I am also all for the Consumer Product Safety Commission doing their fucking job and requiring this to be part of any table saw sold in the US, without paying SawStop any patent fees. This is a consumer safety issue; the exact kind of thing that the CPSC was created to manage, and they've done nothing to reduce or limit the number of appendages being cut off in saw accidents.
At the end of the day, it's really not hard to prevent table saw injuries. Use a riving knife, don't twist the wood and you'll pretty much never get a kickback. If something does go wrong you won't get injured if you keep your body out of the way. So don't stand directly behind the saw and use a push stick (I love my GRR-Ripper) so your fingers are never close to the blade. I'd guess the majority of woodworking injuries are due to people who know these rules but break them out of laziness or rushing. Table saws also aren't the only risk in a workshop. You can injure yourself just as easily on any other type of saw, jointer, planer, etc. It doesn't make sense for the CPSC to only require SawStop tech on table saws and putting it on every other tool would put the price of woodworking out of reach for most hobbyists.
From a quick Google search, 93% of table saw injuries are to the users' hands. The only actual deaths I could find were suicides. Yea it sucks to lose a finger but I'd argue that it's not the worse thing in the world. Pretty much everyone could still do their jobs minus one finger.
The one exception I would make is high school woodshop classes. Based on most teenagers lack of judgement, I think it does make sense to mandate that these woodshops only use saws with this technology. I'd be surprised if most school insurance policies don't already require it.
isn't this just another way of saying "don't make mistakes"?
Not saying mistakes don't happen. I'm sure there are instances of people doing everything right and still getting injured. But as I explained I don't think it happens often enough and the injuries aren't serious enough to make the risk so unacceptable that we need to add $500 to the price of every new tablesaw.
Wood often has hidden stresses within its structure. An apparently straight length of wood can cup/bow/curl quite markedly when cut. So you can't always know if a particular rip cut will result in the wood binding between the fence and blade leading to kick back.
On the price difference point, I have a portable Dewalt table saw that cost about AUD$1100 with a stand. Saw Stop didn't have a portable version when I purchased. Now that they do have a portable version, it is about AUD$2000, roughly twice the price of similar models from other manufacturers (at least here in Australia). That's quite a price difference for hobbyists and home gamers who aren't deriving an income from the tool.
I used to work for a chainsaw manufacturer and we had devices on all saws without exception that would prevent injury in case of a kickback. Once this is part of all designs the cost is negligible.
I asked him one day about saw stop and his comment was surprising.
1. Good workshop behaviour is always safe.
2. The blade is all but destroyed in stopping so quickly. (A small price to pay, really)
3. He cited places that used saw stops had the highest levels of work place accidents... Which increased after having them installed... I think he mentioned that yes, no fingers lost though.
So, i think this device is wonderful, but can have nearly equally dire consequences, because it seems to breed poor safety.
Edit: and it looks like Bosch has a cheaper system involving tech from airbag firing hardware that’s $50 per charge, that retracts the blade instead of catching it.
I take it you said that backwards on purpose though as sarcasm?
Applying braking technology to a blade doesn't seem like that novel of an idea compared to detecting a finger touching metal through change in electrical resistance.
That'd be a great way to stop any future safety innovation that may benefit many people.
SawStop isn't really a homeowner tool, but it is certainly within an accessible price range for enthusiasts, schools, and professionals.
[1] https://www.toolnut.com/power-tools/saws/table-saws.html?man...
That $1000 difference wouldn't even cover most insurance plan deductibles for one ER visit. Not to mention specialists, surgeons, reconstructive surgery, physical therapy, etc.
The European philosophy seems to be that the Saw Stop isn't worth it, because if you get in a situation where it kicks in, it means you've done something stupid like not using a riving knife and not using a crosscut sled or other pushing device.
I think also the fact that you don't get the system on other types of saws (band saw, mitre saw, circular saw, etc.) says something about the efficiacy.
The official reply from Bosch when people asked on their forum about bringing the Reaxx to Europe was
""" There are currently no plans to bring the Reaxx to the European market simply due to differences in health and safety regulations across the two continents. """
My reading of this is that as long as people in Europe follow local H&S regulations, this technology is redundant. And they're not going to sell tools with features that enable people to disregard H&S regs.
No, I don't think it says that at all, and you should reconsider your statement. I think it's a matter of geometry more than anything else.
The technology works. People do stupid things all the time. Having a backup safety device is a good idea, not a poor one. Or would you argue that safety belts and fire extinguishers are also unnecessary for "responsible" people?
What is in question, is the ability for an explosive block to stop a blade in single-digit milliseconds, before it can travel far enough to cut the user.
On a spinning saw blade, firing an aluminum block into a spinning blade and dropping the assembly away from the user is a matter of geometry.
How would this work on a band saw? If you can come up with a way, I believe a very lucrative patent is in your future.
Same goes with the other saws you've mentioned.
Instead, I'll argue something similar, but different: the laws should require some level of safety, but not require any specific implementation of the feature, as long as it's safe and dependable (per legalese specifications, no doubt). However, there are many other <i>equally important</i> safety features to think about, such as (the term escapes me at the moment) inrush-detecting limiters that keep the saw from blazing to life when you plug it in [1], or saw blade covers that are actually usable and don't impede work.
If you were to invent, build, and manufacture something life-changing, would you want the government to socialize it and not compensate you at all for it? Part of the problem with the SawStop was that the inventor wanted an inane amount of money for the license, so Bosch, who saw value in the feature, worked around them. Do something like mandate that all products of type X include exact part Y leads what you see in the defense industry- parts that aren't priced competitively, and might not be the best thing for the job. (Yes, I know there are holes in this analogy, and that building stuff costs money.)
[0]Link to legal fight between Bosch and SawStop: https://www.protoolreviews.com/news/sawstop-vs-bosch-reaxx-l... [1]AFAIK, the general mode of operation for these is to flip the switch to off when it loses power (like a GFCI, I would guess).
>requiring this to be part of any table saw sold in the US, without paying SawStop any patent fees
I don't think you are for SawStop or their invention. Sorry, you don't get to cheat someone out of their work just because it's a good idea. It's pretty much the exact opposite of that.
SawStop invented a thing. Does that mean nobody else can ever produce a similar thing?
Ford created the first mass-production automobile. Did that stop other companies from developing their own cars with their own internal-combustion engine? I don't think so.
Where do you draw the line on what is patentable and what is not? If I have designed a new pharmaceutical compound and it is patented, does that mean other companies can not synthesize their own version of the same compound and sell it under a different brand name? I suppose if we apply this logic to mechanical devices, you pretty much kill all competition for the life of the patent.
No. SawStop patents (there are many) begin expiring in 2021.
> Ford created the first mass-production automobile. Did that stop other companies from developing their own cars with their own internal-combustion engine?
As you say, Ford wasn't first to the ICE car game. They did have patents on the Model-T, though.
>Where do you draw the line on what is patentable and what is not?
https://www.legalzoom.com/knowledge/patent/topic/what-is-pat...
> If I have designed a new pharmaceutical compound and it is patented, does that mean other companies can not synthesize their own version of the same compound and sell it under a different brand name?
That is correct.
> I suppose if we apply this logic to mechanical devices, you pretty much kill all competition for the life of the patent.
This logic does apply to mechanical devices, but it doesn't "kill all competition" because companies can design around existing patents. If you can find another way to achieve the same effect that's not covered by the patent, then you're fine. In practice, this happens all the time.