Official Luthiers Forum! :: View topic - Saw Stop verdict upheld; CPSC Proposal

Is this a US thing, or are they going to enforce this technology on saws sold in Canada as well?

I have two tablesaws, a Bosch contractor, and a General International cabinet saw. I have had one or two instances of kickback on the Bosch, and zero on the GI. It could be argued that I have been more careful with the bigger saw, I guess. I have no interest in purchasing a SawStop, and even less in their company now that Mr. Gass' philosophy has come to light.

I couldn't afford a new saw even if I wanted one, but I don't want to be penalized because I can't afford "idiot-proof" technology.

I dunno... Just seems that if they wanted to, they could make "unsafe" machines "illegal" so that idiots couldn't sue companies...

I would not say that Osorio "deserved" to cut his fingers off, but I would say that foolishness comes with its own consequences. It has been said that he was untrained, but I still put a lot of blame on him. Did he never stop to think that something that cuts wood easily will cut meat even more easily?

I have trained a couple of young guys that work here at our shop, and whenever I show them how to use a new machine, I try to inspire fear in them with words like, "If you cut your fingers off with a bandsaw, there may be something left to sew back on in the hospital. If you get anything caught in this 12" jointer, it will be a stain on the wall." So far, not a scratch. [:Y:]

This is a US thing, just like suing McDonalds for spilling hot coffee on one's own lap

I have to assume that Gass, having failed to get table saw manufacturers to get on board with using his product, would then produce a saw as high a quality as he could. And they are great saws. They do have some limitations, but he could re-engineer his product to use smaller blades, and he could create a second after-market division to work with companies who now might want to utilize the technology.

Author:	dberkowitz [ Sat Oct 08, 2011 4:40 am ]
Post subject:	Saw Stop verdict upheld; CPSC Proposal
Apparently the jury verdict in the Ryobi case has been upheld. CPSC is moving to require flesh-sensing technology in all saws, including portable ones. http://www.finewoodworking.com/item/41527/appeals-court-upholds-osorio-tablesaw-verdict-feds-consider-landmark-safety-standard/?&lookup=auto&V18=&V19=&V20=&V21=&V22=&V23=&V24=&V25=&V26=&V53=&V54=&Taun_Per_Flag=true&utm_source=email&utm_medium=eletter&utm_content=20111008-tablesaw-verdict&utm_campaign=fine-woodworking Here is a q&a with Saw Stop inventor Steve Gass regarding the verdict, CPSC. It's very telling, and surprisingly balanced given his earlier moves to require everyone to have his technology in their saws. http://www.finewoodworking.com/item/415 ... w-verdicts

Author:	B. Howard [ Sat Oct 08, 2011 7:08 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Saw Stop verdict upheld; CPSC Proposal
So what of the millions of woodworkers over the years who have managed to work their whole lives without dismembering themselves? The man was ripping without the fence! Did he not read the owners manual? Or the big label on the saw? Even so he should have been instructed in proper use of the equipment. I submit the man was unqualified for the job and if he is not held responsible for his own negligence, then it should fall on his employer for not providing proper training and supervision. I have sent men home for a day without pay for doing stupid & unsafe things with power equipment. Now the rest of the professional woodworking community will have to pay for this man's ignorance. We've actually had more workers where I work lose fingers or parts there of using routers than table saws, maybe they better get to work on that.

Author:	John Coloccia [ Sat Oct 08, 2011 7:25 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Saw Stop verdict upheld; CPSC Proposal
re: why other saws don't have the technology Well he TRIED to license it, and everyone told him to go pound sand, so he started his own company to produce the saw. He took 100% of the risk...a HUGE risk to bring a new table saw to a saturated market....and won. Good for him, and to hell with everyone else. That said, it leaves a really bad taste in my mouth that there's a push to mandate this kind of technology, and that it's driven by a series of legal and political maneuvering led by that Gass weasel. I have a SawStop, but had I known the kind of man Gass was, I would have never bought it.

Author:	TonyKarol [ Sat Oct 08, 2011 9:39 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Saw Stop verdict upheld; CPSC Proposal
So then, in the US .... why doenst every car made and sold in the US have a 5 star crash rating .. people DIE in those every day. Bad ruling ....

Author:	Shawn [ Sat Oct 08, 2011 9:41 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Saw Stop verdict upheld; CPSC Proposal
The CPSC is not mandating Sawstop's tecvhnology, just using it as justification for their regulation that if a viable technology is available to solve a large range of public safety issues that that technology must be mandated. The CPSC oversees that safety of over 19000 different products and technologies of which the most important when it comes to saving lives is infant furniture. Their push for safer cribs, strollers (prams) and playpens was taken on because of the loss of lives which could be prevented by regulating companies that produce unsafe products. I understand that machinery of all kinds has an element of danger and that must be used safely but tablesaws, routers (overhead are the largest killers), shapers and lathes are devices that even when used safely can sometimes lead to injury or death. Having said that, I have a 10 inch Walker Turner cabinet table saw with a cast iron table that is larger than that of a Unisaw that I would love to sell...so that I could afford a Sawstop... Seriously, but it illustrates the point...my 1950's vintage saw will never be any safer but for me to buy a safer Sawstop or Bosch saw, I need to convince someone to buy my unsafe saw so I can afford a safe one. (This is not a classified ad or any attempt to circumvent the system but was used to illustrate a point) If I sell a saw which CPSC has determined to be inheritantly unsafe, does the liability for the next user getting hurt remain with me?...that is why the industry has been so reluctant to make safer saws because of a lack of Tort reform.

Official Luthiers Forum! http://www.luthiersforum.com/forum/

Saw Stop verdict upheld; CPSC Proposal http://www.luthiersforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10101&t=33811	Page 1 of 2

Author:	Rod True [ Sat Oct 08, 2011 9:53 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Saw Stop verdict upheld; CPSC Proposal
Anyone want to take a guess as to how many more law suits we're going to see because of this ruling, guess how many dumb bass' are gonna figure they can live without a finger for a couple million dollars from suing anyone of the tool companies. You know, between this and Lacey, I'm sure glad I live in Canada......not meant as a slight but the home of the free is starting to sound pretty regulatory these days....

Author:	alan stassforth [ Sat Oct 08, 2011 10:09 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Saw Stop verdict upheld; CPSC Proposal
We had better get all our old power tools certified.

Author:	Lincoln Goertzen [ Sat Oct 08, 2011 10:16 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Saw Stop verdict upheld; CPSC Proposal
Is this a US thing, or are they going to enforce this technology on saws sold in Canada as well? I have two tablesaws, a Bosch contractor, and a General International cabinet saw. I have had one or two instances of kickback on the Bosch, and zero on the GI. It could be argued that I have been more careful with the bigger saw, I guess. I have no interest in purchasing a SawStop, and even less in their company now that Mr. Gass' philosophy has come to light. I couldn't afford a new saw even if I wanted one, but I don't want to be penalized because I can't afford "idiot-proof" technology.

Author:	Rod True [ Sat Oct 08, 2011 12:34 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Saw Stop verdict upheld; CPSC Proposal
Lincoln Goertzen wrote: Is this a US thing, or are they going to enforce this technology on saws sold in Canada as well? I have two tablesaws, a Bosch contractor, and a General International cabinet saw. I have had one or two instances of kickback on the Bosch, and zero on the GI. It could be argued that I have been more careful with the bigger saw, I guess. I have no interest in purchasing a SawStop, and even less in their company now that Mr. Gass' philosophy has come to light. I couldn't afford a new saw even if I wanted one, but I don't want to be penalized because I can't afford "idiot-proof" technology. Lincoln, how would you be penalized for some companies error..... This is a US thing, just like suing McDonalds for spilling hot coffee on one's own lap

Author:	K.O. [ Sat Oct 08, 2011 3:02 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Saw Stop verdict upheld; CPSC Proposal
Man I love this ruling I is gonna be rich, I can't belive they will sell me a two wheel rocket or even a Bicycle, I been good at doing stupid stuff with them all my life... So folks buy stocks in the get K.O. something so he can be stupid with it Corp. We will sue everbody... HURRY HURRY get in while you can, before someone else corners the market!!! NOT Affiliated with SKEEN DHU INDUSTRIES and the OFFICIAL NECK-ID Tee shirt.

Author:	pvg [ Sat Oct 08, 2011 7:16 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Saw Stop verdict upheld; CPSC Proposal
What gets me is that the guy didn't use the safety equipment that WAS available to him, yet it's still someone else's fault... Suppose he was using a SawStop and didn't use the fence for a rip cut and the kickback reamed him a new you-know-what; does he get to sue Mr Gass? pvg

Author:	Jim_H [ Sat Oct 08, 2011 7:20 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Saw Stop verdict upheld; CPSC Proposal
I suspect there is going to be a lot of waiver and release signing in my future...

Author:	Rod True [ Sat Oct 08, 2011 8:31 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Saw Stop verdict upheld; CPSC Proposal
Lincoln Goertzen wrote: I dunno... Just seems that if they wanted to, they could make "unsafe" machines "illegal" so that idiots couldn't sue companies... I would not say that Osorio "deserved" to cut his fingers off, but I would say that foolishness comes with its own consequences. It has been said that he was untrained, but I still put a lot of blame on him. Did he never stop to think that something that cuts wood easily will cut meat even more easily? I have trained a couple of young guys that work here at our shop, and whenever I show them how to use a new machine, I try to inspire fear in them with words like, "If you cut your fingers off with a bandsaw, there may be something left to sew back on in the hospital. If you get anything caught in this 12" jointer, it will be a stain on the wall." So far, not a scratch. Well, anyone can still go out and buy a vintage car that never came with seat belts and there is no law (in BC at least) that says you have to put them in. You can go through seatbelt checks and there is nothing the police can do about it, the vehicle never came with seatbelts.... A good friend of mine has such a truck and has been through several seatbelt check spots with nothing but an interested cop as to the year o his truck and future plans. I seriously doubt there will ever be a law that says it is illegal to own and operate a table saw without a break system on it. Heck I'm sure there are still people who try to pull their toast out of the toaster with a knife while if is still toasting...

Author:	Dave Fifield [ Sun Oct 09, 2011 12:58 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Saw Stop verdict upheld; CPSC Proposal
Next up.....a table saw that recognizes illegal BRW, Ebony, etc., refuses to cut it, and "phones home" to report you to F&W!

Author:	Mike OMelia [ Sun Oct 09, 2011 11:26 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Saw Stop verdict upheld; CPSC Proposal
This is SUCH a good example of "crony capitalism". That term gets flung around quite a bit these days. But here it is in living color. Invent something, corner that (small) market. Make the patent so broad, nobody can do anything but pound sand. Then, go to the governement and get them to mandate your invention under the guise of "public safety". Instant billionaire. I like what Fillipo said. If Gass could really produce this technology in the sub-$100 range, he would have done it (as proof). But of course, no one would really buy it (in any real numbers) because the business owners already pay into workman's comp... so let them take care of the injuries. Who wants the hassle of shut-down machines on a construction site, and the associated inventory cost of additional cartridges? Those things will be blowing for multiple non-injury related reasons. Most business owners do not operate out of egalitarian motives. The other $42 question is this: Should Gass win, then the numbers in the marketplace will skyrocket. Undoubtably, some of these safety systems will fail. Nothing is 100% except death. What will Gass say about that? as we dumb people down with regards to safety, injuries will rise anyways. How many of you have caught yourself using a calculator to add simple numbers? Mike

Author:	Mike OMelia [ Sun Oct 09, 2011 11:39 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Saw Stop verdict upheld; CPSC Proposal
Btw, this is another good example of the "law of unintended consequences". Had the government never gotten so involved in the issue of "public safety", the market would have spoken. Say there was no workman's comp (mandated by law). Then a business owner has to weigh the risks. Not pass them along. So, he/she might fear the consequences of table saw injuries. Then, along comes a device that might indeed minimize his risk. Would he buy it? More than likely, yes. Government always distorts the marketplace and you can't blame businesses for trying to stay profitable under this distortion. What makes no sense will inevitably become more insane over time as the Government adds more and more distortion. Given the probable course things will take, business owners will most likely have to buy this technology. Hacks will come along that allow the saws to operate without the safety devices. People remove fences and guards already. In the Orsario case, that is exactly what happened. And the business owner should have been held responsible, but he was not. That leads me to believe that hacked sawstop technology will also not lead to business owners being held responsible in those cases as well. Just another layer of laws will be proposed and implemented that end up costing us more and more till there is no real incentive to be in any related business (regarding woodworking) Mike

Author:	Mike OMelia [ Sun Oct 09, 2011 4:42 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Saw Stop verdict upheld; CPSC Proposal
Shawn, although an important example, the defective crib case is not a related example. Most people buying cribs assume a level of safety by default. Most would not have assumed a crib was an inherently dangerous item. And babies must be protected since they are of course, defenseless. No cribs I've ever seen come out of the box covered in hazard stickers. A table saw is by most sensible people assumed to be dangerous and does come covered in hazard stickers. Table saws, like parachutes, when used, are likely to lead to some kind of mishap (there is a probabilty of hazard, even when used properly). Shawn, if I asked you to jump out of an airplane without a parachute, would you? This is a clear and blatent case of crony capitalism. That's what bothers me. Yes, there is a role for government (a constitutional one at that) to protect us from bad guys. But in this case, one person stands to benefit quite nicely. And that sticks in a lot of craws. And if you think SawStop is going to provide this at $55 per contractor saw... well that is your right. I do not believe that. Next there will be laws passed to force Sawstop to do that. Then real protection will be diminished, and accidents will happen. It will spiral out of control. It is not a market solution. Real solutions come from market solutions, not the government. Market solutions are difficult to attain when the government has added many layers of distortion, since the market attempts to resolve the distortion, not the problem. Mike

Page 1 of 2	All times are UTC - 5 hours
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	lactose [ Sun Oct 09, 2011 1:08 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Saw Stop verdict upheld; CPSC Proposal
Quote: This is a US thing, just like suing McDonalds for spilling hot coffee on one's own lap If you look into this case you may find: -there are industry temperature guidelines that Mcd ignores -the had settled some 70 previous suits regarding this and still refused to follow the guidelines -the lady required recontructive surgeries -she only asked for medical costs, McD told her to pound sand -the award was appealed and reduced to a fraction of the original There are a lot of suits here, but it is the design of our system to allow corps a lot of freedom, and use the lawsuit as the corrective mechanism.

Author:	Kelby [ Sun Oct 09, 2011 1:56 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Saw Stop verdict upheld; CPSC Proposal
The guy who lost his finger did not sue, and he did not claim that it wasn't his fault. He lost his finger at work, and he filed a worker's comp claim. Under worker's comp rules, it doesn't matter whose fault it was -- if you get hurt on the job, you get paid. You don't get paid much, but you get something. It was the worker's comp insurer who sued Ryobi, to get the money back that it paid the injured worker. Worker's comp insurers pay boatloads of claims involving workers who do stupid things on the job. Tablesaw injuries are frighteningly common. They brought the case because they spend a fortune in workers comp for tablesaw injuries. Anyone who has run a business knows how expensive worker's comp is. Making tools more idiot-proof will bring down the cost of worker's comp.

Author:	bluescreek [ Sun Oct 09, 2011 8:39 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Saw Stop verdict upheld; CPSC Proposal
this is sooooo wrong . Look at who was truly responsible , the business owner for not training the operator . A saw CUTS THINGS !!!!!!

Author:	Don Williams [ Sun Oct 09, 2011 11:36 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Saw Stop verdict upheld; CPSC Proposal
I have to assume that Gass, having failed to get table saw manufacturers to get on board with using his product, would then produce a saw as high a quality as he could. And they are great saws. They do have some limitations, but he could re-engineer his product to use smaller blades, and he could create a second after-market division to work with companies who now might want to utilize the technology.

Author:	Mike OMelia [ Sun Oct 09, 2011 11:45 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Saw Stop verdict upheld; CPSC Proposal
Don Williams wrote: I have to assume that Gass, having failed to get table saw manufacturers to get on board with using his product, would then produce a saw as high a quality as he could. And they are great saws. They do have some limitations, but he could re-engineer his product to use smaller blades, and he could create a second after-market division to work with companies who now might want to utilize the technology. They ARE great saws Don, and not only because of their safety technology. And I want one and WILL get one. Even as I feel that Gass is a less than ingenuous person. But "I" want to be the one who decides that the technology is for me. I'm funny that way. I take my liberties seriously, and do not like the government intruding into my life like this. Mike (who hopes someone does not come in here and slam me for commenting yet again on the sawstop legal issue)

Author:	Shawn [ Sun Oct 09, 2011 3:42 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Saw Stop verdict upheld; CPSC Proposal
Mike, you miss the point that the government HAS to get involved in public safety. Here is an example... A theoretical crib is on the market and has been found to have sides which come down too easily causing strangulation and death of a number of infants. When CPSC investigates they may find that the problem was either: 1. poor instructions which led to the parents assembling the locking mechanism upside down so it instead of latching it is ready to fall 2. the instructions were clear and the parents neglected to read them 3. the design was flawed and no matter how it was assembled the chance of injury was unavoidable Without regulation there would be no checks and balances as a manufacturer could pay off each lawsuit as part of "the cost of doing business" and continue to sell faulty, defective or dangerous products. To compound the issue, a product may be manufactured by a single factory in China and then resold under a variety of tradenames or the product could be assembled in a single factory from parts sourced in several dozen factories but all of whom have different quality control processes in place. Because that product or name of brands can be sold at a number of retail businesses, there would be no way to tell which cloned product is the safe one and which is unsafe. Multiply this by the 19000 different kinds of products that CPSC oversees and regulates with an organization of less than 1200 people and you can see how difficult it is to create a governance process to deal with all products fairly. The market can not police manufacturers but effective regulation and oversight can. Take the example of seatbelts...they undoubtedly have same many thousands of lives but there is no requirement that a manufacturer instruct the public how to buckle up but local laws do enforce behavior. In the case of tablesaws, the advocating of a relatively simple technology to dramatically reduce the potential loss of life and limb does not dictate which technology is used and because Sawstop was there first with a demonstrable product means that for their investment they will have first product market advantage but the ruling actually opens up a new market for equivalent technological approachs to solving the same problem which includes any company that chooses to create retrofit products to add safety measures to existing saws. This is a net positive to woodworking, a market opportunity for machinery manufacturers and all it would take from a regulatory standpoint is to rule that products manufactured prior to the proof that the technology was viable enough to establish the need for regulation would be exempt from liability lawsuits. This would protect manufacturers since there is not tort reform legislation in place to limit exposure. In the case of seatbelts I can own a car that was made before seatbelts were part of the original car and I can add retrofit seatbelts and avoid local traffic tickets for not wearing a seatbelt...that is a good thing and not punitive. There are no freedoms that are lost and if a woodworker is foolish enough to remove protections such as fences, riving knives and sawstop like technologies, they are free to do so as Darwins law still applies...

Author:	Alan Carruth [ Sun Oct 09, 2011 5:16 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Saw Stop verdict upheld; CPSC Proposal
It seems to me as though the machine manufacturers had little choice in this from the beginning. If they had bought Gass' design, and started to build machines with this feature, they'd have been tacitly admitting that the existing machines were 'unsafe', and the first person who got injured on one of the older tools would have sued them to the max. Not only would they have faced a settlemant, they'd have had to retrofit all of the older saws at their own cost. They _could not afford_ to buy into this in the first place. From their standpoint, the only reasonable thing to do was to put it off for as long as possible, and they did a pretty good job of that; it took Gass a long time to get his saws on the market.