Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Despite Proven Technology, Attempts to Make Table Saws Safer Drag On

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 226 posts

Re: Despite Proven Technology, Attempts to Make Table Saws Safer Drag On

#211

Post by oliwarner »

luckydude wrote: post #195
analog31 wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed, and there are cases where I want to be protected from my own inattention, when the stakes are high enough.

So my argument is wrong but you want to be protected from inattention???? You need to be fully awake when running tools, same goes for driving. They are both defensive activities. Maybe people are beating on me because I didn't say "for me...." but whatever. I stand behind my reasoning, it works for me. And I think the sawstop is just silly. Tablesaws, used properly, are just fine. If you are losing fingers can I int…

> What's next? Chainsaw-stop?

They've been default on new chainsaws since the mid 90s. That hand guard at the front is linked to a powerful brake so that if it catches and kicks back, it's very likely to engage that brake and save you a life-altering injury. They have centripetal clutches to disengage automatically and most require two points of contact and a disengaged brake for the throttle to work (common to many outdoor tools). Chainsaws still aren't safe —you'd be an idiot to use one without steel-laced trousers— but they are much safer than they were.

As I said in another comment, nobody needs this stuff until it saves their fingers, their hand, their face, their leg and their livelihood.

And that's what these arguments come down to. You (and some others here) think you'll never make a mistake or forget to move a hand or misplace their feet, or ever cut too deep in a bit of stock that was cutting fine last week. These are pretty stupid mistakes on their on their own but people aren't robots; they happen all the time.

Conversely I'm happy to say that I've been safe so far, but I respect how quickly that can change.

Re: Despite Proven Technology, Attempts to Make Table Saws Safer Drag On

#212

Post by Bartweiss »

nsnick wrote: post #113
Bartweiss wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> do they sell and advertise saws with this at Home Depot, Lowes, etc. where most people buy their power tools? Yes, they did. Both companies carried Bosch REAXX saws, which have injury detection sensors, and are advertised accordingly. ^edited to past tense because there's apparently an injunction banning US sales of REAXX. So they tried to, and the reason they don't is that the company advocating for this law won't…

Didn't sawstop offer to license the technology for something like 8%? It doesn't seem that unreasonable to get a license. I would agree with you if sawstop was trying to prevent anyone from selling a safety saw, but I don't think that is the case.

8% is egregious. Margins on consumer goods after parts and production are often well under 5%. Complex durable goods are probably higher, but even so 8% completely redefines the entire market.

Look at it this way: Bosch decided it was better to spend a small fortune of R&D to try to avoid the patent than to pay the license fees. And even now they haven't settled the resulting lawsuit - they'd rather fight it, because the likely outcome of the fee is not "paying up" but "scrapping the entire product line as a net loss".

Also bear in mind that this technology is a major portion of the total price of a saw - up around 50% on cheaper saws. So it's going to massively increase prices, and also increase SawStop's margins. They didn't just ask for 8%, they asked for 8% while lobbying the government to increase the price they're taking margin on and ban smaller competitors.

This looks like the other form of patent abuse - where instead of trolling you make a product people can't avoid and crush competitors with patent suits.

Re: Despite Proven Technology, Attempts to Make Table Saws Safer Drag On

#213

Post by yazan94 »

oliwarner wrote: post #183
yazan94 wrote: post #157

"CPSC Acting Chairman Ann Marie Buerkle said she was also concerned that the rule might force companies to license technology from SawStop, which she said might create a monopoly." I think this is a valid sentiment. Why should the federal government literally award a monopoly to one company? This is not consumer protection. People know what they are getting into when dealing with a saw. This is government overreach.…

Do you also resent your goverment for legislating the cars are safer? There are more than glancing similarities between SawStop and airbags. That this is currently patent-encumbered isn't really relevant. It would be trivial to write the law now but defer its enforcement. We're only 4 years away. It's time to let manufacturers know this is what they'll be building.

I agree with your point, and safer technology, if available, should make its way into the market. But on the other hand, people are more willing to pay for something if the benefit outweighs the cost. Looking at their site[1] (their $400 saw out yet), and you can tell why their saws aren't more ubiquitous: their cheapest saw is $1300. A somewhat equivalent (I am not super familiar with important metrics about saws, but looking at amps and saw blade diameter (15A, 10")) table saw made by a more recognizable manufacturer (Ridgid) is already $400.

Here is a link to a /r/woodworking thread about SawStop saws [3] (albeit 3 years old). I think that they would be the target audience for the saws more so than many of us.

[1] http://www.sawstop.com/table-saws/by-model/jobsite-saw#build...

[2] http://www.homedepot.com/p/RIDGID-15-Amp-10-in-Heavy-Duty-Po...

[3] https://www.reddit.com/r/woodworking/comments/1ubckp/has_any...

Re: Despite Proven Technology, Attempts to Make Table Saws Safer Drag On

#214

Post by analog31 »

luckydude wrote: post #195
analog31 wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed, and there are cases where I want to be protected from my own inattention, when the stakes are high enough.

So my argument is wrong but you want to be protected from inattention???? You need to be fully awake when running tools, same goes for driving. They are both defensive activities. Maybe people are beating on me because I didn't say "for me...." but whatever. I stand behind my reasoning, it works for me. And I think the sawstop is just silly. Tablesaws, used properly, are just fine. If you are losing fingers can I int…

My thought process is that I don't know you from Adam, and without casting any aspersions, I assume that everybody is an accident waiting to happen. Pretty much any home woodworking shop gives me the heebie jeebies. I don't believe that anybody can categorically reject that they will ever experience a momentary lapse of attention while using tools. That means myself included.

Admittedly my views are biased by years of experience designing and setting up manufacturing equipment, which is different than an individual having their own wood shop. I don't even know if tools like manual lathes and tablesaws are still in widespread commercial use. I've never seen one at a construction site. Most work seems to be moving towards assembling prefab components.

Re: Despite Proven Technology, Attempts to Make Table Saws Safer Drag On

#215

Post by luckydude »

oliwarner wrote: post #211
luckydude wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So my argument is wrong but you want to be protected from inattention???? You need to be fully awake when running tools, same goes for driving. They are both defensive activities. Maybe people are beating on me because I didn't say "for me...." but whatever. I stand behind my reasoning, it works for me. And I think the sawstop is just silly. Tablesaws, used properly, are just fine. If you are losing fingers can I int…

> What's next? Chainsaw-stop? They've been default on new chainsaws since the mid 90s. That hand guard at the front is linked to a powerful brake so that if it catches and kicks back, it's very likely to engage that brake and save you a life-altering injury. They have centripetal clutches to disengage automatically and most require two points of contact and a disengaged brake for the throttle to work (common to many…

I should have given you some background, I used to be foreman on a tree service, I own 5 Stihl chainsaws currently (ms192, ms200t, ms261, ms362, ms660), I know what the brake does. I'm rural, 15 acres, I use all the saws regularly.

That's not the stop I was talking about, I was talking about the same sort of stop as the sawstop has. Sorry if I was unclear.

Re: Despite Proven Technology, Attempts to Make Table Saws Safer Drag On

#216

Post by oliwarner »

luckydude wrote: post #215
oliwarner wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What's next? Chainsaw-stop? They've been default on new chainsaws since the mid 90s. That hand guard at the front is linked to a powerful brake so that if it catches and kicks back, it's very likely to engage that brake and save you a life-altering injury. They have centripetal clutches to disengage automatically and most require two points of contact and a disengaged brake for the throttle to work (common to many…

I should have given you some background, I used to be foreman on a tree service, I own 5 Stihl chainsaws currently (ms192, ms200t, ms261, ms362, ms660), I know what the brake does. I'm rural, 15 acres, I use all the saws regularly. That's not the stop I was talking about, I was talking about the same sort of stop as the sawstop has. Sorry if I was unclear.

Edit: Removed needless flippancy.

Do you consider somebody who demands they put their chainsaw trousers on first inept and unsafe? What about people who don't disable/remove their chainsaw brakes?

Trained operators are the ultimate safety feature, right? And these features actually weigh you down.

These innovations were obviously warmly welcomed by arboriculturalists. Why do so many woodworkers think they're beyond the need of similar precautions? Hell, half of you seem to think riving knives and guards were sent by the devil.

And a chainsaw voltage loop could work but you'd need to make the loop through the operator, not to earth. You'd need to make conductive gloves and generate a voltage and trigger the brake. All possible, isn't it... but more weight.

Re: Despite Proven Technology, Attempts to Make Table Saws Safer Drag On

#217

Post by randyrand »

cooper12 wrote: post #39
kashkhan wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

just make injury insurance mandatory for tools like this in institutions, and have lower premium for safe tools. Same could be done for guns.

Insurance is after the fact. Won't prevent you from losing your fingers.

It's both. Having to pay increased premiums if you put someone in danger means your more likely to buy safer tools in the first place.

Re: Despite Proven Technology, Attempts to Make Table Saws Safer Drag On

#218

Post by randyrand »

Entalpi wrote: post #41
randyrand wrote: post #25

Ya, no. Besides the horrendous patent issue (say goodbye to market competition), this will double the price of table saws. No thanks. Consumer protection laws are not about making obvious choices for me. Its supposed to protect me from the unknown unknowns - things that the average consumer would not know is dangerous. Everyone has heard about these safer saws for over a decade now. Everyone knows saws are dangerous.…

People do not want safety features untill the need of safety features.

Said everyone who voluntarily buys safe cars.

Re: Despite Proven Technology, Attempts to Make Table Saws Safer Drag On

#219

Post by setr »

oliwarner wrote: post #206
setr wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its not about eliminating the technology; its about choosing its presence. These safety features are not free to have, and are not necessarily worth their cost, in every situation. But by enforcing it at the federal level you remove that choice from consumers everywhere , with at best a limited understanding of the environment in which the rule is being applied. It is not nonsensical that I might want a $400 death tr…

Doing these "worth their cost" risk assessments where n =1 leads to its own problems. Regardless of what they considered their own skill, nobody ever died in car accident, or cut their thumb off in a table saw... until they did. It's hard to be objective about your own absolute risk factors with decades of survival bias to clamber over. And governments don't do this stuff for you, or even just the lobbyist. Injury co…

Ofc, if you believe in the free market, then n=1 calculations will naturally sort themselves out for the most part to the eventual and overall benefit of everyone, better and more efficiently than what the relatively slow-changing government will achieve except in very particular cases.

And while you can still find death traps, they're now even deadlier than before because the market still exists for them, but now you can only obtain 10, 20 year old death traps, after regulation instantiates. And ofc the point of regulation is that eventually all death traps leave the used market too, and there's simply nothing at all left to serve this market.

Regulation intentionally kills the market being served; ideally for longer-term macro-level benefits.

Safety is not free. And governments are not infallible in their devision-making. But neither is the free market. This is the crux of the issue; it depends on who you believe is better able to make macro-level decisions: natural markets or regulatory bodies.

Safety, or whatever other hot topic of the day, is just a distraction leading people to talk past each other.

and it gets further confounded by current reality vs ideal. ie there's no external costs not being accounted for with the table-saw-stopper if hospitals, insurance, etc aren't being subsidized. If individuals have to pay the whole bill for their mistake, which should naturally be true in a totally free market, then it'll all sort itself out soon enough (lest the market collapse). But since in reality various costs are being subsidized/hidden by greater forces... this doesn't hold so easily. Of course, if gov interference is the primary reason for more gov interference, then you're in a positive feedback loop that probably won't take you anywhere good.

Re: Despite Proven Technology, Attempts to Make Table Saws Safer Drag On

#220

Post by luckydude »

oliwarner wrote: post #216
luckydude wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I should have given you some background, I used to be foreman on a tree service, I own 5 Stihl chainsaws currently (ms192, ms200t, ms261, ms362, ms660), I know what the brake does. I'm rural, 15 acres, I use all the saws regularly. That's not the stop I was talking about, I was talking about the same sort of stop as the sawstop has. Sorry if I was unclear.

Edit: Removed needless flippancy. Do you consider somebody who demands they put their chainsaw trousers on first inept and unsafe? What about people who don't disable/remove their chainsaw brakes? Trained operators are the ultimate safety feature, right? And these features actually weigh you down. These innovations were obviously warmly welcomed by arboriculturalists. Why do so many woodworkers think they're beyond t…

I dunno why you're all worked up. I didn't say anyone was inept (I sure hope I didn't, if I did, my apologies). Nor did I say you should remove your chainsaw brake.

What I was saying was what works for me. If you want to approach things differently, be my guest, I wasn't trying to convince to be a clone of me, I was just saying this is what works for me. Not sure why that is such a controversial thing.

Shrug.

Post reply on HN