Shopsmith Forums

Well, I'm going to disagree with many on two points of this thread.

1. I don't think you have to eschew wealth to have interest in others. If he wants to get rich, and can get rich, I've no problem with that. There's nothing about it that means he cannot actually care about others. One doesn't have to give away things at cost, or at a loss.

2. Having the CPSC re-examine something just ain't a bad idea. What was "safe" some years ago may not be safe today. Technology changes, as does perceptions. Seatbelts in cars were rediculed decades ago, as were guards over the blades of table saws. Re-examining equipment and practices occassionally just isn't a bad idea.

A little more fodder for the cranium.

http://blogs.popularwoodworking.com/editorsblog/Should+We+License+Table+Saws.aspx?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+PopularWoodworking+%28Popular+Woodworking%29&utm_content=Yahoo!+Mail

JPG40504 wrote:A little more fodder for the cranium.

http://blogs.popularwoodworking.com/editorsblog/Should+We+License+Table+Saws.aspx?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+PopularWoodworking+%28Popular+Woodworking%29&utm_content=Yahoo!+Mail

Thank you for the link. I have watched some of the videos and intend to watch the balance yet today. I also ordered safety materials from PTI. It is all free and if it is the same quality as the videos shown on the PTI Safety Videos here online it will be worth while.

The commission reports that we (the non-professional wood worker) are getting injured partly because we are poorly trained. I intend to do my part to insure that I am not involved in that statistic.

Their statistics also show that most accidents occur to persons less than 65 using equipment less than 1 year old. At least the statistics are on my side but I prefer to not take a chance.

Please join me in this effort to invalidate those statistics.

I also noticed that SawStop is NOTLISTED AS A MEMBER of the Power Tool Institute.

Please take a serious look at this material. Doing so will not stop CPSC from doing what they do but that is not the objective. The objective is to Make Sawdust Safely.

JPG40504 wrote:A little more fodder for the cranium.

http://blogs.popularwoodworking.com/editorsblog/Should+We+License+Table+Saws.aspx?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+PopularWoodworking+%28Popular+Woodworking%29&utm_content=Yahoo!+Mail

Verrry interesting indeed. I don't see anything in it that I would argue with except for what is not there which is not their fault. That is: how many other injuries are these same people having other than table saws? How do they do out of the shop? How many are tailgater's in traffic? How many have DUI's? Text while driving? I sold an electric lawn tractor to a fellow from TN who's wife had recently totaled her 3rd car that year. They were laughing about how many cars she had wrecked over the years. Is there any correlation between shop accidents and out of shop accidents? I'm not saying that there is... I just wonder.
I have a BIL (nice guy) who away from work "always" has at least a few beers in him and he is a woodworker.

I am constantly bemoaning the loss of shop classes in schools. I got my early training in high school and a year of it at BSU (where I saw my very first SS in person ) and I credit that early training with much of my lucky safety record. I do clearly understand that record could fall before the day is over. The work is dangerous and none of us are infallible. I am more careful today than ever before but probably more likely than ever to have an accident. While I am in good shape you don't get old without losing something in skills and attention span.
While a couple of my early shop teachers were not great woodworkers themselves we did watch some pretty gruesome safety movies.

Don't take this wrong but I also generally feel a little sorry for anyone that did not grow up on a diversified and progressive (for the time) corn belt grain and livestock farm. I was also very fortunate that my father spent a great deal of time and effort trying to teach me everything he knew and he knew quite a lot. He was a good mechanic and spent WW II testing aircraft engines.

Now...
About that picture... That left hand should not follow that board on through the cut. Good spot for a feather board... You should NOT push a board on both sides of the blade. If you do the kerf will try too close on the blade as the cut completes or just before. Riving knife stop it? Not likely. Riving knives have to be narrower than the kerf/blade.
With that much room it is OK to use that left hand like a feather board to hold the piece against the fence (only ahead of the blade) and maybe that is what he is doing but it also looks like he is pushing with it. Don't push from that side. Think of the board as becoming a "U" as the cut progresses. As the U gets weaker any push from that side will try to close the kerf. Less of a problem on long stuff.

Edit: Insurance figures say that most motorcycle accidents happen during the first 6 hours of operation. I suspect that would also correlate to table saws.

derekdarling wrote:It's called 'Education', and it's companion 'Paying Attention'. No charge, courtesy of your local Department of Education (in wherever it is you live).

You might add COMMON SENSE

What should come through loud and clear is that table saws (like a lot of other things) are dangerous, period. And they are especially dangerous for the inexperienced person who has no understanding of what they're undertaking when using one.

In my view, many of the woodworking shows on television contribute in part to the problem in that they make sawing operations look so easy without giving the uninitiated a sense of what's really involved. Don't get me wrong, but telling someone to read and understand the manual that came with the equipment doesn't accomplish a whole lot in my view.

foxtrapper wrote:Well, I'm going to disagree with many on two points of this thread.

1. I don't think you have to eschew wealth to have interest in others. If he wants to get rich, and can get rich, I've no problem with that. There's nothing about it that means he cannot actually care about others. One doesn't have to give away things at cost, or at a loss.

2. Having the CPSC re-examine something just ain't a bad idea. What was "safe" some years ago may not be safe today. Technology changes, as does perceptions. Seatbelts in cars were rediculed decades ago, as were guards over the blades of table saws. Re-examining equipment and practices occassionally just isn't a bad idea.

What has changed since then other than the indoctrination results.

They were found to be inadequate and we now have shoulder restraints as well. Thus a driver is now immobilized and unable to move freely so as to more effectively control the vehicle. They help with catastrophic events, but hinder the prevention of more minor ones. JMHO

As for the 'make money issue', I agree that it is not mutually exclusive with 'caring'. However to represent 'caring' as the main reason for his endeavor is dishonest. To try cramming his solution down our throats(by lobbying and litigating) is deceitful. His looseness with actual provable attributes of his 'solution' is unconscionable. JMOMHO:)

derekdarling wrote:It's called 'Education', and it's companion 'Paying Attention'. No charge, courtesy of your local Department of Education (in wherever it is you live).

Not since shop classes have been discontinued!! All shop and vocational education has been removed from our local high school district.

JPG40504 wrote:What has changed since then other than the indoctrination results.

They were found to be inadequate and we now have shoulder restraints as well. Thus a driver is now immobilized and unable to move freely so as to more effectively control the vehicle. They help with catastrophic events, but hinder the prevention of more minor ones. JMHO

As for the 'make money issue', I agree that it is not mutually exclusive with 'caring'. However to represent 'caring' as the main reason for his endeavor is dishonest. To try cramming his solution down our throats(by lobbying and litigating) is deceitful. His looseness with actual provable attributes of his 'solution' is unconscionable. JMOMHO:)

JPG,

I certainly agree with your point re: ". . . cramming his solution . . ., etc."
If the inventor allowed his product to demonstrate its effectiveness rather than attempting to have it mandated, I would feel he had a motive other than financial.

On your first point regarding seat belts - as an Air Force pilot flying multiengine aircraft, I in no way felt that the seat and shoulder harness that I wore restricted my movement. To the contrary, the harness supported me so that I could continue to control the aircraft. I installed seat belts in a car when it was a joke to do so because I felt that the restraint was a benefit. So I do disagree with you on that point.

Dick

JPG40504 wrote:What has changed since then other than the indoctrination results.

They were found to be inadequate and we now have shoulder restraints as well. Thus a driver is now immobilized and unable to move freely so as to more effectively control the vehicle. They help with catastrophic events, but hinder the prevention of more minor ones. JMHO

As for the 'make money issue', I agree that it is not mutually exclusive with 'caring'. However to represent 'caring' as the main reason for his endeavor is dishonest. To try cramming his solution down our throats(by lobbying and litigating) is deceitful. His looseness with actual provable attributes of his 'solution' is unconscionable. JMOMHO:)

And if he really cared about the safety of wood workers he would offer his Intellectual Property to the community without charge and try to make his money with a superior product. Both Volvo and Mercedes Benz have been offering much of their safety technology to the Auto Industry free of charge for decades. Including seat belts, airbags and bumpers. Whether it's because they care or a good marketing to show that they care is irrelevant, they share their designs and testing freely.

If the CPSC really wants to make a change then the mandate should be when superior safety technology is developed, that will protect society at large then it must be shared with the industry involved freely and without obstruction. This way no one is allowed to profit or drive out competition based on their design. I don't think that will ever fly by the way, but if a regulatory agency feels the need to control, it should do so with the least impact on society to the greatest effect.