3 ms·

It's really not analogous to seatbelts. It's really simple to use a table saw safely: don't ever get physically close enough (by far!) for the spinning blade t

by avar 3y ago

It's really not analogous to seatbelts. It's really simple to use a table saw safely: don't ever get physically close enough (by far!) for the spinning blade to cut you, or stand where it can fling something at you. Then even if there's no riving knife and blade guard it's not going to ruin your day. This means that you'll sometimes need to build a small jig to push wood into the saw, but usually you can just use a long stick to push the wood into it. Every single table saw accident video you'll see is people who've clearly become way too complacent with them, or are trying to save themselves a few minutes of setup time.

the__alchemist 3y ago
They're holding it wrong?
ToucanLoucan 3y ago
It's simple to use a car safely too. Don't ever speed, be aware of your surroundings at all times, and practice defensive driving. In theory. As someone who has used a table saw, you simply cannot account for every variable factored in to having a 10" piece of sharpened carbide steel spinning at 5,000 RPMs and shoving a piece of probably inconsistently structured building materials through it, many, many, many times to accomplish a job. Maybe the sawmill left a nail in there for you: shit happens. In the immortal words of Jean Luc Picard: It is possible to make no mistakes and still lose. That's why we build things with safety features: to manage those risks.
- avar 3y ago
  No it's not. Even if you're the best defensive driver in the world a seatbelt might still save you if someone plows into you while you're stopped at a red light.
  - cm2187 3y ago
    But again, it's your life, your body, your choice.
    - avar 3y ago
      You can make an argument against seatbelts on that basis, but it's not the one I'm making here. I think seatbelts should be mandatory, but don't think it's sensible to mandate complex and expensive technical solutions for table saws, when safe work practices can also mitigate them entirely.
      - ToucanLoucan 3y ago
        Safe work practices require humans to follow through on using them. Safety features don't.
    - badgersnake 3y ago
      Not if you’re sat in the back and in a crash fly forward and kill the person in front of you.
      - ToucanLoucan 3y ago
        Libertarians often have this problem where their ideas that work just fine in a perfectly friction-less plane with zero deviance have issues when encountering reality. The instances are too numerous to name.
        sham1 2y ago
        Libertarianism, like any other such utopic ideology, has this problem. The ideology requires disregarding reality and assuming the frictionless plane, because otherwise it just wouldn't work properly. When ideals and reality go against each other, reality has a nasty habit of winning. And honestly, if seatbelts and table saws that don't cut your fingers off are such an authoritarian affront to one's freedom and personal responsibility, then so be it. Civil disobedience is always an option to those who absolutely hate this idea, but then they should take their "personal responsibility" and "bodily autonomy" and not be shocked if they have to face the consequences.
      - sokoloff 3y ago
        In a private car, do I really need a law to cover that case? On public transport (a place where such mandates generally do not exist), I could see the argument because it’s standardizing behavior amongst strangers. But in my own car, I have no problem telling people to buckle up or GTFO (or not, by my own choice). If I allow them to ride unbuckled, I’m voluntarily taking the risk one will try to go through the windshield via my noggin.
SkyPuncher 3y ago
While I agree with your premise, mistakes still happen. I do all of the things you mentioned, plus I use pushers or a crosscut sled whenever possible. It should be impossible for me to make contact, but it only takes a split second of stupidity or inattention to mess up
xkcd-sucks 3y ago
Just accept it, smile, nod, and deny the existence of the router, lathe, bandsaw, angle grinder with a circular blade on it etc. Chainsaws are probably next up against the wall though since they're pretty well represented in low-effort horror media

by avar 3y ago

the__alchemist 3y ago

They're holding it wrong?

ToucanLoucan 3y ago

It's simple to use a car safely too. Don't ever speed, be aware of your surroundings at all times, and practice defensive driving. In theory. As someone who has used a table saw, you simply cannot account for every variable factored in to having a 10" piece of sharpened carbide steel spinning at 5,000 RPMs and shoving a piece of probably inconsistently structured building materials through it, many, many, many times to accomplish a job. Maybe the sawmill left a nail in there for you: shit happens. In the immortal words of Jean Luc Picard: It is possible to make no mistakes and still lose. That's why we build things with safety features: to manage those risks.

avar 3y ago
No it's not. Even if you're the best defensive driver in the world a seatbelt might still save you if someone plows into you while you're stopped at a red light.
- cm2187 3y ago
  But again, it's your life, your body, your choice.
  - avar 3y ago
    You can make an argument against seatbelts on that basis, but it's not the one I'm making here. I think seatbelts should be mandatory, but don't think it's sensible to mandate complex and expensive technical solutions for table saws, when safe work practices can also mitigate them entirely.
    - ToucanLoucan 3y ago
      Safe work practices require humans to follow through on using them. Safety features don't.
  - badgersnake 3y ago
    Not if you’re sat in the back and in a crash fly forward and kill the person in front of you.
    - ToucanLoucan 3y ago
      Libertarians often have this problem where their ideas that work just fine in a perfectly friction-less plane with zero deviance have issues when encountering reality. The instances are too numerous to name.
      - sham1 2y ago
        Libertarianism, like any other such utopic ideology, has this problem. The ideology requires disregarding reality and assuming the frictionless plane, because otherwise it just wouldn't work properly. When ideals and reality go against each other, reality has a nasty habit of winning. And honestly, if seatbelts and table saws that don't cut your fingers off are such an authoritarian affront to one's freedom and personal responsibility, then so be it. Civil disobedience is always an option to those who absolutely hate this idea, but then they should take their "personal responsibility" and "bodily autonomy" and not be shocked if they have to face the consequences.
    - sokoloff 3y ago
      In a private car, do I really need a law to cover that case? On public transport (a place where such mandates generally do not exist), I could see the argument because it’s standardizing behavior amongst strangers. But in my own car, I have no problem telling people to buckle up or GTFO (or not, by my own choice). If I allow them to ride unbuckled, I’m voluntarily taking the risk one will try to go through the windshield via my noggin.

SkyPuncher 3y ago

While I agree with your premise, mistakes still happen. I do all of the things you mentioned, plus I use pushers or a crosscut sled whenever possible. It should be impossible for me to make contact, but it only takes a split second of stupidity or inattention to mess up

xkcd-sucks 3y ago

Just accept it, smile, nod, and deny the existence of the router, lathe, bandsaw, angle grinder with a circular blade on it etc. Chainsaws are probably next up against the wall though since they're pretty well represented in low-effort horror media