Remember SawStop? They gave up the market, now it's force....
edfan
resistance of the material being cut and STOPPED the blade in
milliseconds, the better to avoid injury? You recall the dramatic
demo for SawStop? They ran a hot dog into the whirling blade, the
SawStop device stopped the saw with barely a nick to the hot dog.
Think safety, think mangled fingers forever prevented, think Progress.
Even at the time, people mentioned they thought the royalties demanded
were so high and the potential liabilities so bankbreaking, there
might be trouble getting any tool manufacturer to adopt the device.
What would this lawyer do if they refused? I remember that people
wondered if the attorney who owned the patent wouldn't try to FORCE
companies to pay him by pushing for safety legislation setting
standards which, of course, no other device could meet.
Well, WATCH YOUR WALLETS - it's about to happen.
I was interested in the device, signed up at the company web site for
news. Today I got an email with an attached petition, "...we have
decided to petition the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission to
require saw manufacturers to include something like SawStop on table
saws."
First they couldn't make manufacturers pay billions to make a device
that could explode their liabilities. When that failed, they set up a
company making saws that included the device. I guess they're not
making enough money from that, now they want to FORCE companies to pay
them off.
Get real, "something LIKE SawStop" means THEM, only THEM, not anybody
LIKE them. They mean to make an end run around the free market. What
they cannot persuade us to buy, they will SQUEEZE from us by
legislative coercion.
Can you IMAGINE what adding $150 "tax" would do to those who must buy
saws at the bottom of the market? Would YOU like to pay $150 extra for
your next saw, whtever level of the market you shop in? DO you think
Uncle Sugar needs to be your nanny to the point where they know better
than YOU do what dollar value you put on your safety?
I urge you to talk to fellow woodworkers about this rising danger to
our freedom of choice. I do not like Consumer Safety being used as a
ski mask to hide a holdup.
--
Unisaw A100
>Get real, "something LIKE SawStop" means THEM, only THEM, not anybody
>LIKE them. They mean to make an end run around the free market. What
>they cannot persuade us to buy, they will SQUEEZE from us by
>legislative coercion.
Sooooo, they would kinda be like MicroSoft?
>I urge you to talk to fellow woodworkers about this rising danger to
>our freedom of choice.
Welllllllll, you see, I'm kinda busy and, welllllllllllll,
I'm thinking I'm not your guy and, welllllllllll, to tell
you the truth, I kinda think its a good idea so maybe you
better count me out.
Okee Dokee?
UA100, who lost his freedom of choice when he entered
adulthood and had to go and work for a living...
todd
"Unisaw A100" <Unisa...@wi.rr.com> wrote in message
news:rhjc8v0pukh3utiau...@4ax.com...
Except even MS never tried to get the government to force people to buy
Windows. MS is in the position they're in largely because they made a
product that the market liked. Now, you can say their attempts to hold onto
this market might be suspect, but they didn't have to get legislation to
have a market in the first place.
If you think it's such a great idea, go here
http://www.sawstop.com/forms/cabinet_saw_order_form.htm and place your
pre-order.
Okee Dokee?
Edwin Pawlowski
"edfan" <ed...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> Would YOU like to pay $150 extra for
> your next saw, whtever level of the market you shop in?
In volume, it would probably be closer to $50. Yes, I'd pay that. Fingers
are costly.
> DO you think
> Uncle Sugar needs to be your nanny to the point where they know better
> than YOU do what dollar value you put on your safety?
No, but sometimes manufacturers need a nudge to get moving in the right
direction. Just the threat of government intervention may get them moving.
I'd bet that they already have some similar things in the works.
Ed
e...@snet.net
http://pages.cthome.net/edhome
Chris Johnson
Oh yeah...I'd like to see that attached petition.
Please post it here.
CJ
Chris Johnson
edfan wrote:
> Do you remember the SawStop - a device which sensed a change in the
> resistance of the material being cut and STOPPED the blade in
> milliseconds, the better to avoid injury? You recall the dramatic
> demo for SawStop? They ran a hot dog into the whirling blade, the
> SawStop device stopped the saw with barely a nick to the hot dog.
> Think safety, think mangled fingers forever prevented, think Progress.
>
...the rest snipped...
Can you say "SPECIAL INTEREST LEGISLATION"????
There's no denying that the SawStop system is a GREAT idea
and it's well implemented. If I ran a production shop, I'd
probably have the system installed on every applicable machine
in that shop.
But for one company to attempt to FORCE everybody to buy their
product is wrong, wrong, and wrong.
I think I'll fire off a letter to SawStop and give them hell.
CJ
charlieb
brake cartridge if you use a dado set. ONLY an additional
$69! And that's on top of the $2200 for the saw.
So much for "build a better mouse trap and the world will
come to you". But this "make it a law so they have to
buy my stuff" ain't nothing new. You should look into
"military specifications" if you want to see this approach
at its "best". Had a friend who worked for a company that
made some of the avionics for a jet fighter. He got an
order for some spare screws = 100 of them. He looked up
tr price - $1 each plus $4 for shipping. He wrote it up
as $1 x 50 + $4 for a total of $54. He was told to redo
it using ($1 + $4) x 50 for a total of $250. The wonders
of The Military Industrial Complex" former president
Dwight D. Eisenhower warned us about back in the '50s.
char...@accesscom.com
woodworking site
www.wood-workers.com/users/charlieb
Frequently asked questions for rec.woodworking
http://www.robson.org/woodfaq/
edfan
it of mangled hands, the newsgroup will not allow pictures. Email me at
ed...@earthlink.net with SawStop as the Subject. I don't want to upload just
part of the petition, it should be read in its entirety. Especially the part
that goes,
"Lastly, some people have suggested that a mandatory standard is
unnecessary -they say we should let consumers choose whether to buy safer
saws or not. We disagree. Mandatory standards should be enacted because
consumers do not have the information necessary to make a fully informed
choice. Specifically, consumers do not know the number of injuries occurring
on table saws, the severity of those injuries, the likelihood that they will
suffer an injury, the economic cost of those injuries, or the cost of
implementing a system like SawStop. If consumers had that information, it is
likely that they would choose to pay the extra marginal cost to obtain a saw
equipped with something like SawStop. The Consumer Product Safety
Commission, on the other hand, has that information, and the information
demonstrates that the public interest is best served by adopting the
proposed standard."
"Chris Johnson" <spam...@bite.my.shiny.metal.ass> wrote in message
news:3E8665A1...@bite.my.shiny.metal.ass...
Dr. Rev. Chuck, M.D. P.A.
>
> "edfan" <ed...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>
> > Would YOU like to pay $150 extra for
> > your next saw, whtever level of the market you shop in?
>
> In volume, it would probably be closer to $50. Yes, I'd pay that. Fingers
> are costly.
Cheaper than an overhead guard, and it won't get in your way.
OTOH, kickback is *far* more common. Does the SawStop help?
Chris Johnson
charlieb wrote:
>
>
> So much for "build a better mouse trap and the world will
> come to you". But this "make it a law so they have to
> buy my stuff" ain't nothing new. You should look into
> "military specifications" if you want to see this approach
> at its "best". Had a friend who worked for a company that
> made some of the avionics for a jet fighter. He got an
> order for some spare screws = 100 of them. He looked up
> tr price - $1 each plus $4 for shipping. He wrote it up
> as $1 x 50 + $4 for a total of $54. He was told to redo
> it using ($1 + $4) x 50 for a total of $250. The wonders
> of The Military Industrial Complex" former president
> Dwight D. Eisenhower warned us about back in the '50s.
>
>
The aviation industry, and especially the MILITARY aviation
industry in particular, is loaded with such obscene ripoffs like
this.
For example, aircraft cockpits need a lot of nicely made,
reliable pushbutton switches with backlit legends. They
need to be daylight readable and they need to be very reliable,
so you'd imagine that they're fairly expensive.
Would you believe that you can spend 1100 dollars on ONE of
these switches, depending on type and application?
Right now, a new F-16C fighter jet costs about 30 million bucks
a copy. It's 17,500 pounds of aluminum, steel, kevlar, plexiglas,
and electronics.
Suppose for an instant that you were to take the design of these
fighters to some major manufacturers of consumer products and ask
them to redesign them for reliability and manufacturability, and
commit to an order large enough to justify full scale production
at the levels these companies are set up for. Throw out all
the silly, overblown specifications and requirements that mean
that a five cent screw is now a pedigreed, tracked, recorded
screw now costing ten dollars. Just use a quality screw that
won't fail in its intended use. Same with the electronics.
Less paperwork, more production, and redesigned for simplicity
of manufacture and installation. In fact, it would all be
redesigned for maximum reliability as fits a daily driver that
isn't maintained after every flight. For civilian use, some systems
would of course be deleted, resulting in cost savings. You don't
need missiles or a minigun or a radar jamming system.
Give Sony the electronic systems design and production tasks,
and give GM or Ford (or Toyota or Honda) the contract to produce
the airframe. Now give Pratt & Whitney the contract to produce
an engine system for it that is as good as what's already being
produced, but dispense with the excessive certs and paperwork
to keep costs down, and of course tell them they need to expand
their assembly line.
How much would a 30 million dollar fighter cost if it was built
by GM and Sony?
I'd bet that it'd cost about 70,000 to 100,000 dollars, plus
the engine, which would probably cost another hundred grand.
On the used market, they'd of course be much cheaper.
A lot of the cost savings would be due to the economies of scale
production, sure, but there's a lot of fraud, waste, and abuse
involving aviation products. If you can get into the supply
chain for a major aircraft manufacturer, you can get very rich
very fast.
CJ
Unisaw A100
>Cheaper than an overhead guard, and it won't get in your way.
Oh Chuck! There you go using a reasonable argument.
>OTOH, kickback is *far* more common. Does the SawStop help?
No but I heard there is an air bag model in the works.
Trouble is, I don't know if its attached to the wood or
strapped onto the user.
UA100, who's wondering if in a month or two someone will
post a "Hey, I heard here there was going to be an Anti-Kick
Back Air Bag offered"...
George
more. OTOH, the silk option pretty well trashes the most expensive part of
the equation at the expense of the most valuable.
You forgot to mention what you pay a union mechanic to turn the screw. Ask
United/Northwest/American....
"Chris Johnson" <spam...@bite.my.shiny.metal.ass> wrote in message
news:3E867ED4...@bite.my.shiny.metal.ass...
geo...@home.net
wrote:
ahh yes but it will also cost another 50 bucks or so each time it
engages. small price for a finger yes but i doubt if it wouldn't
malfunction once in a while too. spalted wood comes to mind and
plastics or acrylics or.........ect ect ect. i think it should be
offered as an option on all saws but not mandatory.
John E. Flatley, Jr.
Think of SawStop just like seatbelts. Neither should be regulated.
This country needs a little thinning of the herd to survive.
Jack
Jacksonville, Florida
--
"We all do no end of feeling and we mistake it for thinking" - Mark
Twain
"edfan" <ed...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:CQuha.2369$rN3.2...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Leon
every one puts the Saw Stop on their saws the price will naturally come
down... Personally I think it is a great idea that should have already been
required on TS's. Much safer than using the typical token guard that comes
with the saws.., IMHO.
I wish I had has one on my saw 14 years ago... I cut half my thumb off and
the saw was turned off and I was not cutting wood. The saw stop would have
prevented my injury.
Colleyville Alan
>
> First they couldn't make manufacturers pay billions to make a device
> that could explode their liabilities. When that failed, they set up a
> company making saws that included the device. I guess they're not
> making enough money from that, now they want to FORCE companies to pay
> them off.
I was considering buying one of their saws because it looks like a
well-designed unit and the extra cost for the saftey feature seems minimal
to me. But I can't stand the use of legislation to help someone sell a
product that they can't get the public to buy. I will pass on the Saw
Stop.
Greg O
"todd" <fathe...@NOattbiSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:Gktha.282935$6b3.1...@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net...
>
>
> Except even MS never tried to get the government to force people to buy
> Windows. MS is in the position they're in largely because they made a
> product that the market liked. Now, you can say their attempts to hold
onto
> this market might be suspect, but they didn't have to get legislation to
> have a market in the first place.
>
True to a point. MS never forced the product on us, nor was it openly
welcomed in the market as the way to go.
If you knew MS's history you would find it was shrewed marketing and
negotiations that gave MS the hold on the market they have.
IBM wanted to mass produce a personal computer. They aproached MS for an
operating system, They sold IBM a OS that they did not even own at the time,
along with the option to sell the MS DOS to any one that came along.
(Many do not know that MS did not even own MS DOS when negotiations started,
it was owned by a small company called Seatle Computers, IIRC. The operating
system had a differant name also, later changed to MS DOS)
Others decided to manufacture personal computers also and wanted to be like
IBM so along came Bill Gates and sold them MS DOS also. And on the story
goes!
Yes, we were never forced to buy MS DOS, then later Windows. It was dumped
on us by a very youg and clever Bill Gates. As for being supect, I don't
agree, just smart negotiations on Bills part! Free enterprise at its best!
Greg
Dr. Rev. Chuck, M.D. P.A.
It should be available as an option. Otherwise, let adults make their
own decisions.
Mark & Juanita
spam...@bite.my.shiny.metal.ass says...
>
>
> charlieb wrote:
> >
> >
> > So much for "build a better mouse trap and the world will
> > come to you". But this "make it a law so they have to
> > buy my stuff" ain't nothing new. You should look into
> > "military specifications" if you want to see this approach
> > at its "best". Had a friend who worked for a company that
> > made some of the avionics for a jet fighter. He got an
> > order for some spare screws = 100 of them. He looked up
> > tr price - $1 each plus $4 for shipping. He wrote it up
> > as $1 x 50 + $4 for a total of $54. He was told to redo
> > it using ($1 + $4) x 50 for a total of $250. The wonders
> > of The Military Industrial Complex" former president
> > Dwight D. Eisenhower warned us about back in the '50s.
> >
> >
>
>
> The aviation industry, and especially the MILITARY aviation
> industry in particular, is loaded with such obscene ripoffs like
> this.
>
I can't reply to the example given above, as I have no way of knowing
all the details of the transaction. However, I can tell you that the
above stated comment is absolutely not true now, if it ever was. The
aviation industry, particularly the MILITARY aviation industry is one of
the most heavily regulated and scrutinized industries in the US. How
many other businesses do you know of that are required to open their
books to their customers so the customer can scrutinize those books and
expenses to verify that they are allowable and legitimate? The defense
industry profits are limited to a specific percentage and that is
verified by the above auditing process.
> For example, aircraft cockpits need a lot of nicely made,
> reliable pushbutton switches with backlit legends. They
> need to be daylight readable and they need to be very reliable,
> so you'd imagine that they're fairly expensive.
>
> Would you believe that you can spend 1100 dollars on ONE of
> these switches, depending on type and application?
>
Yep. Has to do with volume and reliability issues. Same thing is true
of the commercial aviation industry. Boeing commercial aircraft has the
same types of costs. The switches *have* to function over a full mil
spec temperature range, *have* to function for a minimum number of
cycles, and *must* be readable in all lighting conditions. There is no
margin here for slight inconvenience that in some cases you might not be
able to read the displays. The thing is, if something goes wrong, you
can't just pull over to the side of the road and wait for a tow truck.
>
> Right now, a new F-16C fighter jet costs about 30 million bucks
> a copy. It's 17,500 pounds of aluminum, steel, kevlar, plexiglas,
> and electronics.
>
IIRC, the cost for a new Boeing 737 is on the order of $55 million each.
The volume on 737's is much higher than F-16's and Boeing is motivated
to keep prices low to compete with AirBus. Thus in comparison, $30
million for an F-16, given its performance and capabilities for its job
is not too bad. As another point of reference, the Cessna Citation
costs on the order of $2.3 million, and other business jets can run up
to $14 million or more. Again, each of these systems is driven by a
rigorous requirement for safety and accountability. It's not good
enough to make a statement, "yeah, these screws are good enough for your
application, trust me", it must be shown that those screws are truly
good enough and that the manufacturing requirements to meet the
specification have been performed properly. This "pedigree" is also
important when a problem is identified, allowing tracing where those
parts have gone and into which aircraft they have been installed.
>
> Suppose for an instant that you were to take the design of these
> fighters to some major manufacturers of consumer products and ask
> them to redesign them for reliability and manufacturability, and
> commit to an order large enough to justify full scale production
> at the levels these companies are set up for. Throw out all
> the silly, overblown specifications and requirements that mean
> that a five cent screw is now a pedigreed, tracked, recorded
> screw now costing ten dollars.
Remember, you can't get out and walk if something goes wrong, and the
tow truck you meet might be an Iraqi tow truck driver.
The fact of the matter is, that the defense industry, at the behest of
the government, has abandoned the old Mil Spec system. This happened
nearly 10 years ago. Instead, manufacturers are held to a "total system
performance" requirement. Use of commercial (COTS) equipment is
encouraged. However, the systems built still have to meet the safety
and performance requirements necessary for devices that have the ability
to cause great harm to their users if they fail. Blue Screen of Death
is not a good thing when trying to launch a missile off the wing of an
aircraft flying at Mach 1+.
> Just use a quality screw that
> won't fail in its intended use.
And how are you going to prove that?
> Same with the electronics.
> Less paperwork, more production, and redesigned for simplicity
> of manufacture and installation. In fact, it would all be
> redesigned for maximum reliability as fits a daily driver that
> isn't maintained after every flight. For civilian use, some systems
> would of course be deleted, resulting in cost savings. You don't
> need missiles or a minigun or a radar jamming system.
>
>
> Give Sony the electronic systems design and production tasks,
> and give GM or Ford (or Toyota or Honda) the contract to produce
> the airframe. Now give Pratt & Whitney the contract to produce
> an engine system for it that is as good as what's already being
> produced, but dispense with the excessive certs and paperwork
> to keep costs down, and of course tell them they need to expand
> their assembly line.
>
> How much would a 30 million dollar fighter cost if it was built
> by GM and Sony?
>
> I'd bet that it'd cost about 70,000 to 100,000 dollars, plus
> the engine, which would probably cost another hundred grand.
>
As a reference, I would use the private jet market. That market is
driven to keep its cost as low as possible. As indicated above, the
cheapest you can get, using best commercial practices is about $2.5
million.
> On the used market, they'd of course be much cheaper.
>
> A lot of the cost savings would be due to the economies of scale
> production, sure, but there's a lot of fraud, waste, and abuse
> involving aviation products.
You are impugning an industry. What FWA has occured and been
documented has been people trying to use your 5 cent screws and passing
them off as airworthy.
> If you can get into the supply
> chain for a major aircraft manufacturer, you can get very rich
> very fast.
>
Go ahead and try it, then come back here and report how rich you got.
Take a look at the major A/C and defense contractors. The total
industry net worth (last time I saw it reported in Av Week) is less than
something on the order of 1 month's worth of sales for Microsoft (I
won't vouch for order of magnitude, it's been a while since I read that
piece. Basically the gist of the report was that Microsoft has more
sales in a short period of time than the aviation industry's entire
capital base and net worth.)
> CJ
>
>
>
>
Mark & Juanita
removespa...@swbell.net says...
I'm not sure how this would have helped you if the saw was turned off.
It seems like some electrical power must be engaged for this thing to
work. Else how would one change blades, measure or otherwise to things
that require fingers to come in contact with the blade?
>
>
Leon
Leon
came to a stop I reached over the blade to grab the back of the fence to
remove the fence.... My thumb came in contact with the coasting to a stop
blade.... And yes, the blade would have stopped even in this situation with
the motor turned off... I checked..
Leon
know or appreciate the safety this device offers. There are many ways to be
harmed by a TS that do not commonly come to mind.
This is not like having an on going expense like insurance. Once for the
initial product and then a little bit more each time it saves you from being
hurt.
Leon
changing your mind to not buy the SawStop saw because you learned that it
may become mandatory to have this device on all new saws is a lot like, "
Cutting off your nose to spite your face... Think Man....Your later
irrational thinking has overcome your earlier rational thinking.
"Colleyville Alan" <aechar...@NoSpam.attbi.com> wrote in message
news:rzIha.295240$6b3.1...@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net...
Bob Gramza
following proper safety measures because this device "should protect me". Up
until the time that it malfunctions or fails. The product liability laywers
will love this one.
"Leon" <removespa...@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:gJLha.10417$zp2.2726987893@newssvr10.news.prodigy.com...
Leon
security from the SawStop are going to be the same ones that speed because
they have air bags in their cars, or look down the barrel of an assembled
gun because they know the safety is on. You simply cannot save everyone.
But with that said, I personally would have doubt about it's effectiveness
every single moment the saw is running. IMHO since the device probably will
work correctly 99.999% of the time there is not much of a chance of the
security ever being false for any given person. Even with the blade stopped
and exposed you certainly do not want to brush up against the blade. Do you
personally feel a false sense of security with your blade guard, if you use
one? You take bigger chances using a saw with out the Saw Stop.
Andy Dingley
<aechar...@NoSpam.attbi.com> wrote:
>I was considering buying one of their saws because it looks like a
>well-designed unit and the extra cost for the saftey feature seems minimal
>to me. But I can't stand the use of legislation to help someone sell a
>product that they can't get the public to buy.
How would you feel if the cost of this legislation was that the Saw
Stop patents had to be released to the public domain ?
I think many of us (i.e. everyone except Ayn Rand and
George@Microsoft) would agree that no monopoly company should ever
have its own product made mandatory. If this device is such a boon to
humanity that it _ought_ to be made mandatory, then presumably the
only option would be for them to relinquish this sole patent ? I'm
not sure this would benefit Saw Stop themselves, once the clones start
to roll.
I'm a little concerned over mandatory safety, in that it encourages
other unsafe behaviours that it's not proof against. In this case
though, I really can't see a problem with it.
Myxylplyk
You saw the side of that response you want to see. If we, in general,
acquiesce to mandates it is an erosion of just that much more freedom to act
independly.
Many things in life have inherent personal dangers. I reserve the right to
engage in these activities if I choose to. Having the "state" mandate what
appear to be good ideas is a mistake. An example of a good idea but a bad
law is the use of seatbelts. The state has no business entering into direct
or indirect relationships with the insurance industry.
This seemingly logical idea is best left as an idea. If the producers of
this current device could have innovated it into an add-on module, they
wouldn't have taken this action. They would have just sat quietly
collecting their money. If it was purely a safety issue that they are
trying to bring to the public attention, they would have created an open
license for all saw manufacturers. In the same spirit as mandating the use
of this device, it could/should be declared public domain and open for
general use pro,oting the public good.
Just my two cents,
Myx
"Leon" <removespa...@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:gJLha.10417$zp2.2726987893@newssvr10.news.prodigy.com...
john carlson
lieu of a $150 mandatory safety device, I would support a law
requiring a $.05 piece of paper included with each new table saw that
would "fully inform" the consumer of these hazards.
Those who were convinced of the value of a Saw Stop would be free to
buy one. Those who were not would be free to save the $150 and take
their chances. Free choice by a properly informed consumer is a
wonderful thing.
On Sun, 30 Mar 2003 04:59:14 GMT, "edfan" <ed...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Mandatory standards should be enacted because
>consumers do not have the information necessary to make a fully informed
>choice. Specifically, consumers do not know the number of injuries occurring
>on table saws, the severity of those injuries, the likelihood that they will
>suffer an injury, the economic cost of those injuries, or the cost of
>implementing a system like SawStop. If consumers had that information, it is
>likely that they would choose to pay the extra marginal cost to obtain a saw
>equipped with something like SawStop.
-- jc
(Remove NoSpam when replying by mail)
Edwin Pawlowski
> > well-designed unit and the extra cost for the saftey feature seems
minimal
> > to me. But I can't stand the use of legislation to help someone sell a
> > product that they can't get the public to buy. I will pass on the Saw
> > Stop.
I admire your stand against regulation, but what are you basing this on? A
single post on a newsgroup? Do you know for sure this is taking place?
If you spoke at length with the lobbiest on the issue, you may have made a
good choice. If you are taking the word of a single post, you are being a
bit quick at the trigger on this.
While doing a search for the company's web page, (never found it) I ran
across this bit of information.
http://www.osha-slc.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=NEWS_RELEA
SES&p_id=601
Seems as though OSHA expects splitters to be in place.
-
Ed
e...@snet.net
http://pages.cthome.net/edhome
Leon
don't want to do, One simply does not have to buy a TS at all if he or she
feels that they might be cornered in to buying something extra by a
marketing technique that they disapprove of. However in this particular
instance, I can assure you that the SawStop will save you and I both money
in the long run on medical expenses. There are many clinics and hospitals
that operate on tax dollars. If their expenses go down so do ours. This
particular instance is a no brainer....Not a question as to if it is an
infringement on out liberties to buy safer equipment or not.
If this type marketing irks you, you should be screaming at the top of you
lungs if you are a Texas resident or live in a state that has similar
automobile insurance laws. In Texas, Liability insurance is mandatory. No
license renewal and no registration renewal with out it. With that in mind,
the typical driver in Texas insures his own vehicle and its occupants, he
has to insure the other driver, his vehicle and his occupants, and if he
does choose to insure his own vehicle, he also has to pay for insurance for
uninsured motorists even though it is required by law that they carry
liability insurance.... So basically you pay for your own insurance,
insurance to cover the other guy that you hit, and insurance for the other
guy if he hits you.
There is no way of getting around the government running more of our lives
that we care for them to. But in this case, it is for every ones good.
Bucking the method to get this product to market is not helping any one.
Again, casting a vote against the method to market this particular product
does no one any good. In this case it appears to be simply status quo, we
are against them, short sighted thinking to automatically buck the product
because of its method of delivery to the public.
"Myxylplyk" <myxy...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b686nq$o5n$1...@slb9.atl.mindspring.net...
Mark & Juanita
removespa...@swbell.net says...
> There is no way of getting around the government running more of our lives
> that we care for them to. But in this case, it is for every ones good.
> Bucking the method to get this product to market is not helping any one.
> Again, casting a vote against the method to market this particular product
> does no one any good. In this case it appears to be simply status quo, we
> are against them, short sighted thinking to automatically buck the product
> because of its method of delivery to the public.
>
>
That rumbling sound in the background? The founding fathers and
others who fought for our freedom and liberty spinning in their graves.
Robert A. Gramza
Mike Jones
nos...@hadenough.com says...
Somehow, in the age of the USA Patriot Act and American citizens being
held in custody indefinitely without being charged and without access to
counsel, I don't think this is what they'd be worrying about.
--
Mike Jones
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired,
signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not
fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.
- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Leon
automatically blow them off because of the method of bringing them to
market. In the case of this product, most buyers of TS are first timers and
have not a clue of the dangers. Small children have not a clue about
immunizations but we get them for out kids anyway even though risk comes
with each treatment. Suppose the Saw Stop fails to work 1 time in 10.
That's 9 less trips to the emergency room. Any time you touch a spinning
blade....there is going to be a serious problem. Most every one cannot
imagine coming in contact with a spinning blade...but it happens again and
again. Common sense should prevail on all decisions and certainly does not
prevail if one always goes against something because the government might
get involve.
Andy Dingley
<removespa...@swbell.net> wrote:
>Suppose the Saw Stop fails to work 1 time in 10.
In today's (stupid) climate that's a class action suit from the people
who stuck their finger in the blade to demonstrate it.
Piece on the radio today (UK BBC Radio 4) about a small packaging (?)
business whose employer liability insurance had gone from £7K to >£50K
in about 4 years, all due to the recent arrival in the UK of no-win
no-fee ambulance-chasing, which we'd been mercifully spared until a
few years ago.
George
One advantage to digital dispatch on the ambulance is we can sometimes
arrive before the attorneys...
"Andy Dingley" <din...@codesmiths.com> wrote in message
news:1sch8vs9k81q2m931...@4ax.com...
Steve Eslinger
approach of getting legislation adopted to force the use of such a device,
I looked at the website. Although the web site says it is taking
pre-orders, there is a banner at the top stating "Saw Stop cabinet saws now
available".
Are they shipping these saws yet? Has anyone seen or used one of these?
Steve
"edfan" <ed...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:22ec5ec7.03032...@posting.google.com...
> Do you remember the SawStop - a device which sensed a change in the
> resistance of the material being cut and STOPPED the blade in
> milliseconds, the better to avoid injury? You recall the dramatic
> demo for SawStop? They ran a hot dog into the whirling blade, the
> SawStop device stopped the saw with barely a nick to the hot dog.
>SNIP
LRod
<removespa...@swbell.net> wrote:
>Small children have not a clue about immunizations but we get them
>for out kids anyway even though risk comes with each treatment.
The flaw in this analogy is that unlike the huge risk of pandemic
spread of disease without immunization, very few people cutting their
fingers off are going to cause other people to cut their fingers off.
LRod
Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite
Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999
Frank Mutchler
them yet.
My concern has to do with how well the saw maintains alignment given the
violent way
in which it drops the blade.
"Steve Eslinger" <sesl...@fakeadelphi.net> wrote in message
news:MM5ia.24410$TW2.4...@news1.news.adelphia.net...
Andy Dingley
<someon...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>They even advertise for business here.
Ours are worse. We have little tented camps of them, set up in the
middle of town. Anyone who walks past gets accosted by some
white-socked wanker with a clipboard. If you _hobble_ past, or you're
using a stick, then they come at you like a horde of wasps.
I hate these people. Second only to Italian land-mine makers, I
_despise_ their very existence. If I'm in the mood, I often start a
public haranguing of them, listing the several local youth projects
that are now abandoned, because of the influence of these vampires on
insurance cover. One glorious day, their boss man lost his rag and
almost punched me. Now _that_ would have been worth going to court
over.
Todd Stock
commercial airliners is now mandatory for all turbine aircraft. Funny
thing - the manufacturer waited until the FAA made the rule to file their
patent infringement suits against other manufacturers. Government is
essentially placed in the position of creating a market for one guy's
product.
edfan wrote:
> Do you remember the SawStop - a device which sensed a change in the
> resistance of the material being cut and STOPPED the blade in
> milliseconds, the better to avoid injury? You recall the dramatic
> demo for SawStop? They ran a hot dog into the whirling blade, the
> SawStop device stopped the saw with barely a nick to the hot dog.
> Think safety, think mangled fingers forever prevented, think Progress.
>
> Even at the time, people mentioned they thought the royalties demanded
> were so high and the potential liabilities so bankbreaking, there
> might be trouble getting any tool manufacturer to adopt the device.
> What would this lawyer do if they refused? I remember that people
> wondered if the attorney who owned the patent wouldn't try to FORCE
> companies to pay him by pushing for safety legislation setting
> standards which, of course, no other device could meet.
>
> Well, WATCH YOUR WALLETS - it's about to happen.
>
> I was interested in the device, signed up at the company web site for
> news. Today I got an email with an attached petition, "...we have
> decided to petition the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission to
> require saw manufacturers to include something like SawStop on table
> saws."
>
> First they couldn't make manufacturers pay billions to make a device
> that could explode their liabilities. When that failed, they set up a
> company making saws that included the device. I guess they're not
> making enough money from that, now they want to FORCE companies to pay
> them off.
>
> Get real, "something LIKE SawStop" means THEM, only THEM, not anybody
> LIKE them. They mean to make an end run around the free market. What
> they cannot persuade us to buy, they will SQUEEZE from us by
> legislative coercion.
>
> Can you IMAGINE what adding $150 "tax" would do to those who must buy
> saws at the bottom of the market? Would YOU like to pay $150 extra for
> your next saw, whtever level of the market you shop in? DO you think
> Uncle Sugar needs to be your nanny to the point where they know better
> than YOU do what dollar value you put on your safety?
>
> I urge you to talk to fellow woodworkers about this rising danger to
> our freedom of choice. I do not like Consumer Safety being used as a
> ski mask to hide a holdup.
>
> --
M. T. Hunt
>
> Unfortunately the manufacturers have only their bottom lines in mind....If
> every one puts the Saw Stop on their saws the price will naturally come
> down... Personally I think it is a great idea that should have already been
> required on TS's. Much safer than using the typical token guard that comes
> with the saws.., IMHO.
>
> I wish I had has one on my saw 14 years ago... I cut half my thumb off and
> the saw was turned off and I was not cutting wood. The saw stop would have
> prevented my injury.
I read somewhere that the killer for Sawstop was that the manufacturers
could be found liable if it was on the saw and failed. As it is, they
are not liable for table saw injuries.
Leon
"Frank Mutchler" <fmut...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:Go7ia.9131$FN.53...@news2.news.adelphia.net...
> I asked to be notified when they where in production....haven't heard from
> them yet.
> My concern has to do with how well the saw maintains alignment given the
> violent way
> in which it drops the blade.
I seriously doubt the saw alignment will be affected as the blade is the
object that is coming in contact with a stop. That said, the blade may not
be in as good of shape after being plowed into the stop. But... I could
care less about that $100 Forrest blade if it is damaged and I am not.
Leon
"M. T. Hunt" <mth...@SPAMrogers.com> wrote in message
news:3E89AF...@SPAMrogers.com...
>
> I read somewhere that the killer for Sawstop was that the manufacturers
> could be found liable if it was on the saw and failed. As it is, they
> are not liable for table saw injuries.
I see that as an obstacle also.... IMHO they should not be any more liable
than they are now.... The Saw Stop is a Great idea and as long as it causes
less injuries that it may cause because someone gets really stupid and
actually tries to defeat the system it would be on every saw...
The Saw Stop cannot guarantee that no one will be hurt but it certainly will
make the number bad injuries come down drastically.
edfan
the entire bottom of the table saw category. NO table saw will be able
to get out the door for less than $300, probably more. After a few
years of that, what happens to the future of hobbyist woodworking?
The core problem is the imposition of force, not the device itself,
which (IMHO) presents such a great new target for lawsuits, it likely
gives a whole new class of lawyers major woody....
The owner of this patent simply wants to do an end run around the
market because he has FAILED to get money voluntarily from people. I
consider this whole thing an armed robbery in progress.
IMHO, it's as simple as that: greed overcoming the previous assumption
that adults could/should/did have a right to choose their own levels
of risk.
If people WANTED to pay $2,000+ for a saw with this feature, they were
free to do exactly that, from the inventor of the device. So tell me
why he's not overrun with orders and doing three shifts a day at his
dazzling new factory?
I also do NOT think Ayn Rand would ever approve of the use of
government force like this. In fact, I'd say she'd stand firmly on the
side of free choice.
Andy Dingley <din...@codesmiths.com> wrote in message news:<2e6f8vg0lu6ohkj0e...@4ax.com>...
Leon
> In this case, IMHO, one of the prime victims of simple greed will be
> the entire bottom of the table saw category. NO table saw will be able
> to get out the door for less than $300, probably more. After a few
> years of that, what happens to the future of hobbyist woodworking?
>
And a TS for less than $300 probably should not go out the door. A skill
saw would probably offer more accurate cuts.
> The core problem is the imposition of force, not the device itself,
> which (IMHO) presents such a great new target for lawsuits, it likely
> gives a whole new class of lawyers major woody....
Have you seen any "Guaratee" that the Saw Stop will prevent all injuries? I
believe it is being marketed as an added safety device. Not a Guarantee of
your safety device.
> The owner of this patent simply wants to do an end run around the
> market because he has FAILED to get money voluntarily from people. I
> consider this whole thing an armed robbery in progress.
You don't have to buy any saw with this device.
> IMHO, it's as simple as that: greed overcoming the previous assumption
> that adults could/should/did have a right to choose their own levels
> of risk.
You are absolutely entitled to your openion.
> If people WANTED to pay $2,000+ for a saw with this feature, they were
> free to do exactly that, from the inventor of the device. So tell me
> why he's not overrun with orders and doing three shifts a day at his
> dazzling new factory?
Many people pay $2000 + for a saw with out this feature..
Not over run with orders because the saw is beginning at the top end user
market. Most people that already have a cabnet saw may never be in the
market for one again. Many low end users simply cannot afford a cabinet saw
of any design. Also because he is the only one marketing his device. If
Delta, Jet, or Grizzly bought the rights to offer their saws with this
device, you would see a flood of these saws hitting the market... Remember
the air bags on cars.. Oldsmobile offered the air bag in the 60's and then
many years later the other car lines decided that this was a good deal. Now
try to find a new car with out a couple... Change takes time.
Todd Stock
hand tools. Worst so far was 2" puncture with very sharp Blue Chip; next worst was a recent sliver from
sanding a fir door stop - trip to ER and some cutting to extract it.
Wonder what guard we can come up with for chisels and sandpaper?
David Hall
> True to a point. MS never forced the product on us, nor was it openly
> welcomed in the market as the way to go.
> If you knew MS's history you would find it was shrewed marketing and
> negotiations that gave MS the hold on the market they have.
> IBM wanted to mass produce a personal computer. They aproached MS for an
> operating system, They sold IBM a OS that they did not even own at the time,
> along with the option to sell the MS DOS to any one that came along.
They were able to do this because IBM considered the PC to be a toy
that they were only going to make because certain executives in
companies that were buying "real" computers from IBM wanted an IBM on
their desks, not an Osborne or a Tandy. IBM did not think it a
valuable enough market to invest their engineers time into developing
an operating system or even the machine which they built mostly from
third party parts. They thought that Bill was a moron for not selling
them the OS but just licensing it on a per mavine basis. They really
pulled one over on that geek kid didn't they. I cannot cry when a big
company like IBM gets taken by the kid that they thought they were
screwing.
Dave Hall
> (Many do not know that MS did not even own MS DOS when negotiations started,
> it was owned by a small company called Seatle Computers, IIRC. The operating
> system had a differant name also, later changed to MS DOS)
> Others decided to manufacture personal computers also and wanted to be like
> IBM so along came Bill Gates and sold them MS DOS also. And on the story
> goes!
> Yes, we were never forced to buy MS DOS, then later Windows. It was dumped
> on us by a very youg and clever Bill Gates. As for being supect, I don't
> agree, just smart negotiations on Bills part! Free enterprise at its best!
> Greg
Greg O
"David Hall" <ha...@nhsd.k12.pa.us> wrote in message
news:8ab6b80b.03040...@posting.google.com...
> SNIP
> > True to a point. MS never forced the product on us, nor was it openly
> > welcomed in the market as the way to go.
> > If you knew MS's history you would find it was shrewed marketing and
> > negotiations that gave MS the hold on the market they have.
> > IBM wanted to mass produce a personal computer. They aproached MS for an
> > operating system, They sold IBM a OS that they did not even own at the
time,
> > along with the option to sell the MS DOS to any one that came along.
>
> They were able to do this because IBM considered the PC to be a toy
> that they were only going to make because certain executives in
> companies that were buying "real" computers from IBM wanted an IBM on
> their desks, not an Osborne or a Tandy. IBM did not think it a
> valuable enough market to invest their engineers time into developing
> an operating system or even the machine which they built mostly from
> third party parts. They thought that Bill was a moron for not selling
> them the OS but just licensing it on a per mavine basis. They really
> pulled one over on that geek kid didn't they. I cannot cry when a big
> company like IBM gets taken by the kid that they thought they were
> screwing.
>
> Dave Hall
IBM was so short sighted that they could not for see building even a few
thousand computers at the time. IIRC the total figure they came up with was
250,000 units, ever! No more than that. IBM did not for see the home PC
market taking off. IBM suggested to Bill that $1,000,000 was not out of line
for the OS. Bill figured that a better figure was $250,000, (IIRC), plus $5
for every PC IBM built whether MS DOS was on it or not, plus the right to
license the OS to other vendors.
In my opinion Bill Gates is a better salesman that computer geek!
(How would you like $5 for every PC built??!)
Greg
Myxylplyk
>
<snip>
> You don't have to buy any saw with this device.
>
The issue it just that you will *NOT* be able to buy a saw without this
device if Sawstop is successful in their petition.
While I find it highly unlikely that this petition wile be successful, the
method Sawstop is using to gain profitibility is repugnant.
They have obviously chosen the quick path. They know the proper method
because they "seem" to have initiated that too. Producing the saw w/device
and collecting a growing demand for the statisticly proven increase in
safety, is the correct method. Yes, it will be a slower road to adoption.
If they can indeed collect such statistics, they will provide a real level
of proof supporting their claims.
Right now it is an interesting, unproven, device.
Myx
Leon
> >
> The issue it just that you will *NOT* be able to buy a saw without this
> device if Sawstop is successful in their petition.
I doubt that used saws will have to be modefied...
> While I find it highly unlikely that this petition wile be successful, the
> method Sawstop is using to gain profitibility is repugnant.
Perhaps so that the method is not the most ethical but this is really a good
idea and we all could be having something else shoved down our throats...
Like having to be licensed to purchase or operate a TS or Special insurance
to cover accidents. And don't think that could not happen... Who would
have thought that home owners insurance would only cover certain accidents
that happen to your house....I was informed a few days ago that it is rare
anymore to find a home owners policy that covers a tree falling on you
house.
CbandNet
petition, email me.
llwill...@despammed.com
delete the word remove from my address.
************************************************************
Thanks for your interest in SawStop. We are sending you this email to ask
for your help to make woodworking safer.
When we first introduced the SawStop technology at the IWF trade show in
Atlanta in August, 2000, we had no idea what we were starting. We
demonstrated the technology by pushing a hot dog into a spinning saw blade
as if the hot dog was a misplaced finger, and each time the hot dog received
barely a scratch. People were amazed and they immediately recognized the
importance of the new technology.
We thought saw manufacturers also would welcome the technology, but we were
wrong. The president of one manufacturer pulled us aside at the show, and
asked, "Why did you come here?" He said, "You could bankrupt many
businesses." He then told us, "You have to decide whose side you are on,
industry or not."
It turned out that he was right about having to chose sides. We spent the
next 2 1/2 years demonstrating our technology to almost every major saw
manufacturer in the world, encouraging them to include it on their saws.
However, the manufacturers seem to have been looking for excuses not to
adopt the technology, they were not looking for ways to implement it. We
were in the board room of one major saw manufacturer, and the president of
that company told us that it could be in his company's interest to delay
introduction of SawStop as long as possible. An attorney for yet another
major saw manufacturer said if a couple of years go by without anyone
implementing the technology, then manufacturers may never have to adopt it.
A vice-president for still another saw manufacturer told us his company
wasn't interested in SawStop because "Safety doesn't sell."
Well, we do not accept this approach. Every year there are over 30,000
serious injuries involving table saws. That's one injury every eighteen
minutes. Many of these injuries are amputations. All of them are serious;
they change people's lives. And now that there is technology that can
significantly lessen the severity of these injuries, we should adopt it. It
is the right thing to do. So yes, we are choosing sides, but we are choosing
the side of making safer saws.
That is why we have decided to petition the U.S. Consumer Product Safety
Commission to require saw manufacturers to include something like SawStop on
table saws. We are sending this email to you to see if you are interested in
joining the petition. A copy of the petition is attached to this email.
(However, we want to warn you that the petition includes photographs of
actual saw injuries that are quite graphic and may be disturbing.)
If you would like to help make table saws safer and reduce the severity of
table saw injuries, then please print the last page of the attached
petition, fill in the requested information, sign it, and fax the completed
page to us at (503) 638-8601 or send it to us at 22409 S.W. Newland Road,
Wilsonville, Oregon 97070.
The petition will be filed soon, so if you are interested, please respond
quickly.
Renee Knight, Operations Manager
SawStop, LLC
22409 SW Newland Road 503-638-6201
Wilsonville, OR 97070 503-638-8601 fax
re...@sawstop.com www.sawstop.com
"Steve Eslinger" <sesl...@fakeadelphi.net> wrote in message
news:MM5ia.24410$TW2.4...@news1.news.adelphia.net...
Randall Thomas
MS-Dos on every machine they built, if they wanted to install it on any of their
machines.
Greg O wrote:
> "todd" <fathe...@NOattbiSPAM.com> wrote in message
> news:Gktha.282935$6b3.1...@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net...
> >
> >
> > Except even MS never tried to get the government to force people to buy
> > Windows. MS is in the position they're in largely because they made a
> > product that the market liked. Now, you can say their attempts to hold
> onto
> > this market might be suspect, but they didn't have to get legislation to
> > have a market in the first place.
> >
>
> True to a point. MS never forced the product on us, nor was it openly
> welcomed in the market as the way to go.
> If you knew MS's history you would find it was shrewed marketing and
> negotiations that gave MS the hold on the market they have.
> IBM wanted to mass produce a personal computer. They aproached MS for an
> operating system, They sold IBM a OS that they did not even own at the time,
> along with the option to sell the MS DOS to any one that came along.
Elmar
incapable of accepting responsibility for their actions!!
I wonder how many table saw "Accident" were really PREVENTABLE? How
many times did someone NOT take the proper precaution?
Just another example of how people who cannot accept responsibility
what government to do that for them!! This is INSANE!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Chris
> Unfortunately the manufacturers have only their bottom lines in mind....If
> every one puts the Saw Stop on their saws the price will naturally come
> down... Personally I think it is a great idea that should have already been
> required on TS's. Much safer than using the typical token guard that comes
> with the saws.., IMHO.
>
I agree. In fact it's such a good idea that the Consumer Product
Safety Commision shouldn't stop there. They should nullify the patent
to reduce the cost to the end user, for the greater good of everyone.
After all, if you can justify forcing consumers to pay for something
they don't want, why can't you force a company to relinquish their
patent. They could compensate the company a "fair" amount. It's
called eminent domain, isn't it?
-Chris
Bill
> Information is good. Choice is good. Mandates are not good. So in
> lieu of a $150 mandatory safety device, I would support a law
> requiring a $.05 piece of paper included with each new table saw that
> would "fully inform" the consumer of these hazards.
>
> <snip>
You can see the petition in all its glory on the sawstop website
http://www.sawstop.com/. They state that, according to the CPSC, over
30,000 injuries occurred in 2001 while using a bench/table saw. 10%
invloved amputations and that the cost of treating a serious injury
could be from $5K to $10K. This would result in $150M-$300M to treat
injuries and since the market for table saws is only $200M, treating
injuries could cost more than the market itself.
Well I went to the CPSC website and did some research of my own. Go
here: http://www.cpsc.gov/library/neiss.html and click on the button
at the bottom to do some queries. What they failed to mention was that
nearly 90% of these injuries were treated and released or no treatment
was necessary. So in actuality their injury cost estimate is off by a
factor of 10. It should be more like $15M-$30M to treat serious
injuries.
Now let me use your $150 estimate (sounds about right if you include
the brake cartridge for a dado blade, etc.) to run some numbers. If
the table saw market is $200M and the average cost of a benchtop/table
saw is $1000, that means there are approx. 200K saws sold annually.
Multiply that number by the extra cost per saw ($150) and you get
$30M. Gee, that's the same amount that it would cost to treat the
injuries. So the manufacturer doesn't save any money. The consumer
loses money because he's now paying the extra cost for the safety
device. Gosh, the only one who benefits is the owner of the patent for
the device.
Now I'm not saying the device isn't a great invention. I was amazed
when I watched the videos on the website. In the future if I'm in the
market for a new TS, I will seriously consider one with the device. I
just hate what they're doing. They tried showing manufacturers the
device, they decided they didn't want it. They tried to get us
consumers to tell manufacturers that we wanted the device. That didn't
work. So the next step is to bring in the lawyers. Despicable! How
would any of us feel if the CPSC decided dado blades were unsafe and
they should be taken off the market? Sorry UK.
Todd Stock
Understand you spent the money for a modified saw, right?
Todd
Leon
"Todd Stock" <tst...@mitre.org> wrote in message
news:3E8B057B...@mitre.org...
nl
I bet you'd be the first person to stand up and scream bloody murder,
and hire a lawyer, if you got got hurt by something that could have
had better safety precautions built in.
Elm...@yahoo.com (Elmar) wrote in message news:<c102ea0a.03040...@posting.google.com>...
Lazarus Long
>Do you remember the SawStop - a device which sensed a change in the
>resistance of the material being cut and STOPPED the blade in
>milliseconds, the better to avoid injury?
>I remember that people wondered if the attorney who owned the patent
>wouldn't try to FORCE companies to pay him by pushing for safety legislation
>
>Well, WATCH YOUR WALLETS - it's about to happen.
>
>Would YOU like to pay $150 extra for your next saw? DO you think
>Uncle Sugar needs to be your nanny where they know better
>than YOU do what dollar value you put on your safety?
>
Woodcraft will be getting my order for a Unisaw soon. The
procrastination on my part is nearing the end.
As others said - information good. choice good. shoving this down my
throut bad.
brendan
I agree it is insane for people to not accept resposibility for
running their hands through a saw. and that is why the technology
won't be introduced can you imagine the liability that the saw
manufacturer opens them selves up to when they advertise a system that
won't lop your fingers off. Not only are they saying that we haven't
been doing every thing we could to protect the public, but now if the
system they have to adopt fails somehow and lops your hand off anyway.
You left the override on or your hand was insulated because it was on
top of the wood or something weird. Now joe sixpack sues the company
for the safety system failing. By adopting the technology the saw
company has a harder time saying that spinning blades are dangerous
don't stick your hands in them.
That said I would go out and buy this sytem on a new say in a
heartbeat because the 300 dollars extra it would add to a saw gives
you that much further protection. I've had some table saw moments,
Board flying blade spining or binding and you checking your shorts
then taking a seat and wondering what you just did. I will guess that
over the course of our ww lives that we all have had such moments. My
digits have never been in the blade though but I wouldn't want there
to be a first time. Even being careful accidents do happen.
So if there are any manufacturers listening I think that safety does
sell. Especialy when it is at this level. This doesn't look like a
poorly designed guard that gets removed and never reinstalled it
doesn't look like a splitter that doesn't work with different sized
kerfs It looks like this technology is fairly passive and it works
well. I would think that manufacturers could test the water by making
it an option on their higher end models to see if people buy it. I
know that I would consider it. I'd hope I'd forget it was there and
never use it.
It'd be hard to get rid of the '56 Delta though
WebsterSteve
> I wish I had has one on my saw 14 years ago... I cut half my thumb off and
> the saw was turned off and I was not cutting wood. The saw stop would have
> prevented my injury.
So could being careful.
You would give the SawStop 1-1/2 thumbs up?
Robert A. Gramza
"WebsterSteve" <webste...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c61e3244.03040...@posting.google.com...
I'm still trying to figure how you cut half a thumb off with the saw off and
not cutting wood.
Leon
Even that can cut you.
"WebsterSteve" <webste...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c61e3244.03040...@posting.google.com...
edfan
Uh huh. The same way OS prices went down when Microsoft achieved 98%
market share?
"Leon" <removespa...@swbell.net> wrote in message news:<66Fha.10252$5%6.2614...@newssvr10.news.prodigy.com>...
> Unfortunately the manufacturers have only their bottom lines in mind....If
> every one puts the Saw Stop on their saws the price will naturally come
> down... Personally I think it is a great idea that should have already been
> required on TS's. Much safer than using the typical token guard that comes
> with the saws.., IMHO.
>
edfan
> the saw was turned off and I was not cutting wood. The saw stop would have
> prevented my injury.
By the way, I'd sure like to know how a device that works with
electronics works with the power off. That would be a fascinating
story.
Leon
remove the rip fence and my left thumb dragged over the blade as it was
coming to a stop. Not really a situation that one would guard against.
Simple mistake. I now watch the blade come to a stop...
"Robert A. Gramza" <b...@midwest.net> wrote in message
news:SUEia.1390$kd1.1...@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com...
Leon
"Elmar" <Elm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c102ea0a.03040...@posting.google.com...
> Nothing like having to creat more legislation for people who are
> incapable of accepting responsibility for their actions!!
You dont get it .. do you?
More legislation for people like you... You balk the device for the sake
of keeping the government out of the picture. Too irresponsable to realize
that this device can help keep your body parts in tact...
> I wonder how many table saw "Accident" were really PREVENTABLE?
Every one of them... Stay away from the saw..
>How many times did someone NOT take the proper precaution?
Who cares haw many times the proper procedure was not taken... I assure you
that many accidents happen with the proper precautions taken. Regaudless of
proper precaution or not the device will save trips to the emergency room...
> Just another example of how people who cannot accept responsibility
> what government to do that for them!! This is INSANE!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Now that is an ignorant comment... If the tool companies would simply put
the device on the saws to start with the customers would not have to get the
government involved.
Leon
Stop to work...not necessarily does the saw have to be on.
"edfan" <ed...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:22ec5ec7.03040...@posting.google.com...
Leon
> Uh huh. The same way OS prices went down when Microsoft achieved 98%
> market share?
Huh????
Microsoft is not the only OS out there and some of them are free.... Hummm
Linux comes to mind..
Now with that bit of information to chew on....consider the same possibility
of another company offering an alternative to the Saw Stop....Imagine......
You should do a bit of reading up...you might change your views..
edfan
> And a TS for less than $300 probably should not go out the door. A skill
> saw would probably offer more accurate cuts.
Aha, now we get to YOUR motives and drives. YOU think YOU have a right
to dictate to someone else what they should pay for a saw. YOUR
judgment is superior to theirs. You know better than they do what they
should do with their money and their project.
> > The core problem is the imposition of force, not the device itself,
> > which (IMHO) presents such a great new target for lawsuits, it likely
> > gives a whole new class of lawyers major woody....
> Have you seen any "Guaratee" that the Saw Stop will prevent all injuries? I
> believe it is being marketed as an added safety device. Not a Guarantee of
> your safety device.
In exchange for the DESTRUCTION of a free market, they'd better
promise something besides wealth for themselves in a Congress-driven
ripoff.
> > The owner of this patent simply wants to do an end run around the
> > market because he has FAILED to get money voluntarily from people. I
> > consider this whole thing an armed robbery in progress.
> You don't have to buy any saw with this device.
This is the single dumbest thing said by anyone in this entire thread.
Look up the word MANDATED.
> > IMHO, it's as simple as that: greed overcoming the previous assumption
> > that adults could/should/did have a right to choose their own levels
> > of risk.
> You are absolutely entitled to your openion.
Alas, YOU think it's okay for me to have an opinion but not a CHOICE.
Guess what, they're linked. A "right" to have an opinion but no choice
is fascism. "Say anything you want, you WILL pay me for what I decided
you will buy." Fascism is always sneaking into the tent For Your Own
Good. Thanks, Nanny, but no thanks.
> > If people WANTED to pay $2,000+ for a saw with this feature, they were
> > free to do exactly that, from the inventor of the device. So tell me
> > why he's not overrun with orders and doing three shifts a day at his
> > dazzling new factory?
> Many people pay $2000 + for a saw with out this feature..
And apparently, they'd like to continue doing so.
> Not over run with orders because the saw is beginning at the top end user
> market. Most people that already have a cabnet saw may never be in the
> market for one again. Many low end users simply cannot afford a cabinet saw
> of any design. Also because he is the only one marketing his device. If
> Delta, Jet, or Grizzly bought the rights to offer their saws with this
> device, you would see a flood of these saws hitting the market... Remember
> the air bags on cars.. Oldsmobile offered the air bag in the 60's and then
> many years later the other car lines decided that this was a good deal. Now
> try to find a new car with out a couple... Change takes time.
But this patent holder isn't interested in taking time, he wants that
money NOW. He is not interested in persuasion, he tried that and
failed. He is not interested in the free market, he tried that and
failed. He wants taxpayers to bail out his failure.
IMHO, the main reason this guy won't make headway any time soon is
that his royalties are too high and the risks are too great AND it
interferes with the already existing designs AND his $2,200 saw
doesn't cut any better than the $500 one it uses as a base. He cannot
design a good table saw, he must ride on someone else's design. When
he had to make one himself, he discovered how HARD the business was.
Thus was born the grand idea: let's FORCE people to do this since they
won't do it voluntarily, the dummies. The exasperating, stubborn,
individualistic ASSHOLES.
Tim Douglass
>Now let me use your $150 estimate (sounds about right if you include
>the brake cartridge for a dado blade, etc.) to run some numbers. If
>the table saw market is $200M and the average cost of a benchtop/table
>saw is $1000, that means there are approx. 200K saws sold annually.
>Multiply that number by the extra cost per saw ($150) and you get
>$30M. Gee, that's the same amount that it would cost to treat the
>injuries. So the manufacturer doesn't save any money. The consumer
>loses money because he's now paying the extra cost for the safety
>device. Gosh, the only one who benefits is the owner of the patent for
>the device.
Average cost per saw is probably closer to $400-$500 because there are
a *lot* more bottom-end machines sold than there are top-of-the-line
models.
I like the *idea* of the SawStop, but I think they're going about
marketing it wrong. What they need to do is take out a heavy insurance
policy and sell each SawStop add-on with a policy that will pay for
any injuries incurred by the saw blade *and* pay for the replacement
cartridge and blade. While the initial cost is a big hurdle to
overcome, the cost of a new cartridge and blade, and the need to
replace them is another big issue. Especially if you are trying to get
a project finished and the thing triggers - suddenly you not only have
to shell out another chunk of money, but you also have to stop work
for some number of hours/day until you can replace cartridge and
blade.
Personally, I'm not interested in paying that much for a safety device
of that type. I'll spend it on a good overarm blade guard instead.
I've been using table saws for 30 years or so, don't even recall
*seeing* one with a guard for the first 10 or so of those. I also know
a number of other people who have used them for many years. In all
those years of usage there has only been one accident - when my Uncle
notched his finger pointing at the blade to tell me to keep my hands
clear. The cost/benefit ratio just doesn't work for me. YMMV
Tim Douglass
Dave Mundt
On 2 Apr 2003 03:56:50 -0800, Elm...@yahoo.com (Elmar) wrote:
>Nothing like having to creat more legislation for people who are
>incapable of accepting responsibility for their actions!!
>
It is pretty annoying, frankly.
>I wonder how many table saw "Accident" were really PREVENTABLE? How
>many times did someone NOT take the proper precaution?
>
Well, probably a goodly chunk of them were caused by folks
that were tired and pushing it too far, or, trying to make a cut that
they KNEW was dangerous (freehanding a cross-cut on the tablesaw, for
example), or, making a cut without using push sticks.
Some were, I am sure, just bad luck - tripping and falling
into the moving blade, for example.
However, I don't know that the records showing the sequence
of events for every tablesaw accident are easily available.
Now, for myself, looking back, I have to say that in almost
every case where I have been bitten by the saw, it was because of
stupidity on my part. The only accident that I cannot truely say was
"my fault" was a fairly impressive circular gouge across a plywood
panel that was supposed to be part of a toolbox. I hav NO idea
why the saw grabbed the panel, as it was on a panel cutting jig and I
had done a number of cuts before without trouble. I did not get hurt
then, but, it was mainly because my instinct now is to yank my hands
away and jump back...not to try and stop the events.
I have not had MANY problems with the tablesaws over the
years, because I do respect the power there, and, usually, stop to
think about how to make the cut safely. Actually the worst CUT
I have gotten off the saw was a slice in a finger from the blade
as I was putting it on the arbor. The other two or three have been
some pretty impressive bruises from kickbacks.
>Just another example of how people who cannot accept responsibility
>what government to do that for them!! This is INSANE!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It is not so insane as it is a natural human reaction,
combined with several generations being taught that not only
is it NOT their responsibility, but, that it is always someone else's
responsibilty and that they should be compensated for it. We are
reaping the whirlwind we started sowing in the 60s with the radical
changes to society rooted in the Hippie movement. It is not just
the fault of the government, lawyers and media, though, but, of
the millions of parents who have not taught their kids personal
responsibility. As Pogo said "we have met the enemy, and he is us".
Regards
Dave Mundt
Douglas Miller
>
>"Elmar" <Elm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:c102ea0a.03040...@posting.google.com...
>> Nothing like having to creat more legislation for people who are
>> incapable of accepting responsibility for their actions!!
>
>You dont get it .. do you?
He "gets its" all right. Methinks it's *you* who doesn't "get" the concept of
a free market.
>More legislation for people like you... You balk the device for the sake
>of keeping the government out of the picture. Too irresponsable to realize
>that this device can help keep your body parts in tact...
Proper care in the use of your tools also keeps your body parts intact. I
bought my first table saw in about 1979 or 1980. And I still have all my
parts intact.
>
>> I wonder how many table saw "Accident" were really PREVENTABLE?
>
>Every one of them... Stay away from the saw..
Or use it carefully. You're drawing an utterly false dichotomy here, in which
the only options are (a) install an extremely expensive safety device that, so
far, has not proven to be in very much demand, or (b) don't use the saw. You
ignore the third option: use the saw, and pay attention to what the hell
you're doing.
>
>>How many times did someone NOT take the proper precaution?
>
>Who cares haw many times the proper procedure was not taken... I assure you
>that many accidents happen with the proper precautions taken. Regaudless of
>proper precaution or not the device will save trips to the emergency room...
>
I submit that this claim is categorically false. And *obviously* so, at that.
"Proper precautions" by definition constitutes that level of care and
attention necessary to use the tool safely and without injury. If an injury or
accident occurred, then ipso facto proper precautions were NOT taken.
>> Just another example of how people who cannot accept responsibility
>> what government to do that for them!! This is INSANE!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>Now that is an ignorant comment... If the tool companies would simply put
>the device on the saws to start with the customers would not have to get the
>government involved.
Speaking of ignorant comments... The majority of customers *don't*want* the
device, at its current price. The manufacturer, having failed in the market,
now wants its product to be marketed by force: if they (and you, apparently)
have their way, no one will be able to buy a new table saw in the United
States without paying *a*lot* extra for their product -- even if they don't
want it.
That's not the way a free market works, and that's not the way the law is
supposed to work in the U.S. (It sometimes does anyway, but that's a subject
for another discussion, probably in another NG.)
Would I pay fifty bucks more for a saw equipped with the SawStop? Probably.
Would I pay five hundred? No way. Absolutely not.
Why not? It's obviously cheaper than a trip to the emergency room, surgery,
physical therapy, etc., not to mention the pain, and the inconvenience of
living without all of my fingers.
But the cost of emergency treatment is only a possible expense, maybe even an
unlikely one, and the cost of the SawStop is a *certain* expense. With the
SawStop adding about $500 to the cost of a table saw (comparing the price of
their saw to a Unisaw or Jet cabinet saw), it doesn't even remotely begin to
make economic sense to buy one, to avoid such an unlikely event.
And it is *not* the proper function of goverment, under the Constitution of
the United States, to become a party to forcing consumers to buy a product
that they have thus far demonstrated that they do not want.
Read Mark Twain's book "Life on the Mississippi" for an instructive example of
how it works, when the government allows the free market to do its job. In a
nutshell: the Mississippi riverboat pilots formed a trade association, in
which they shared information about the constantly changing river conditions.
It didn't take very long for the insurance companies to notice that
association pilots had far fewer accidents than non-association pilots -- and
the insurers refused to underwrite any voyage unless the pilot of the boat was
an association member. Safety increased tremendously. No government
intervention was required, and shippers were still free to hire
non-association pilots if they wished -- as long as they were willing to bear
the financial risk of being self-insured.
*That* is how a free market is supposed to work. *Not* by government coercion,
which is the antithesis of freedom.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Save the baby humans - stop partial-birth abortion NOW
Leon
"edfan" <ed...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > And a TS for less than $300 probably should not go out the door. A
skill
> > saw would probably offer more accurate cuts.
>
> Aha, now we get to YOUR motives and drives. YOU think YOU have a right
> to dictate to someone else what they should pay for a saw. YOUR
> judgment is superior to theirs. You know better than they do what they
> should do with their money and their project.
Why do I feel like I am talking to a wall?
I said, a TS for less than $300 probably should not go out the door. Not
one thing did say about whether some on has the right to buy one or not.
And, if some one is trying to decide on buying a NEW TS for lwss than $300,
my judgement probably would be better than theirs concerning the purchase of
a TS and its ability to out perform a skill saw... I have been all through
the ranks.
> > > The core problem is the imposition of force, not the device itself,
> > > which (IMHO) presents such a great new target for lawsuits, it likely
> > > gives a whole new class of lawyers major woody....
>
>
> > Have you seen any "Guaratee" that the Saw Stop will prevent all
injuries? I
> > believe it is being marketed as an added safety device. Not a Guarantee
of
> > your safety device.
>
> In exchange for the DESTRUCTION of a free market, they'd better
> promise something besides wealth for themselves in a Congress-driven
> ripoff.
Destruction of a free market... ;~) this is absolutely nothing new...has
been going on for much longer that you or I have been around... Down right
American.. What did the seller of your TS "promice" you? I guess it just
irks you to no end to have to buy insurance, pay taxes, or buy new
cars...with all that government mandated stuff and all.... LOL
> > > The owner of this patent simply wants to do an end run around the
> > > market because he has FAILED to get money voluntarily from people. I
> > > consider this whole thing an armed robbery in progress.
>
>
> > You don't have to buy any saw with this device.
>
> This is the single dumbest thing said by anyone in this entire thread.
> Look up the word MANDATED.
You dont have to buy any saw with this device.......You can buy a used saw,
you can buy a skill saw,,, you dont have to buy any saw at all......If you
don't want to pay for a saw with theis device..... don"t buy a saw at
all....
> > > IMHO, it's as simple as that: greed overcoming the previous assumption
> > > that adults could/should/did have a right to choose their own levels
> > > of risk.
>
> > You are absolutely entitled to your openion.
>
> Alas, YOU think it's okay for me to have an opinion but not a CHOICE.
You said that NOT ME...
> Guess what, they're linked. A "right" to have an opinion but no choice
> is fascism. "Say anything you want, you WILL pay me for what I decided
> you will buy." Fascism is always sneaking into the tent For Your Own
> Good. Thanks, Nanny, but no thanks.
If you were not so parinoid you might realise that you do not have to buy a
new saw....
Leon
"Douglas Miller" <ab...@ameritech.net> wrote in message news:JyHia.1450>
> Proper care in the use of your tools also keeps your body parts intact. I
> bought my first table saw in about 1979 or 1980. And I still have all my
> parts intact.
Doug, If you absolutely always keep your equipment in prestine working order
and absolutely take every precaution to prevent an accident, why would you
make the statement that you would consider getting a Saw with the device if
it only cost $50... Seems like a waste if you are never going to have an
accident..using proper procedure and all, absolutely all the time....
Accidents do happen to a majority of the population.. The Saw Stop would
prevent a lot of bad accidents... Not all, because even the Saw Stop is not
perfect.
Of all the accidents that do happen each year how many of the people that
have been injured do you think would have liked to have had the device on
their saw....Maybe 25,000 out of the 30,000 each year?
I see the point that none of us want the government poking its nose in our
lives any more than necessary but this would not be a bad thing in this
particular instance....I don't care who gets rich or how, if the result
saves my hand or finger.
Lazarus Long
collision, and the lawyers and doctors are now calling to my house to
solicit my business. I have declined all inquirys.
On Mon, 31 Mar 2003 22:44:17 GMT, "George"
<someon...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>They even advertise for business here.
>
>One advantage to digital dispatch on the ambulance is we can sometimes
>arrive before the attorneys...
>
>"Andy Dingley" <din...@codesmiths.com> wrote in message
>news:1sch8vs9k81q2m931...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 31 Mar 2003 17:46:00 GMT, "Leon"
>> <removespa...@swbell.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Suppose the Saw Stop fails to work 1 time in 10.
>>
>> In today's (stupid) climate that's a class action suit from the people
>> who stuck their finger in the blade to demonstrate it.
>>
>> Piece on the radio today (UK BBC Radio 4) about a small packaging (?)
>> business whose employer liability insurance had gone from £7K to >£50K
>> in about 4 years, all due to the recent arrival in the UK of no-win
>> no-fee ambulance-chasing, which we'd been mercifully spared until a
>> few years ago.
>>
>
Myxylplyk
<snip>
> I see the point that none of us want the government poking its nose in our
> lives any more than necessary but this would not be a bad thing in this
> particular instance....I don't care who gets rich or how, if the result
> saves my hand or finger.
>
Since you have the choice and the obvious desire, why wern't you one of the
original buyers of the new Sawstop saw? They have already placed the order
for this year and if you didn't preorder you can't get one now. Don't
worry, they are planning on another batch in early 2004. Plan ahead.
Myx
Leon
were in the market...
"Myxylplyk" <myxy...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b6fnug$4qt$1...@slb5.atl.mindspring.net...
Edwin Pawlowski
"CbandNet" <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> Here is an email I got from them 2 days ago. If you want the attaced
> petition, email me.
> Well, we do not accept this approach. Every year there are over 30,000
> serious injuries involving table saws. That's one injury every eighteen
> minutes. Many of these injuries are amputations. All of them are serious;
> they change people's lives.
30,000???? I never would have guessed that high.
Considering the number of accidents, we should be pushing the manufacturers
for a safer saw since the technology is available. If nothing else comes out
of this, I'm going to be a little more wary of the blade, a little more
careful of the setups.
Looking back at the threads regarding dropping of shop in schools, this is a
solution for them. If the 30k number is correct, that is scary.
Ed
e...@snet.net
http://pages.cthome.net/edhome
Leon
"Edwin Pawlowski" <e...@snet.net> wrote in message
> > Well, we do not accept this approach. Every year there are over 30,000
> > serious injuries involving table saws. That's one injury every eighteen
> > minutes. Many of these injuries are amputations. All of them are
serious;
> > they change people's lives.
>
> 30,000???? I never would have guessed that high.
I was surprised myself when I heard those figures a few years ago... Then
again, the ER staff told me that it was a very common resaon for a
woodworker to be in the ER..13 years ago..
> Considering the number of accidents, we should be pushing the
manufacturers
> for a safer saw since the technology is available. If nothing else comes
out
> of this, I'm going to be a little more wary of the blade, a little more
> careful of the setups.
Good Idea....oddly, the blade does not pull you in but rather it cuts until
you stop pushing...and your hand and or fingers offer less resistance than
pine.... More like styrofoam.
PC
product for the large installed base of table saws? That would seem to
me to be a much larger market opportunity for them than selling a new
(and unproven) saw.
I'd probably buy one, but am not likely to get rid of my saw to add this
feature.
Phil
Steve Eslinger wrote:
> With all the discussion on the merits of the saw stop and the company's
> approach of getting legislation adopted to force the use of such a device,
> I looked at the website. Although the web site says it is taking
> pre-orders, there is a banner at the top stating "Saw Stop cabinet saws now
> available".
>
> Are they shipping these saws yet? Has anyone seen or used one of these?
>
> Steve
>
> "edfan" <ed...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:22ec5ec7.03032...@posting.google.com...
>
>>Do you remember the SawStop - a device which sensed a change in the
>>resistance of the material being cut and STOPPED the blade in
>>milliseconds, the better to avoid injury? You recall the dramatic
>>demo for SawStop? They ran a hot dog into the whirling blade, the
>>SawStop device stopped the saw with barely a nick to the hot dog.
>>SNIP
>
>
>
Bill
> "CbandNet" <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> > Here is an email I got from them 2 days ago. If you want the attaced
> > petition, email me.
>
> > Well, we do not accept this approach. Every year there are over 30,000
> > serious injuries involving table saws. That's one injury every eighteen
> > minutes. Many of these injuries are amputations. All of them are serious;
> > they change people's lives.
>
> 30,000???? I never would have guessed that high.
>
You can look at the actual numbers on the CPSC website. Go to
http://www.cpsc.gov/library/neiss.html and click on the button at the
bottom to do some queries. What SawStop failed to mention was that
nearly 90% of these injuries were treated and released or no treatment
was necessary. So in actuality their injury cost estimate which was
based on 30,000 injuries is off by a factor of 10. It should be more
like $15M-$30M to treat serious injuries. One other thing to note is
that the CPSC is extrapolating to the 30,000+ number.
PC
Phil
edfan wrote:
> Do you remember the SawStop - a device which sensed a change in the
> resistance of the material being cut and STOPPED the blade in
> milliseconds, the better to avoid injury? You recall the dramatic
> demo for SawStop? They ran a hot dog into the whirling blade, the
> SawStop device stopped the saw with barely a nick to the hot dog.
> Think safety, think mangled fingers forever prevented, think Progress.
>
> Even at the time, people mentioned they thought the royalties demanded
> were so high and the potential liabilities so bankbreaking, there
> might be trouble getting any tool manufacturer to adopt the device.
> What would this lawyer do if they refused? I remember that people
> wondered if the attorney who owned the patent wouldn't try to FORCE
> companies to pay him by pushing for safety legislation setting
> standards which, of course, no other device could meet.
>
> Well, WATCH YOUR WALLETS - it's about to happen.
>
> I was interested in the device, signed up at the company web site for
> news. Today I got an email with an attached petition, "...we have
> decided to petition the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission to
> require saw manufacturers to include something like SawStop on table
> saws."
>
> First they couldn't make manufacturers pay billions to make a device
> that could explode their liabilities. When that failed, they set up a
> company making saws that included the device. I guess they're not
> making enough money from that, now they want to FORCE companies to pay
> them off.
>
> Get real, "something LIKE SawStop" means THEM, only THEM, not anybody
> LIKE them. They mean to make an end run around the free market. What
> they cannot persuade us to buy, they will SQUEEZE from us by
> legislative coercion.
>
> Can you IMAGINE what adding $150 "tax" would do to those who must buy
> saws at the bottom of the market? Would YOU like to pay $150 extra for
> your next saw, whtever level of the market you shop in? DO you think
> Uncle Sugar needs to be your nanny to the point where they know better
> than YOU do what dollar value you put on your safety?
>
> I urge you to talk to fellow woodworkers about this rising danger to
> our freedom of choice. I do not like Consumer Safety being used as a
> ski mask to hide a holdup.
>
> --
Bud Woods
can be shot down as a mandatory feature, then so can this effort to make
their patented equipment a mandated "safety" item. If push comes to shove,
then let's remember that Chrysler invented the air-bag and licensed the
patent to other car makers for $1.
Will "SawStop" be willing to do the same?
edfan
> > Here is an email I got from them 2 days ago. If you want the attaced
> > petition, email me.
>
> > Well, we do not accept this approach. Every year there are over 30,000
> > serious injuries involving table saws. That's one injury every eighteen
> > minutes. Many of these injuries are amputations. All of them are serious;
> > they change people's lives.
> 30,000???? I never would have guessed that high.
Don't take his word on this number without checking it out. He has
something to gain from making it appear we've all got one foot in the
Emergency Room and the other on a banana peel. What if 90% of those
30,000 people went home from the Emergency Room with a band-aid and a
tetanus shot? What if 95% of the remainder need no more than a couple
of stitches? How DANGEROUS is this activity that we should be forced
to pay hundreds of millions of dollars in fines to avoid making
careless people responsible for their own accidents? Not to mention
the folks who will be priced out of the woodworking hobby altogether.
Would you personally pay $450 to prevent an accident that happened to
150 people a year? Or $350 to prepare for an accident that happened to
3,000 a year? (Look up how much money is spent on medical bills for
other voluntary activities, such as Little League.)
The longer term has to be considered too, IMHO. If we destroy the
lower rungs of the woodworking ladder, so that it takes $2,000 in
tools to get started, what happens to the woodworking community after,
say, ten years? Twenty? Check out the last twenty years of prices. How
far have prices fallen for most major tools in the USA? Once that $400
or $150 fee is tacked on, when will it ever drop out? Even if this guy
was granted a monopoly and forced all manufacturers to pay him off and
use his widget - WHEN would we expect these new capital expenditures
to be paid off? How many companies would rather go out of the business
than tackle a complete redesign like that? (Does anyone recall when
the USA had a private small airplane industry?)
--
Leon
in or earlier than the 60's as the Oldsmobile Toronado had the option in the
mid 60's.
Leon
"edfan" <ed...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> Don't take his word on this number without checking it out. He has
> something to gain from making it appear we've all got one foot in the
> Emergency Room and the other on a banana peel. What if 90% of those
> 30,000 people went home from the Emergency Room with a band-aid and a
> tetanus shot? What if 95% of the remainder need no more than a couple
> of stitches? How DANGEROUS is this activity that we should be forced
> to pay hundreds of millions of dollars in fines to avoid making
> careless people responsible for their own accidents? Not to mention
> the folks who will be priced out of the woodworking hobby altogether.
The figures are not off by far.... You should do some checking up instead
of assuming.
I can also assure you that the typical 4 stitches to a finger including
e-xrays, shots, and fees will be more expensive than $500.
Also people that are injured are responsable for thier accidents...they pay
the bills and go through the pain...
Just wait until one day you have an accident and see how you look at this
matter....Being careful does not insure against an accident.
> Would you personally pay $450 to prevent an accident that happened to
> 150 people a year?
No. And if that figure was even close to being correct the government would
not mandate it..
$350 to prepare for an accident that happened to
> 3,000 a year?
In a heart beat....You can multiply even that conservitive figure by each
year that you have been or plan to be into woodworking and using a TS.
My suggestion to you is that if you feel that you do not want this item
manufactured on every new TS, get your last TS soon before this possibly
becomes mandated....
PC
Phil
Larry
> I had just finished cutting a dado, turned off the saw, and before the blade
> came to a stop I reached over the blade to grab the back of the fence to
> remove the fence.... My thumb came in contact with the coasting to a stop
> blade....
My uncle used to say "If you don't know at least 8 ways to abuse a
tool you have no real idea how to use it". You just learned one
fantastic way to abuse a table saw. If people used their heads and
followed basic safety procedures, e.g., don't reach over, under,
around, or through a moving blade - WAIT TILL IT COMES TO A FULL STOP,
they would not get hurt. There are virtually no injuries caused from
MACHINE FAILURE. Almost every one is caused by human "error", i.e.,
doing something moronic. We all have done really stupid stuff like
this. Sometimes you get away with it, sometimes you don't, but it is
still stupid and certainly not the machines fault nor a design flaw.
We don't need SawStop. We need operators that think and follow the
safety rules.
Bud Woods
it's such great technology and will be "mandated", the SawStop ought to
license it for a buck. If they choose not to, then let the market decide.
Leon
Chrysler sold the rights at $1 each to the other manufacturers back in the
60's or earlier, then that would be about $1000000000000 in today's
dollars... LOL
"PC" <P...@heronsnest.com> wrote in message
news:3E8CC051...@heronsnest.com...
Leon
all responsibility for my problem, the Saw Stop would have prevented this
accident..
That said, It took me over a year to realize exactly what had happened.
After returning from the ER I looked for the damaged piece of wood that I
thought had caused the accident... I had presumed that there was a kick back
of some sort... I had totally forgotten about finishing the cut, turning off
the saw, and reaching to remove the fence... It had always been my personal
rule to make sure that the blade was not spinning before approaching it in
this manner... About a year later I did the same thing again...fortunately
my thumb was too short to get caught in the blade... but a light went off
in my head...
I did not abuse my saw other than getting a good deal of blood on it... I
abused myself.... And because I and the rest of the population is not
perfect we all because we are human will continue to make mistakes...and
have accidents... Anything we can do to prevent or help to prevent
accidents or to make a tool saver to use is just fine in my book...
Personally I am not one that would cut my nose off to spite my face....
I'll own up to it that I am capable of making mistakes think the Saw Stop
would be a good thing....
All things considered though... I make my living doing this now and have for
the last 8 years. Prior to that I was seriously into wood working since the
later 70's... Probably not a bad track record compared to most people with
my volume of building and years of woodworking....None of my friends and
colleagues think the Saw Stop is a bad idea....even the ones that have not
yet cut a body part off....
Do we need the Saw Stop on our saws....Hell no.... the saw works just fine
with out it..... WE the wood workers need the Saw Stop....We are not as
perfect as the machines we work with....
Leon
think is a great product.... would you sell the rights to manufacture it
for a buck?
"Bud Woods" <ew...@innova.net> wrote in message
news:b6ivg...@enews2.newsguy.com...
todd
product. I think Bud's point is that if SawStop wants to go through the
legislature rather than the market to get their product out, they should
give up something. IMHO, if they want to become a monopoly, then the
government has the right to set the price of their product (i.e. utility
rates prior to deregulation).
todd
"Leon" <removespa...@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:d%7ja.21$rP2.23...@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
PC
ago. My guess is that industry will adopt it, perhaps as an option in
about 14 years.
Phil
Larry
because of it. Personally, I don't believe in accidents - I believe
in stupidity - I've been stupid a number of times and ended up in the
ER because of it. An accident is something that happens that couldn't
be expected. Every time I got injured, I knew better. Would the
SawStop have saved me a trip to the ER? Sure, at least some of the
times. Does the government have a right to force me to use one. NOT
IN THIS LIFETIME!!!
Bud Woods
works as it's supposed to w/o wrecking the saw whenever it's activated...
Douglas Miller
>Well while I agree that the TS was certainly not at fault and I totally take
>all responsibility for my problem, the Saw Stop would have prevented this
>accident..
Yes, and so would proper safety precautions. From your description of the
accident, it's apparent that the blade guard had been removed. I'm truly sorry
about your loss, but it was your choice to operate that saw without the guard,
just like it should be my choice to operate one without SawStop.
[snip]
>None of my friends and
>colleagues think the Saw Stop is a bad idea....even the ones that have not
>yet cut a body part off....
I think the SawStop is a *great* idea, and I'd buy one if I thought the price
were reasonable. But the government *forcing* me to buy one... now that's a
bad idea.