6 ms·

Ya, no. Besides the horrendous patent issue (say goodbye to market competition), this will double the price of table saws. No thanks. Consumer protection laws a

Ya, no. Besides the horrendous patent issue (say goodbye to market competition), this will double the price of table saws. No thanks. Consumer protection laws are not about making obvious choices for me. Its supposed to protect me from the unknown unknowns - things that the average consumer would not know is dangerous. Everyone has heard about these safer saws for over a decade now. Everyone knows saws are dangerous. If people wanted them, they'd buy them. This law will not making these saws any cheaper or make saws any safer, it's just removing consumer choice. This is a ban. This is not why we have consumer protection.

Latty 9y ago
What about employees or students who have to use the equipment? They can't force their employer or educator to spend the money, but it's their fingers that'll be lost. Maybe laws to ensure that if you are employing or in any way requiring someone use your saw you need the safety features. The patent stuff is it's own issue for sure, and yet another example of how crappy the system is.
- kashkhan 9y ago
  just make injury insurance mandatory for tools like this in institutions, and have lower premium for safe tools. Same could be done for guns.
  - cooper12 9y ago
    Insurance is after the fact. Won't prevent you from losing your fingers.
    - janekm 9y ago
      The point is that any insurance company asked to provide a policy for table saws would mandate this technology for any saws it covers. Same way we got UL (underwriters laboratories!) listed electrical equipment.
    - brbsix 9y ago
      To state the obvious, a consolation prize to someone who loses a finger isn't the point. Rather the purpose of said proposed legislation would be to incentivise rational economic actors to purchase safer machines. Assuming the premium discounts were greater than the added cost of the "safe stop" technology amortized over the lifespan of the machine, they would. Either that or go out of business, further automate production, move shop to Mexico, etc.
    - kashkhan 9y ago
      insurance offers discount for car alarms and lo jack, and that drives purchase of those items.
    - randyrand 9y ago
      It's both. Having to pay increased premiums if you put someone in danger means your more likely to buy safer tools in the first place.
- randyrand 9y ago
  AFAIK schools already have these because they're pocket change to a school budget and students are notoriously dumb. It makes sense. So perhaps, we can think about a law but we should first evaluate if it is necessary. I can agree with the sentiment.
  - jessaustin 9y ago
    As TFA discusses, this certainly wasn't the case in 2013 when Mr. Ward had his hand destroyed in a high school shop. This technology had already been available for a decade at that point. Anyway the fact that a $400 machine has this feature doesn't mean that big multi-user shops can spend $400 and get it. Cheap table saws are made very cheaply, and are much less useful than $2000-and-up table saws. (More expensive/better built saws also last much longer than cheap saws.) Are there really public schools that wouldn't notice lots of additional spending?
    - foobarchu 9y ago
      Lots of additional spending? We're talking about one saw per district, a saw meant to last years. If they can't shift the budget to work in a one time purchase of a single tablesaw, in exchange for the safety of hundreds of woodshop students, that's on them. Most equipment in a school woodshop lasts multiple decades. That said, many school districts already have made the switch. My high school already had a Sawstop by the time I first took a woodshop class in 2006, and it had already stopped multiple students from losing fingers.
      - jessaustin 9y ago
        Everything is relative, of course. It's likely that not all public schools have the same enrollment or tax base that yours had. At some point the number of public school shops without this technology will be low enough that an ethical company like Bosch could just give all the poor schools a new table saw. That seems less involved than the lobbying efforts described in TFA.
captainmuon 9y ago
In a (slightly more) rational society, we would recognize the health care costs [1] of all those saw victims, and divert a bit of money to equip all saws with this technology. If it becomes mandatory I wouldn't want manufacturers and customers to pay more. You could cancel his patent, but I think why not let the inventor get his "reward". I would take the money for licenses and implementation from health and disability insurers. Of course, our system is really bad in making these kind of sensible re-allocations, so that probably won't happen. [1] + loss of life quality and future income
- olympus 9y ago
  Table saws aren't in the same class as cars. Table saws are mostly used by competent people and the injury rate is pretty low. When an accident does happen it only involves a single person and usually requires a few stitches. The cost savings of avoiding a few thousand people needing stitches is not even close to the cost of "modernizing the table saw fleet.". Plus, saws already come with a plethora of safety features (anti-kickback pawls, blade guards, and riving knives), and most serious woodworkers take the safety features off. In a rational society we would let people make their own choices. We can raise insurance raise rates on people who act dangerously, and disallow frivolous lawsuits from people that circumvent existing safety features. There is no need for the government to regulate table saws that only risk the individual using it.
  - toomuchtodo 9y ago
    > Table saws are mostly used by competent people and the injury rate is pretty low. When an accident does happen it only involves a single person and usually requires a few stitches. 4000 people a year suffer from being mangled by a table saw. That's losing digits or an appendage (their entire hand). (NPR had a story about this a week or two ago) EDIT: Let's say, conservatively, each accident on average costs $100K in medical costs, disability, etc. That's $400 million/year in costs. Just a hunch, but adding the safety break seems like a clear win. I suppose that's a perverse benefit of healthcare being so broken in America; its so expensive, its usually cheaper to fix the problem then to dump it on the healthcare system as an externality.
Entalpi 9y ago
People do not want safety features untill the need of safety features.
- randyrand 9y ago
  Said everyone who voluntarily buys safe cars.
yladiz 9y ago
Everyone isn't quite accurate; do they sell and advertise saws with this at Home Depot, Lowes, etc. where most people buy their power tools? I also think that thinking this will remove consumer choice is inaccurate as well, because if this was mandatory it's not like current saw manufacturers would simply stop selling saws. My understanding is this product doesn't really change much over time, and while there might be some new features added it's essentially the same product that was created years ago. I think the patent issue is a problem but if that was removed this would be a no brainer to add. Also, you're absolutely wrong that this won't make saws safer. This will prevent people from sawing their fingers off in the off chance a finger enters the blade. That absolutely makes it safer and its disingenuous to argue otherwise.
- Bartweiss 9y ago
  > do they sell and advertise saws with this at Home Depot, Lowes, etc. where most people buy their power tools? Yes, they did. Both companies carried Bosch REAXX saws, which have injury detection sensors, and are advertised accordingly. ^edited to past tense because there's apparently an injunction banning US sales of REAXX. So they tried to, and the reason they don't is that the company advocating for this law won't let them. > I also think that thinking this will remove consumer choice is inaccurate as well, because if this was mandatory it's not like current saw manufacturers would simply stop selling saws First, it still removes consumer choice to massively increase the price of saws. The cheapest sensing models I can find listed are >$1,000. The cheapest table saws at Home Depot are ~$400. Tripling the price of the cheapest model is absolutely a restriction of choice, and one that's going to hurt both hobbyists and professionals. Beyond that, Bosch REAXX is currently being sued by SawStop, the same company/inventor pushing for this legal requirement. Does it restrict consumer choice if there's only one legal brand, all the others having been sued out of the market? I agree that this technology is makes saws safer. I'm not at all convinced that the safety justifies handing a single company a government monopoly on table saws.
  - yladiz 9y ago
    I mean, beyond this specific issue, it does seem they were infringing on the patent, so he has a right to sue to stop it being sold or get royalties from new and previous sales. I think this tech should be mandatory in all saws, but I also think that one company shouldn't have control over the licensing and it probably shouldn't be something companies have to pay for.
aligibbs 9y ago
"CPSC commissioners in favor of the rule point out that the $200 price difference is dwarfed by the financial cost, and pain and harm caused by 30,000 ER visits and more than 4,000 amputations every year. CPSC's analysis puts the annual cost of table saw accidents at around $4 billion." Yet it would be cheaper overall.
- rthomas6 9y ago
  Negative externalities? What's that?
  - quasse 9y ago
    One level of critical thought too far, apparently.
justin66 9y ago
> Besides the horrendous patent issue (say goodbye to market competition) Bullshit. There are any number of ways to ensure the same functionality (just point a camera at the blade and have a computer stop the blade before it cuts somebody, rather than after, would be one obvious improvement) and if stopping the blade is mandated there will be plenty of competition.
- saalweachter 9y ago
  Also, patents expire. I don't know when the patent for this particular device was granted, but given that NPR wrote its first article on them in 2004, they can't have many years left of patent protection.

Latty 9y ago

What about employees or students who have to use the equipment? They can't force their employer or educator to spend the money, but it's their fingers that'll be lost. Maybe laws to ensure that if you are employing or in any way requiring someone use your saw you need the safety features. The patent stuff is it's own issue for sure, and yet another example of how crappy the system is.

kashkhan 9y ago
just make injury insurance mandatory for tools like this in institutions, and have lower premium for safe tools. Same could be done for guns.
- cooper12 9y ago
  Insurance is after the fact. Won't prevent you from losing your fingers.
  - janekm 9y ago
    The point is that any insurance company asked to provide a policy for table saws would mandate this technology for any saws it covers. Same way we got UL (underwriters laboratories!) listed electrical equipment.
  - brbsix 9y ago
    To state the obvious, a consolation prize to someone who loses a finger isn't the point. Rather the purpose of said proposed legislation would be to incentivise rational economic actors to purchase safer machines. Assuming the premium discounts were greater than the added cost of the "safe stop" technology amortized over the lifespan of the machine, they would. Either that or go out of business, further automate production, move shop to Mexico, etc.
  - kashkhan 9y ago
    insurance offers discount for car alarms and lo jack, and that drives purchase of those items.
  - randyrand 9y ago
    It's both. Having to pay increased premiums if you put someone in danger means your more likely to buy safer tools in the first place.
randyrand 9y ago
AFAIK schools already have these because they're pocket change to a school budget and students are notoriously dumb. It makes sense. So perhaps, we can think about a law but we should first evaluate if it is necessary. I can agree with the sentiment.
- jessaustin 9y ago
  As TFA discusses, this certainly wasn't the case in 2013 when Mr. Ward had his hand destroyed in a high school shop. This technology had already been available for a decade at that point. Anyway the fact that a $400 machine has this feature doesn't mean that big multi-user shops can spend $400 and get it. Cheap table saws are made very cheaply, and are much less useful than $2000-and-up table saws. (More expensive/better built saws also last much longer than cheap saws.) Are there really public schools that wouldn't notice lots of additional spending?
  - foobarchu 9y ago
    Lots of additional spending? We're talking about one saw per district, a saw meant to last years. If they can't shift the budget to work in a one time purchase of a single tablesaw, in exchange for the safety of hundreds of woodshop students, that's on them. Most equipment in a school woodshop lasts multiple decades. That said, many school districts already have made the switch. My high school already had a Sawstop by the time I first took a woodshop class in 2006, and it had already stopped multiple students from losing fingers.
    - jessaustin 9y ago
      Everything is relative, of course. It's likely that not all public schools have the same enrollment or tax base that yours had. At some point the number of public school shops without this technology will be low enough that an ethical company like Bosch could just give all the poor schools a new table saw. That seems less involved than the lobbying efforts described in TFA.

captainmuon 9y ago

In a (slightly more) rational society, we would recognize the health care costs [1] of all those saw victims, and divert a bit of money to equip all saws with this technology. If it becomes mandatory I wouldn't want manufacturers and customers to pay more. You could cancel his patent, but I think why not let the inventor get his "reward". I would take the money for licenses and implementation from health and disability insurers. Of course, our system is really bad in making these kind of sensible re-allocations, so that probably won't happen. [1] + loss of life quality and future income

olympus 9y ago
Table saws aren't in the same class as cars. Table saws are mostly used by competent people and the injury rate is pretty low. When an accident does happen it only involves a single person and usually requires a few stitches. The cost savings of avoiding a few thousand people needing stitches is not even close to the cost of "modernizing the table saw fleet.". Plus, saws already come with a plethora of safety features (anti-kickback pawls, blade guards, and riving knives), and most serious woodworkers take the safety features off. In a rational society we would let people make their own choices. We can raise insurance raise rates on people who act dangerously, and disallow frivolous lawsuits from people that circumvent existing safety features. There is no need for the government to regulate table saws that only risk the individual using it.
- toomuchtodo 9y ago
  > Table saws are mostly used by competent people and the injury rate is pretty low. When an accident does happen it only involves a single person and usually requires a few stitches. 4000 people a year suffer from being mangled by a table saw. That's losing digits or an appendage (their entire hand). (NPR had a story about this a week or two ago) EDIT: Let's say, conservatively, each accident on average costs $100K in medical costs, disability, etc. That's $400 million/year in costs. Just a hunch, but adding the safety break seems like a clear win. I suppose that's a perverse benefit of healthcare being so broken in America; its so expensive, its usually cheaper to fix the problem then to dump it on the healthcare system as an externality.

Entalpi 9y ago

People do not want safety features untill the need of safety features.

randyrand 9y ago
Said everyone who voluntarily buys safe cars.

yladiz 9y ago

Everyone isn't quite accurate; do they sell and advertise saws with this at Home Depot, Lowes, etc. where most people buy their power tools? I also think that thinking this will remove consumer choice is inaccurate as well, because if this was mandatory it's not like current saw manufacturers would simply stop selling saws. My understanding is this product doesn't really change much over time, and while there might be some new features added it's essentially the same product that was created years ago. I think the patent issue is a problem but if that was removed this would be a no brainer to add. Also, you're absolutely wrong that this won't make saws safer. This will prevent people from sawing their fingers off in the off chance a finger enters the blade. That absolutely makes it safer and its disingenuous to argue otherwise.

Bartweiss 9y ago
> do they sell and advertise saws with this at Home Depot, Lowes, etc. where most people buy their power tools? Yes, they did. Both companies carried Bosch REAXX saws, which have injury detection sensors, and are advertised accordingly. ^edited to past tense because there's apparently an injunction banning US sales of REAXX. So they tried to, and the reason they don't is that the company advocating for this law won't let them. > I also think that thinking this will remove consumer choice is inaccurate as well, because if this was mandatory it's not like current saw manufacturers would simply stop selling saws First, it still removes consumer choice to massively increase the price of saws. The cheapest sensing models I can find listed are >$1,000. The cheapest table saws at Home Depot are ~$400. Tripling the price of the cheapest model is absolutely a restriction of choice, and one that's going to hurt both hobbyists and professionals. Beyond that, Bosch REAXX is currently being sued by SawStop, the same company/inventor pushing for this legal requirement. Does it restrict consumer choice if there's only one legal brand, all the others having been sued out of the market? I agree that this technology is makes saws safer. I'm not at all convinced that the safety justifies handing a single company a government monopoly on table saws.
- yladiz 9y ago
  I mean, beyond this specific issue, it does seem they were infringing on the patent, so he has a right to sue to stop it being sold or get royalties from new and previous sales. I think this tech should be mandatory in all saws, but I also think that one company shouldn't have control over the licensing and it probably shouldn't be something companies have to pay for.

aligibbs 9y ago

"CPSC commissioners in favor of the rule point out that the $200 price difference is dwarfed by the financial cost, and pain and harm caused by 30,000 ER visits and more than 4,000 amputations every year. CPSC's analysis puts the annual cost of table saw accidents at around $4 billion." Yet it would be cheaper overall.

rthomas6 9y ago
Negative externalities? What's that?
- quasse 9y ago
  One level of critical thought too far, apparently.

justin66 9y ago

> Besides the horrendous patent issue (say goodbye to market competition) Bullshit. There are any number of ways to ensure the same functionality (just point a camera at the blade and have a computer stop the blade before it cuts somebody, rather than after, would be one obvious improvement) and if stopping the blade is mandated there will be plenty of competition.

saalweachter 9y ago
Also, patents expire. I don't know when the patent for this particular device was granted, but given that NPR wrote its first article on them in 2004, they can't have many years left of patent protection.