Hey guys - sorry to be late, work has been a real $#@!#$.
Here is what I just submitted - feel free to pilfer, but hurry - comments close TODAY:
DECEMBER 12, 2011
VIA ELECTRONIC FILING
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE
CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION
Docket No. CPSC–2011–0074
RESPONSE OF ANDREW RODRIQUEZ, PRIVATE CITIZEN,
TO TABLE SAW BLADE CONTACT INJURIES;
ADVANCE NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING;
REQUEST FOR COMMENTS AND INFORMATION
I. Notices and Communications
Notices and communications with respect to this filing may be addressed to the following:
Andrew Rodriquez
<address removed>
II. Introduction
As a hobbyist woodworker, I wish to express my concern regarding the possibility of the CPSC issuing any sort of rulemaking regarding an obligation to include “flesh-detection” technology on table saws. While I understand the CPSC’s concern regarding table saw safety, there are a number of alternative approaches already in existence that make the need for such a rulemaking questionable. While recent legal actions (such as the Osario vs. One World Technology case) might seem to indicate a need for regulation, drawing such a conclusion from current evidence is flawed.
III. Alternative Safety Methods Exist
While it is easy to assume that flesh sensing technology is the answer, it is an excessive solution to a problem for which many other options exist.
The most obvious option is for users to follow the instructions that come with the tool. Table saw manuals identify “danger zones” and specify any number of safe procedures to be used when operating the tool. The obligation to include such procedures and warnings is already within the jurisdiction and regulation of the CPSC.
Next, users can and should use simple tools like push sticks to keep their hands out of the danger zone. Pus sticks are simple mechanisms, often made from scrap lumber, that are used to guide workspaces through a saw blade with minimal risk to the user. These sorts of tools take a minimum amount of skill to assemble, and in many cases can simply be a block of wood.
Third, there are any number of more advance work piece handling tools that can be used. Similar to push sticks, they are designed to keep user appendages outside the danger zone for the given tool. IN addition to the simple safety provided by a push stick, these devices often include advanced ergonomic or utility benefits.
This is not to say that flesh-sensing technology does not have a place in society. Clearly, some people will choose to place a premium on safety and wish to have as many safeguards in place as possible. However, that should be the consumer’s choice, not a regulatory decision.
IV. CPSC Action in this Area is Preferential, Unjust, and Not in the Public Interest
At this point in time, there is only one commercial provide of “flesh-sensing technology,” and that is the system developed by SawStop. While other technologies exist (such as the “Whirlwind” system currently being developed and tested), they are not true “flesh-sensing” technologies, as they are based on obstruction, rather than skin impedance or resistivity.
The SawStop technology is patented. While it can be licensed, there is only one provider of the technology. As such, until such time as that patent expires, any CPSC action to mandate flesh-sensing technology would essentially create a monopoly in violation of anti-trust laws.
Further, such a regulation would clearly raise the cost of a commonly used tool. Table saws are often one of the primary tools in a workshop, as it can perform so many basic functions – straight cuts, miter cuts, rip cuts, dado cuts, cutting tenons, and more. Assuming the CPSC action being considered is only limited to table saws, it should be noted that the “basic” SawStop table saw is listed on the SawStop website as starting at $1599. Similarly configured saws without “flesh sensing technology” current cost $600 or less, while extremely basic table saws can be purchased for less than $200 . In other words, the marginal cost of this technology today is approximately $1000-$1400 per tool. Such an increase would effectively “price out” the average user. While it is possible the technology itself could come down in cost as volumes increase, it s unlikely that such reductions would be able to overcome such a significant hurdle.
Further, such action might have a more negative side effect that positive. Absent a table saw, workers may shift to less conventional approaches to perform tasks better suited to a table saw (e.g., circular saws, band saws, jig saws, radial arm saws, miter saws, etc….). Before taking any action, I would ask the CPSC to analyze the impact of transferring this work to this other equipment to determine whether the inevitable migration from table saws to alternatives would actually reduce risk, or increase it as workers begin having to use tools with which they are less familiar.
Finally, beyond the hobbyist, many small businesses use portable table saws. Raising the price of a table saw and increasing the burden on such small businesses is likely to have a negative effect on these businesses, demographically “singling out” the lower income workers that depend on such tools to perform the labor that is core to their businesses. While it would be incorrect to assert this as any sort of class-based discrimination, the fact of the matter is that lower-income groups will be disproportionately affected by the proposed rule compared to others.
V. Operational Safety is the Responsibility of the Operator, not the Manufacturer
With any operation involving machinery, there is an inherent risk that must be considered. Woodworkers are not obligated to buy table saws; they choose to do so to meet specific needs. There are a number of woodworkers that pride themselves using only hand tools to build, so alternatives to power tools clearly exist.
While people may injure themselves with table saws, it is because cutting wood (with a table saw, a circular saw, a hand saw, or any other instrument) contains by definition some risk. Anything that can cut wood will also cut flesh. However, there are a number of home appliances and tools with similar capabilities:
• Food processors
• Meat slices
• Chain saws
• Meat grinders
• Lawn mowers
The public has learned to treat these implements with respect, and recognize their inherent risk. While some of these tools have safety elements built into them (e.g., “kill” switches built into lawn movers and chain saws), they nonetheless retain some element of danger (e.g, running over a foot with a lawn mower, or cutting into a leg with a chain saw). Regulation should be limited to protecting consumers from tools that are dangerous, but not activities that are dangerous. In this case, the activity by its very nature carries risk, whether being performed with a hand saw, a hammer, or a any of a hundred other tools used in wood working. To call out the table saw is arbitrary at best, and at worst, seems to indicate a specific interest created through aggressive lobbying focuses more on creating demand for a new technology as opposed to actual produce safety.
VI. The Carlos Osario Case is the Exception
The recent Osario Case, in which a plaintiff successfully sued a tool manufacturer for the p[plaintiffs improper use of the tool, is an example of a case where the legal system failed. IN that case, a jury found in favor of a plaintiff who chose to violate a number of common sense safety practices, any one of which could have kept him from harm. In that case, Carlos Osario:
• Did not have experience using a table saw
• Operated the table saw with several safety features removed (the blade guard and the splitter)
• Attempted to perform a “rip” cut without properly setting up the table saw to perform “rip” cuts (not using a “rip”fence)
• Encountered trouble with binding during the cut, but attempted to “force” the cut, with that excessive use of force ultimately carrying his hand into the saw blade
As a woodworker, I believe it is reasonable to assume that anyone who took these actions was themselves negligent, and their negligence was the cause of their injury. While it is true that flesh-sensing technology would have reduced or eliminated Mr. Osarios injuries, so would a minimum level of competency as can reasonably be expected from a professional performing this job. At a minimum, a professional would have used a rip fence, which would have reduced the possibility of the saw binding. Additionally, keeping the blade guard in place also likely would have mitigated the problem. The improper actions of an unskilled laborer using a tool for which they had not undertaken any minimal level of user education or training (such as reading the manual) is not a justification to impose such draconian regulation as is implied by the CPSC’s ANOPR.
VII. Conclusion
While I believe the CPSC is well intentioned, its ANOPR preludes to a regulatory direction that is inappropriate. The balance between public regulation and personal responsibility can at times be difficult to manage, but in this case, such an intrusive regulation goes far beyond what is just and reasonable. For these reasons, I ask that the CPSC reconsider their policy direction, and not pursue a rulemaking that would impose a requirement for table saw manufacturers to include flesh-sensing technology on their tools.
Respectfully Submitted,
Andrew Rodriquez
<address removed>
