ignoring the safety practices that they all ready know. Where as I feel that this is a tremendous device, to make a saw completely safe they will also need to add some kinda anti binding-no kick back technology as well. And then perhaps if they invent some sort of stupid detector then we would have something.
I think SawStop technology is a good thing to have in several shops especially with inexperienced operators but for the government to require it on all table saws is ridiculous and not an area they should be controlling. As the article mentioned, adequate training will go farther than saw stop technologies.
On the other point in the article Whirlwind sounds like a good idea especially since it doesn't destroy the blade which is one of my biggest issues with SawStop. It is good to have competition in the market so the government doesn't create a sawstop monopoly if they were to enact such legislation.
I believe this type of technology is dangerous. its dangerous because saws are inherently dangerous. they are used for cutting things apart. the idea that you could in any way alter a saw to make them safe is just and idea , it isn't real some machines(most) can be harmful and giving the user the illusion that it is safe gives them the idea that they can be more reckless then when they are careful knowing its safe. some tools are meant to be feared and taking that fear away while still holding a threat is far worse off than having no safety mechanisms at all.
i also believe that the government has no place regulating what shops are required to have .
I agree that it is a great idea for safety precautions, but like others have argued, if this tool is used, people will rely on that being the safety precaution and will no longer be careful on their own. With that in mind, if the the machine were to fail, even once, the person using it would not have been careful since they rely heavily on the machine to be careful for them. This would lead to an injury, while if tools are consistently used by only those experienced or beginners with supervision, there will not be a need for this technology. Although it is a great idea to have a machine recognize when a potential injury could occur, the risks involved are not worth it, and keeping with education as the primary way to avoid these accidents would probably be the best route.
I don't know much about saw stop and whirlwind, but it sounds like technology that stops a tool from hurting you is a good thing. If it works and I wouldn't get cut using it, sounds pretty good to me. I understand what Matt is saying in his comment about learning that tools hurt, but I would rather be safe than learn tools can be very dangerous.
The article brings up a good point that government intervention for saw safety may not be the best way to handle injuries in shops. Some shops are intense in their safety practices and may be so to the extent that they would never need such technology. On the other hand, shops with a track record for injuries and poor safety practices would probably benefit from such a device. To require all shops to install a safety like this, though, imposes a large cost on many shops who may not need the tool. It just boils down to, if you know how the tool works and are careful around it, then you don't need to worry quite so much.
I think it is wrong for a single company with little competition (until now apparently) to convince the government to make their product mandatory. That sounds like a monopoly to me. This is something our government has been against for centuries. And of course it is safety driven, but it is also financially driven. I think it should be up to shop owners to buy this product or not. Though, with or without, safety measures have to be taken.
I am glad to see a new item on the market. It also appears to solve some of the major issues usually discussed with SawStop, the cost when engaged, the down time for repair and if it is accidentally triggered say by sappy wood, its no big deal. So here's the next question, since this new technology is cheaper operates differently, can be it adapted to other tools like a Band Saw?
It seems a bit pedantic to expect every saw to have this technology. It certainly is not an inexpensive alternative, and shops which have to deal with costs and lead time on broken saw blades may suffer greatly from these requirements. The new saw is, however a good thing to have in shops which can afford it, and have inexperienced crews. the new technology from whirlwind which also does not damage the blades or machine seems like the logical progression for this technology, and i think that if saw-stop cannot remain competitive in an open market selling similar technology then their product will simply have been weeded out. that being said Saw stop is an excellent product.
While i agree with Matt about being fearless can get you hurt, it also works the other way; being too fearful will lead to injuries as well. also, even with the Saw Stop people can still hurt, it just causes them to not get their finger completely cut off... It also depends on how someone is taught. If teacher tells them its really hard to hurt themselves, then yea the person is going to hurt themselves by being stupid. i do think that their should be more options than just saw stop before they make this product mandatory.
Post a Comment