5 ms·

I remember seeing this either on Science or Discovery channel when I was younger, talking about great inventions. I remember thinking it was a good idea, but fo

by yladiz 9y ago

I remember seeing this either on Science or Discovery channel when I was younger, talking about great inventions. I remember thinking it was a good idea, but forgot about it until last week when I saw an article pop up about the patent issue but that the FTC is thinking about contemplating making it mandatory. I think it should absolutely be mandatory, but I hope that the FTC can deal with the patent issue and let companies use the technology (or similar technology) for free rather than having to deal with paying royalties (or at least not have to pay 8% of profit from the tool). I think the argument that, "you should know that this item is unsafe" is stupid, because just because something is unsafe doesn't mean a good, quality of life saving feature should be excluded. You could make the same argument about having seatbelts or airbags in cars, because you know it's dangerous but you're taking the risk anyway. Accidents happen, taking measures to prevent them or mitigate the damages should be done, if possible. This isn't something I use, since I don't often create things from wood, but I would pay more for a technology that saves my finger in the off chance I accidentally move my finger towards the blade or something else happens, like the table accidentally shifting because my dog ran into it.

falsedan 9y ago
> I would pay more for a technology that saves my finger Same, and I'm horrified to consider that professional tradesmen whose livelihood depends on their fine muscle control would choose not to pay more for a tool like this. Part of it is the mindset of "I'm not an idiot, I'd never accidentally position my hand anywhere near the blade"; but wood is a natural product with variations, and hitting an unexpected dense section might cause the piece to kick back. Then you might move rapidly to avoid it, and trip & fall onto the blade, or stumble & reflexively put out a hand…
- AstralStorm 9y ago
  You know why heavy gloves are used? Work clothing? Why there are safety rules and mandatory training? Why there are emergency stops? See, there are other ways to provide safety in this situation. And you cannot make anything really idiot proof. World will find a better idiot. This automated solution has a major drawback when sawing through anything too capacitive, wet wood, wood with nails etc. The company pushing the legislation has a major agenda that is not safety - patent licensing.
  - yladiz 9y ago
    Isn't sawing through wood with nails really dangerous?
    - AstralStorm 9y ago
      Yes, but sometimes necessary if you cannot extract the nail. It is mostly risking damage to equipment. (Oh, forgot safety glasses.)
      - jessaustin 9y ago
        You wouldn't do that on a table saw. That's why they sell Sawzalls.
        AstralStorm 9y ago
        If all you have is a table saw... But yes you're right.
        jsjohnst 9y ago
        I've cut metal many times with a table saw. All you need is the right blade!
  - falsedan 9y ago
    > The company pushing the legislation has a major agenda that is not safety - patent licensing. I'm not convinced this is reason enough to argue against it; rather, it's reason to demand that whatever regulation is proposed doesn't mandate the technology used, or to fix the licensing fee at a reasonable amount. > You know why [… other safety precautions for woodworking …] I don't find this argument very compelling. By analogy, you could argue against airbags in cars, since people wear seat belts, have licensing + supervised training, brakes, etc. All of those things are human-dependent, and thus may not be used appropriately in all situations.
  - sjs382 9y ago
    Please please please don't wear gloves while operating table saws or any other spinning tools.
rsync 9y ago
"I think the argument that, "you should know that this item is unsafe" is stupid, because just because something is unsafe doesn't mean a good, quality of life saving feature should be excluded. You could make the same argument about having seatbelts or airbags in cars, because you know it's dangerous but you're taking the risk anyway. Accidents happen, taking measures to prevent them or mitigate the damages should be done, if possible." When you engage in an unsafe activity with a very dangerous tool (chainsaw, for instance) your brain works in a particular way and you have a high level of vigilance and care. When you engage in a totally safe, foolproof activity (crayons) your brain works in a totally different way. Both of these approaches are appropriate and economical. The problem is when you add enough safety features to a (still) dangerous activity that it causes people to take the wrong approach to the activity. That is a recipe for many, many more (and novel and interesting) accidents. I don't know where the sawstop-enabled-saw fits in this model. I guess it's conceivable that, along with anti-kickback, etc., etc., a sawstop-enabled saw really is totally safe like crayons are. If so, great. But if you think a table saw continues to be a dangerous, maiming tool even after adding the sawstop then I think it could be a net-negative with regard to safety.
cr0sh 9y ago
> like the table accidentally shifting because my dog ran into it. Damn - just how cheap are the table saws you buy?! /table saws tend to be fairly heavy, and don't typically move unless you really lean into them - a dog is not likely to move a table saw (and honestly shouldn't be in your shop, either)

by yladiz 9y ago

falsedan 9y ago

> I would pay more for a technology that saves my finger Same, and I'm horrified to consider that professional tradesmen whose livelihood depends on their fine muscle control would choose not to pay more for a tool like this. Part of it is the mindset of "I'm not an idiot, I'd never accidentally position my hand anywhere near the blade"; but wood is a natural product with variations, and hitting an unexpected dense section might cause the piece to kick back. Then you might move rapidly to avoid it, and trip & fall onto the blade, or stumble & reflexively put out a hand…

AstralStorm 9y ago
You know why heavy gloves are used? Work clothing? Why there are safety rules and mandatory training? Why there are emergency stops? See, there are other ways to provide safety in this situation. And you cannot make anything really idiot proof. World will find a better idiot. This automated solution has a major drawback when sawing through anything too capacitive, wet wood, wood with nails etc. The company pushing the legislation has a major agenda that is not safety - patent licensing.
- yladiz 9y ago
  Isn't sawing through wood with nails really dangerous?
  - AstralStorm 9y ago
    Yes, but sometimes necessary if you cannot extract the nail. It is mostly risking damage to equipment. (Oh, forgot safety glasses.)
    - jessaustin 9y ago
      You wouldn't do that on a table saw. That's why they sell Sawzalls.
      - AstralStorm 9y ago
        If all you have is a table saw... But yes you're right.
      - jsjohnst 9y ago
        I've cut metal many times with a table saw. All you need is the right blade!
- falsedan 9y ago
  > The company pushing the legislation has a major agenda that is not safety - patent licensing. I'm not convinced this is reason enough to argue against it; rather, it's reason to demand that whatever regulation is proposed doesn't mandate the technology used, or to fix the licensing fee at a reasonable amount. > You know why [… other safety precautions for woodworking …] I don't find this argument very compelling. By analogy, you could argue against airbags in cars, since people wear seat belts, have licensing + supervised training, brakes, etc. All of those things are human-dependent, and thus may not be used appropriately in all situations.
- sjs382 9y ago
  Please please please don't wear gloves while operating table saws or any other spinning tools.

rsync 9y ago

"I think the argument that, "you should know that this item is unsafe" is stupid, because just because something is unsafe doesn't mean a good, quality of life saving feature should be excluded. You could make the same argument about having seatbelts or airbags in cars, because you know it's dangerous but you're taking the risk anyway. Accidents happen, taking measures to prevent them or mitigate the damages should be done, if possible." When you engage in an unsafe activity with a very dangerous tool (chainsaw, for instance) your brain works in a particular way and you have a high level of vigilance and care. When you engage in a totally safe, foolproof activity (crayons) your brain works in a totally different way. Both of these approaches are appropriate and economical. The problem is when you add enough safety features to a (still) dangerous activity that it causes people to take the wrong approach to the activity. That is a recipe for many, many more (and novel and interesting) accidents. I don't know where the sawstop-enabled-saw fits in this model. I guess it's conceivable that, along with anti-kickback, etc., etc., a sawstop-enabled saw really is totally safe like crayons are. If so, great. But if you think a table saw continues to be a dangerous, maiming tool even after adding the sawstop then I think it could be a net-negative with regard to safety.

cr0sh 9y ago

> like the table accidentally shifting because my dog ran into it. Damn - just how cheap are the table saws you buy?! /table saws tend to be fairly heavy, and don't typically move unless you really lean into them - a dog is not likely to move a table saw (and honestly shouldn't be in your shop, either)