3 ms·

Boy is that ever not true. https://www.woodshopnews.com/.amp/news/table-saw-suit-nets-1-5-million-verdict https://www.woodshopnews.com/.amp/news/table-saw-suit

Boy is that ever not true. https://www.woodshopnews.com/.amp/news/table-saw-suit-nets-1-5-million-verdict https://www.woodshopnews.com/.amp/news/table-saw-suit-nets-1... This guy was given a table saw with the guard already removed, and was using it on the floor (a table saw should be used at table height, so that you can have a foot forward to prevent falling into the blade). He was apparently not using push-sticks. Somehow, the table saw manufacturer was found 65% liable in the case, because technology exists to reduce the likelihood of injury when flesh contacts the blade. Specifically, SawStop, which I believe senses capacitance and fires an aluminum block into the blade. Here's a rather biased and snarky rundown of the whole thing that links some important bits of the backstory: https://www.bob-easton.com/blog/is-it-your-table-saw-or-the-governments/ https://www.bob-easton.com/blog/is-it-your-table-saw-or-the-...

DannyBee 8y ago
One thing he misses is that PTI, et al had explored flesh sensing technology and pretty much didn't feel like doing it. They also have opposed almost all safety standards. Oh, did I mention the members have many more ridiculous patents than gass? They've sued each other over patents on worksite radios before. https://insight.rpxcorp.com/litigation_documents/3919186 https://insight.rpxcorp.com/litigation_documents/3919186 They are also multi billion dollar conglomerates, often in countries with little respect for IP, so I imagine one reason he patented so much was to protect himself. They are also a lobbying org, and he misses all the things they did, yet points out what sawstop did. PTI has done a great job of lobbying here, unfortunately. I am generally not a fan of the CPSC (what they did on magnets was beyond the pale), but here he also missed the biggest point they made: the cost of table saw injuries, to the government and insurers, is greater than the value of the table saw market! I could go on. He seems like a mostly reasonable person (moreso than most on this issue), but yeah. There really are two sides to that part. Neither side is deserving of adoration, honestly. The court case is much simpler. For defective design liability in a lot of states, it's enough to show a feasible alternative design that would not have impacted function or price in a serious way. Most of the argument was about the latter.
- mturmon 8y ago
  This was the shocker to me: > The cost of table saw injuries, to the government and insurers, is greater than the value of the table saw market! ...making it seem like the manufacturers are just taking the profits and dumping the externalities.
  - DannyBee 8y ago
    To be fair, it depends on what you consider to be the market. A lot of what used to be done here is now automated. For example, panel dividing: https://www.homag.com/en/products/cutting/ https://www.homag.com/en/products/cutting/ https://youtu.be/ujgLsZZlOQg https://youtu.be/ujgLsZZlOQg This stuff is now very cheap. They are talking about the jobsite and home market, and if you compare that to what these videos show, yeah it's wildly unsafe

DannyBee 8y ago

One thing he misses is that PTI, et al had explored flesh sensing technology and pretty much didn't feel like doing it. They also have opposed almost all safety standards. Oh, did I mention the members have many more ridiculous patents than gass? They've sued each other over patents on worksite radios before. https://insight.rpxcorp.com/litigation_documents/3919186 https://insight.rpxcorp.com/litigation_documents/3919186 They are also multi billion dollar conglomerates, often in countries with little respect for IP, so I imagine one reason he patented so much was to protect himself. They are also a lobbying org, and he misses all the things they did, yet points out what sawstop did. PTI has done a great job of lobbying here, unfortunately. I am generally not a fan of the CPSC (what they did on magnets was beyond the pale), but here he also missed the biggest point they made: the cost of table saw injuries, to the government and insurers, is greater than the value of the table saw market! I could go on. He seems like a mostly reasonable person (moreso than most on this issue), but yeah. There really are two sides to that part. Neither side is deserving of adoration, honestly. The court case is much simpler. For defective design liability in a lot of states, it's enough to show a feasible alternative design that would not have impacted function or price in a serious way. Most of the argument was about the latter.

mturmon 8y ago
This was the shocker to me: > The cost of table saw injuries, to the government and insurers, is greater than the value of the table saw market! ...making it seem like the manufacturers are just taking the profits and dumping the externalities.
- DannyBee 8y ago
  To be fair, it depends on what you consider to be the market. A lot of what used to be done here is now automated. For example, panel dividing: https://www.homag.com/en/products/cutting/ https://www.homag.com/en/products/cutting/ https://youtu.be/ujgLsZZlOQg https://youtu.be/ujgLsZZlOQg This stuff is now very cheap. They are talking about the jobsite and home market, and if you compare that to what these videos show, yeah it's wildly unsafe