alt Hacker NewsDoes making tools more expensive really benefit anyone other than the companies which own the patents which make them more expensive?
Of these 30,000 injuries per year, how many happen when the blade guards are removed? How many happen when a push stick is not used? How many happen when a person stands in the direction that a piece of wood will be thrown by kickback? Once all those are subtracted are there enough injuries to count?
What if all tablesaw injury cases were tried by a jury of shop teachers?
The best advice I got in shop class was to slowly and quietly count to 10 on my fingers before throwing a power switch and in doing so to envision the operation from beginning to end and all the forces which would be involved, and to remind myself, that I wanted to be able to repeat that cut when the power was turned off.
SawStop goes on about how they will license their patent, but the licensing being offered is a very narrow one and doesn't seem to include the entirety of their patent portfolio, and they have fought very hard to keep tools with similar capabilities out of the U.S. market claiming patent infringement.
Replies
To be fair, other companies haven't been trying very hard. I hate Felder for this. They have their own tech to drop the sawblade when they sense fingers. And they use it as a form of market segmentation, only offering it on their $30k+ tablesaws and not on their less expensive ones.
> The best advice I got in shop class was to slowly and quietly count to 10 on my fingers before throwing a power switch and in doing so to envision the operation from beginning to end and all the forces which would be involved, and to remind myself, that I wanted to be able to repeat that cut when the power was turned off.
It's great advice, but injuries tend to happen when people become complacent with the operations.
You're not required to purchase them if you don't want to. Personally, I have a stopsaw. It has never triggered, so beyond initial purchase price, it hasn't cost me a cent extra, but in the unlikely case where I do something dumb or have an accident, I feel better knowing it won't be life altering and all I'll need to do is replace a blade and a $99 cartridge. That's worth it to me.
This is Stumpy Nubs argument (YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxKkuDduYLk); that patience, forethought, and use of a blade guard and other tools would prevent most injuries. I'm in agreement.
But I don't think that companies are trying to make the tools more expensive. In fact, it was the opposite. SawStop sold high-end saws, other manufacturers did not want to adopt the technology because of the cost it added.
The issue of proper saw safety and use of sawstop technology are two different issues, I believe. And while I agree, the proper safety procedures you cite should be used by everyone, they aren't. In fact, they often aren't. And we can sit here and shake our fingers, but it won't change the overall culture around them. And I think that's the conclusion that regulators have come to as well: They're not going to get people to always use their blade guards or count to 10, so they'll mandate adoption of a technology that mitigates the risk due to people not following directions.
Regarding the licensing, I think that's been addressed by others elsewhere. But in short, SawStop defended their patents in order to license the tech. When the government moved to mandate it, SawStop said they wouldn't enforce their patent, but they're not handing the tech over either. Other companies are free to develop their own method without running afoul of SawStop's patents, or they can license SawStop's tech. To me, it seems like a fair approach that both protects their investment while not putting themselves in a morally questionable position in taking advantage of the upcoming regulation.
Why have airbags in your car? All you have to do is not crash.
Are you suggesting that injuries don’t count if the operator’s actions contributed to them and they’re not worth preventing?
> Does making tools more expensive really benefit anyone other than the companies which own the patents which make them more expensive?
When it comes to table saws, you only have to make a mistake once to find out. Almost perfect doesn't cut it. (ba dum bum, tss)
> Of these 30,000 injuries per year, how many happen when the blade guards are removed? How many happen when a push stick is not used?
Seems like you don't buy into the swiss cheese model of accidents. Because other safety mechanisms and good practices exist, it doesn't mean that there's not reasons to add additional safety. In aviation, we always blamed the pilots for a long time, and it wasn't entirely wrong. However, no matter how much we told pilots "stop crashing and dying!!" they didn't seem to want to stop.
This is there for the day when other things go wrong-- when a tired operator reaches for something he obviously shouldn't; when a blade guard is out of place and someone slips; when someone who isn't sufficiently trained doesn't realize he shouldn't use the table saw.
The saw manufacturers all blew off SawStop because they were worried that they would now be liable for any injuries which still occurred.
Simply make table saw manufacturers liable for any injury from the saw and this kind of mechanism will instantly become default.
> Does making tools more expensive really benefit anyone other than the companies which own the patents which make them more expensive?
I would pay thousands to avoid losing part of my hand. The increased price is a very good value, tens of dollars.
Look at rearview cameras. Cheap tech. Used to be a 1000+ USD option. Now that they are government mandated the manufacturers figured out how to include them for a couple hundred dollars.
Price goes up, but just a little. Money well spent.