Engineering News-Record: Efforts by safety advocates to make table saws safer for all uses and projects—with an automatic brake that senses the difference between a finger and wood and stops cutting—have entered a new phase. On August 20, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) withdrew its pending rule requiring sensor-activated brakes that had advanced under the Biden administration.
8 comments:
After reading the article I have mixed feelings about the proposed legislation to require AIM technology on all new tablesaws sold. On one hand, I understand how because of the patent for SawStop, this legislation could create a monopoly (although it should be noted that SawStop pledged to open their patent to the public if the law passed) as well as hurt smaller businesses and personal shops because of the price increase. With that being said, I also have seen first hand how effective the technology is. When I worked at and managed the day to day goings of a makerspace, there were definitely instances where having a tablesaw with a sawstop literally saved people their fingers. And these weren't people who just didn’t have good training. The accents I saw were most common with the most experienced people (retired engineers) who were just there so often that their likelihood for an accent was just higher. I’m not sure what should actually be done, but I am glad that the technology exists.
The table saw is one of the most dangerous tools in wood shops. It’s a massive blade typically spinning at 3000 RPM at minimum. It’s an extremely powerful tool, but has so many potential dangers to it, one mistake and you can severely damage your hand. My old technical director is a wonderful example of this. He was building a set and used a table saw, and misplaced his hand. His hand got caught on the table saw, and cut his hand open, and damaged nerve endings. This severely hurt his hand, and he was in a bandage cast for six months, requiring PT. One accident can take you out of service for a while, and he is a prime exam of this. Having a requirement for shops to have these saw stops would save limbs from getting hurt. While saw stops wont prevent you from getting hurt, it will change an incident from where your entire arm gets cut off down to a simple small cut on your hand that may burn from friction at the most. I strongly disagree with this change and removing this new safety requirement. Spending an extra $600 to get the proper safety equipment is worth it, especially when medical costs are so much in America.
I am a person that takes safety very seriously. I always make sure to know what procedures are in place in case something goes wrong. When reading about technology that can prevent a big injury in dangerous tools such as a table saw, it makes me feel better about using a tool like that. Another student that was a part of my high school technical theatre class would use the circular saw recklessly and worried me. She would always rush when cutting a piece of wood and I would correct her multiple times and warn her of the dangers behind it. After reading about the table saw starting to have this technology, I’m glad that manufacturers are adding safety precautions to stop their users from getting extremely hurt and I’m hoping to see other tools start to see some modifications like these ones soon.
Most of my experience in the wood shop has been for theatre and my tech director always had a saying: "if you can't afford to do it safely you can't afford to do it." While table saws with AIM are more expensive than traditional table saws an injury suffered from one small mistake with a table saw can be life changing. An injury from a table saw will almost always be more expensive than safety equipment. While consumer choice is important I believe a balance must be struck, regulation limits consumer freedom but in this case would greatly increase their safety.
I can see a pretty fair argument for this case in either direction. On one hand, it seems like the obvious right choice is to force companies to equip all their saws with brakes. A table saw injury would almost certainly cost more than what it would have cost to buy the saw with the brake instead of the regular saw. On the other hand, though, I wonder how it would affect smaller business owners who might struggle to pay the extra price. We’ve had days here in our shop where we trip multiple brake cartridges in a night on accident. Something like that could have a major financial impact on some people. Then again, if saw manufacturing companies are forced to start equipping all saws with brakes, maybe the competition would lower market prices overall. Even though going with brakes is the immediate ‘good’ option, a part of me still thinks that there’s some cases where a saw brake just isn’t necessary. I suppose it would probably be possible to run the saw in bypass without a brake cartridge in, though.
To me it appears the real discussion here is if we are willing as a nation to let people (primarily consumers) choose to use a product that is inherently riskier than a different product on the market or if we ought to regulate and ensure that wholistically we use a safer product even though it comes at a higher cost. Notably, this applies for consumers and does not limit the use of non AIM table saws in industrial settings. But, since this applies to the manufacturing of new table saws and does not outright eliminate the ability to use non AIM table saws, I think it is simply a easy decision to keep pushing for the fully implementation of these systems. There are countless people who are injured by table saws wherein having AIM technology incorporated would completely eliminate the issue. Not only does this poorly impact standard consumers, but also small business owners who won’t now be required to choose the safer option for their employees.
This is a really interesting situation that is far more nuanced than just thinking “obviously all saws should be as safe as possible.” I see the proposed requirement of having some sort of AIM in all new consumer table saws as similar to seatbelts in cars. I’m sure that one of the big pushbacks against requiring seatbelts was that it would raise the cost of cars, and cars without seatbelts were cheaper, and that the counterargument was that the cost of having a seatbelt was much cheaper than the cost of what happens if you’re in a bad accident without wearing a seatbelt. I wouldn’t be surprised if, in a couple of decades, we all think about how silly we were for being hesitant to mandate table saw brakes; however, I’m hesitant to blindly say that I think these systems should be required now, mostly because there aren’t really any other options besides SawStop, and having one company control the entire table saw market is vaguely concerning to me. While the article does mention that SawStop pledged to dedicate the patent to the public, it’s hard to tell if that would create space for other companies to improve on/develop AIM technology.
I think safety features like SawStop are imperative and have made using table saws much safer. But does every table saw need to include this feature? I’d argue no—primarily because of the way the SawStop system works. The technology relies on detecting electrical conductivity to trigger the stop. This works well when cutting clean lumber, provided you take precautions to ensure there aren’t nails, screws, or other metal objects embedded in the wood. However, not every shop works with fresh, clean lumber. Many reuse wood, or they use table saws to cut materials like plexiglass or foam, which can also trigger the stop unnecessarily. This raises the likelihood of false activations. While I absolutely believe technology like this should exist, I wish there were more options on the market. Systems that don’t require replacing both the blade and cartridge each time the stop is triggered. The cost of an accident is no small matter, especially for smaller shops. Still, downtime after a false activation is also expensive. A triggered stop can put the saw out of commission for 30 minutes to two hours while the blade and cartridge are replaced, disrupting workflow and reducing productivity. For shops that frequently switch between materials, or work in environments with dust and other factors that may cause false triggers, the inconvenience can outweigh the benefit. In those cases, having either a different type of safety system or the option to use a saw without this feature could help balance safety with efficiency and cost.
Post a Comment