Tuesday, November 22, 2011
PTI Petition Drive to the CPSC to Stop SawStop
Pro Tool Reviews: The PTI (Power Tool Institute) is letting everyone know that the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) is being petitioned to impose a mandatory rule, in an effort to have the government require a specific active flesh detection technology for all table saws.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
We've been hearing about SawStop for a while on the green page, and it's alarming that this technology is close to being required. This article takes a different perspective than most, talking about SawStop from an economic perspective in that it would facilitate a monopoly, although we've seen alternative technologies on this blog that are similarly aimed at stopping table saws before they can cut people.
I'd be interested to see exactly what the potential law would be, although it's clear that its primary proponent is SawStop, since end users continue to insist that this technology would no longer foster due respect for power tools and would be a sinkhole for time and money.
Isn't our government supposed to discourage and stop monopolies as part of our financial system instead of encouraging them as seems to be what this article is indicating. While the SawStop technology is an interesting one, that does not mean it is entitled to the kind of competitive and economic advantage that a law such as the one described in the article would give it. The reasons we discourage monopolies are basically listed implicitly within the article in that it discourages competition and more importantly, it makes the research and creation of newer and possibly safer technologies in the future. It's also important to note what many others have said about this technology in past articles on the green page, while this might be helpful in reducing accidents, it's just as important if not more important to know the equipment, and being taught the proper way to use the equipment safely, and that is going to help you in the long run in being safe even more so than this new technology would on it's own
The sawstop is a brilliant piece of technology and it has a place, for instance a high school scene shop or wood shop where potentially mal-experienced users are more common to come in contact with the tool. But to make this a legally mandated safety feature? that is a little excessive. Just as the author states the ansi safety recommendations already in affect cover a decent amount of what could go wrong with the common use of table saws and other power tools. requiring the saw stop on table saws is just going to be an massive excessive expenditure that no shop needs in todays economy.
just as daniel said it will all come down to what the potential law would be. Personally i think if there were to be a law requiring it, make it for any amateur/ personal use. but any professional shop not necessary.
I think many of us saw this coming but that doesn't mean I'm any less relieved to actually see someone standing up to the SawStop Monopoly as Supported by the US Governement fiasco.
I'm only repeating myself at this point [and echoing the writer of this article] that proper use and proper knowledge of a table saw can and will [and has] prevented more accidents than SawStop. I don't know that the author here can say, with confidence, that ALL of the accidents reported to the CPSC were resulted from improper use of pre-ANSI/UL 987 guards, but I think he's right in that MOST of them likely were.
It's not a toy. And it's not something that will just suddenly behave because someone's too frightened of what might go wrong to either learn how it works or not use it.
I am with David who in multiple classes has mentioned that until the owner and maker will slam their hand down on top of the blade and no injuries occur there is no reason for saw stop to be required. In all the commercials or propaganda for saw stop it is someone very slowly touching the side of the blade, who does that? No one. If you are going to be injured by a table saw it is not going to be slowly and innocently.
The best way to prevent any injury is to be educated on prop use and knowledge of the tool. Making this safeguard mandatory is not going to prevent all injuries from occurring. Saw stop will instead make saws more costly to purchase and may backfire by having those who would buy a new saw instead fabricate their own or find an older one that may not work properly.
While trying to avoid the risk of a work stoppage conversation on this topic, I'd like to point out one thing. Actually I'd like to point out one word. Which is really the whole problem with this whole deal. The word is -specific. The government is not trying to regulate flesh-detection devices, they are trying to regulate SawStop.
I believe the government endorsing and requiring a brand-name, I think that is a monopoly issue.
I still really agree with this article. While table saw injuries are an issue (although maybe we should look more carefully at hos substantial they are in terms of shop injuries) the solution is not new technology, its better compliance and proper usage of currently available technology. Existing guards, anti-kickback, and the like work quite well when used properly. Improperly maintained tables and ones without guards installed present a substantial risk to workers.
Post a Comment