US Government is About to Change Table Saws FOREVER!

[HopefulSSer]

Good! Thanks for the update

[RFGuy]

According to this release (https://www.cpsc.gov/Newsroom/News-Rele ... Real-Risks) the CPSC is withdrawing the pending rule making on mandating AIM for table saws.

- David

David,

Thanks for the update.

ALL,

This is disappointing for sure. Look, I know several forum members on this thread took the position that they were opposed to this potential new regulation because it might benefit SawStop in some way. IF we took SawStop out of the equation and let's say that some new, neutral technology was involved that made EVERY NEW tablesaw safer, would ANY of you still oppose it? I ask because the statistics don't lie. About every 15 minutes or so, there is another tablesaw injury in the United States. Between 30k and 40k reported ER visits due to tablesaw injuries every year in this country. And these are only the ones reported medically, meaning less severe injuries like a kickback with no blade to body contact are NOT captured in this statistic. I am sorry, but even one injury is too many for me. IF there was a new technology that could be put on every new tablesaw that would cut this statistic in half that would be a Godsend IMHO. Bear in mind, that even if this new regulation would happen, there would still be many, many used tablesaws still out there in the wild for those that didn't like this new regulation. It would ONLY be on NEW tablesaws. IF you would still oppose it, what is the reason? Are you a libertarian and you oppose any and all regulations? Are you worried it would be an annoying safety feature like the pull bar on the handle of push lawn mowers? Or, some other reason? I know the details of how such a theoretical regulation are implemented are important, but I am just trying to understand on principle the why for those of you that oppose this new regulation IF SawStop wasn't involved. Also, what message do you have to those 30k to 40k per year, and their families, who have such an injury???

[HopefulSSer]

I think this subject has already been thrashed to death here but here goes... I'm opposed to giving a single company a government-mandated and -enforced monopoly over an entire market segment. I am absolutely not against safety. If there were an open-source or freely- (or reasonably-priced) available technology ready to go that could be used by any company that so desired (analogous to Volvo's release of their seat belt technology), then great! Go for it! But forcing an entire market segment to pay fealty to one company is going too far. Sawstop's history of litigiousness and aggressive enforcement of its patents means there is no currently viable alternative to their technology, and it will take YEARS for other companies to develop their own systems even if Sawstop were to release some of its IP. Would the other companies be able to engineer their own systems before they get pushed out of the market entirely? To me if the proposed rule were approved it would be essentially the government saying "Ok Sawstop, you are the only sellers of table saws in the US".

[RFGuy]

Hasn't there already been enough SawStop hate on this thread??? Assume SawStop doesn't exist. I will reiterate my question once below again for everyone:

IF we took SawStop out of the equation and let's say that some new, neutral technology was involved that made EVERY NEW tablesaw safer, would ANY of you still oppose it?

[HopefulSSer]

If we're assuming things, why not assume table saws are safe and be done with it. The fact is that you can't take Sawstop out of the scenario.

I thought I made it clear in my prior post that if there were an available, ready-to-go technology that other companies could relatively easily adopt then more safety is more gooder. But the fact is that, while Sawstop's technology is very good at what it does, thanks to the Sawstop company's past actions, they're the only game in town. And the proposed rule would have shut all other table saw makers down for at least years, if not permanently.

[RFGuy]

Again with more SawStop hatred, which is what this entire thread has been from almost the very beginning. Please forget I asked. IF these are the well reasoned responses to my hypothetical question, then I retract it. Please let's kill this thread once and for all and I ask that NO other forum members respond here. I regret asking what others think about a world without SawStop. One where safety is prioritized, even if it has to be regulated. Nevermind.

[HopefulSSer]

I ask in all seriousness, in what way did I not answer your hypothetical?

[RFGuy]

I ask in all seriousness, in what way did I not answer your hypothetical?

In all seriousness, you keep spewing hate about SawStop. I asked a serious question about whether anyone here would still object to the CPSC putting in place a new regulation on tablesaws making them safer preventing the senseless and numerous injuries by 30k to 40k US citizens every year. Assuming some new, neutral technology, i.e. taking SawStop out of the picture. In every post you kept bringing your clear bias towards SawStop. I wanted to get serious opinions from forum members to see if there was still opposition to such a regulation, IF SawStop didn't exist, wasn't involved in this, etc., etc. I could NOT have been more clear in my excessive posts on this on what my question actually was, but you ignored this. So, I am done. Going to ignore this thread from now on, even if someone responds. I don't need to continue to read your negativity towards SawStop as you continue to vilify them while showing no empathy for those unfortunately injured by tablesaw accidents which could happen to any one of us.

[HopefulSSer]

Ok I guess you won't see this, but please observe that in fact i did NOT ignore your question:

I am absolutely not against safety. If there were an open-source or freely- (or reasonably-priced) available technology ready to go that could be used by any company that so desired (analogous to Volvo's release of their seat belt technology), then great! Go for it!

I thought I made it clear in my prior post that if there were an available, ready-to-go technology that other companies could relatively easily adopt then more safety is more gooder.

How does this not answer your hypothetical?

But I will also reiterate that I do not think it possible to take Sawstop out of the discussion. Otherwise it's just fantasizing about something that doesn't exist.

[edflorence]

I think I would like to toss in a response to this question and I think I can do so without getting involved in the "Sawstop Good/Sawstop Bad" discussion. The real question to be addressed I believe is whether some new technology to make table saws safer is actually needed, and if such a technology were available, would Shopsmith users adopt it. Before the question can be looked at, we need to know how and in what way tablesaws are unsafe. RF Guy already offered the dreadful statistics on numbers of injuries annually, so to dive a bit deeper I asked Chat GPT for a breakdown of what types of injuries are included. Here is what the AI came up with:

"Summary Answer

Approximately 22,700 of the 31,500 annual U.S. table saw injuries are caused by kickbacks (about 72%).

Blade contact injuries (digit or limb contacting the spinning blade) comprise the large majority—at least 85%, which includes many kickback cases but also other direct contact injuries.

Exact breakdown between kickback-caused blade contact versus other blade contact (like direct hand contact without kickback) isn't specified numerically in available national data beyond those broad percentages.

In short: most injuries happen because of blade contact, and most of those are due to kickback (Emphasis mine)

From this information I draw the conclusion that if kickback can be prevented, the bulk of all injuries can be avoided. I submit that when the upper and lower guards are in place, the splitter or riving knife is in place, featherboards, hold-downs and push sticks are being used and the operator is mindful to stay out of the "danger zones" as indicated in PTWFE, the opportunity for kickback to occur while using a Shopsmith (and presumably any other tablesaw, although my experience there is limited) is reduced to nearly zero. Consequently, there is no need for the SawStop, which is a device that is meant to mitigate harm caused by improper use of the equipment. Any speculation about future safety enhancements to table saws is interesting and I await such advances and in no way oppose them, but right now I feel we already know how to avoid kickback. Granted, some small percentage (sub 10% per Chat GPT) of injuries are from things like getting clothing caught in the blade (where is the guard??) or injuries sustained when moving the equipment, but kickback prevention seems really to be the key to safe use.