5 ms·

Does making tools more expensive really benefit anyone other than the companies which own the patents which make them more expensive? Of these 30,000 injuries

Does making tools more expensive really benefit anyone other than the companies which own the patents which make them more expensive? Of these 30,000 injuries per year, how many happen when the blade guards are removed? How many happen when a push stick is not used? How many happen when a person stands in the direction that a piece of wood will be thrown by kickback? Once all those are subtracted are there enough injuries to count? What if all tablesaw injury cases were tried by a jury of shop teachers? The best advice I got in shop class was to slowly and quietly count to 10 on my fingers before throwing a power switch and in doing so to envision the operation from beginning to end and all the forces which would be involved, and to remind myself, that I wanted to be able to repeat that cut when the power was turned off. SawStop goes on about how they will license their patent, but the licensing being offered is a very narrow one and doesn't seem to include the entirety of their patent portfolio, and they have fought very hard to keep tools with similar capabilities out of the U.S. market claiming patent infringement.

unsnap_biceps 2y ago
You're not required to purchase them if you don't want to. Personally, I have a stopsaw. It has never triggered, so beyond initial purchase price, it hasn't cost me a cent extra, but in the unlikely case where I do something dumb or have an accident, I feel better knowing it won't be life altering and all I'll need to do is replace a blade and a $99 cartridge. That's worth it to me.
- abakker 2y ago
  likewise, but also worth noting that the saw stop saw is just a...nice saw. Better than the old delta I used to have, better than the powermatic 66 that I grew up using. Probably not as nice as my buddy's $20k sliding Felder saw, but...for the price, a Sawstop is a nice tool and highly competitive in build quality.
Blackthorn 2y ago
To be fair, other companies haven't been trying very hard. I hate Felder for this. They have their own tech to drop the sawblade when they sense fingers. And they use it as a form of market segmentation, only offering it on their $30k+ tablesaws and not on their less expensive ones. > The best advice I got in shop class was to slowly and quietly count to 10 on my fingers before throwing a power switch and in doing so to envision the operation from beginning to end and all the forces which would be involved, and to remind myself, that I wanted to be able to repeat that cut when the power was turned off. It's great advice, but injuries tend to happen when people become complacent with the operations.
mlyle 2y ago
> Of these 30,000 injuries per year, how many happen when the blade guards are removed? How many happen when a push stick is not used? Seems like you don't buy into the swiss cheese model of accidents. Because other safety mechanisms and good practices exist, it doesn't mean that there's not reasons to add additional safety. In aviation, we always blamed the pilots for a long time, and it wasn't entirely wrong. However, no matter how much we told pilots "stop crashing and dying!!" they didn't seem to want to stop. This is there for the day when other things go wrong-- when a tired operator reaches for something he obviously shouldn't; when a blade guard is out of place and someone slips; when someone who isn't sufficiently trained doesn't realize he shouldn't use the table saw.
- bigstrat2003 2y ago
  > Seems like you don't buy into the swiss cheese model of accidents. Because other safety mechanisms and good practices exist, it doesn't mean that there's not reasons to add additional safety. I think it's reasonable to say "we have done enough" at some point though. We can debate where the point is, but safety is not an unalloyed good. It has a cost, and reasonable people can disagree over whether a particular safety invention has enough ROI to justify its existence. For example, we wouldn't countenance banning all motor vehicles even though we could eliminate all car related deaths with that one simple trick. We would get a fair bit of payoff, but the cost would just be too high to justify it. Similarly, if we could inflict a very minor cost on everyone in the world to prevent one death per year, that would be too low of a payoff even though the cost is very low. So yes, we can always add more layers of defense against accidents (or security incidents). But eventually, the juice isn't worth the squeeze and you stop. So I don't think the Swiss cheese model really can justify any particular intervention by itself; you have to evaluate the specifics of whether the particular intervention is worth it.
  - toast0 2y ago
    > I think it's reasonable to say "we have done enough" at some point though. We can debate where the point is, but safety is not an unalloyed good. It has a cost, and reasonable people can disagree over whether a particular safety invention has enough ROI to justify its existence. That has to be a point in time decision though. Closed circuit TV backup cameras in cars have been possible since I dunno, probably the 70s, certainly 80s technology could have done it; but they weren't a reasonable intervention (outside of say armored cars for currency transports) until more recently as cameras and displays have gotten less expensive and quality has improved. Also helpful as modern vehicle design has resulted in significantly reduced visibility compared to the past, but that's a rant for a car article :P
bsder 2y ago
The saw manufacturers all blew off SawStop because they were worried that they would now be liable for any injuries which still occurred. Simply make table saw manufacturers liable for any injury from the saw and this kind of mechanism will instantly become default.
- Animats 2y ago
  Yes, they did. They even tried to legislate against SawStop. See "H.R. 8181: Preserving Woodworking Traditions and Blocking Government-Mandated Monopolies Act"[1] Didn't go anywhere. There is supposedly woodworker opposition.[2] "Many woodworkers argue that the implementation of SawStop technology has disrupted traditional woodworking practices. Some feel that it has altered the craft in a negative way by making it less reliant on skill and attentiveness, instead placing an emphasis on technology to prevent accidents. This shift in focus is seen as a departure from the fundamental principles and values of woodworking." However, no actual woodworkers are quoted, and the author has a tool store, so this is probably astroturf PR. That web site is addressed to people with a semi-religious attitude towards woodworking, not to working carpenters or cabinetmakers. (Having used circular wood saws, I am all in favor of blade-stop devices.) [1] https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/118/hr8181/text https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/118/hr8181/text [2] https://www.woodworkcenter.com/why-do-woodworkers-hate-the-inventor-of-sawstop/ https://www.woodworkcenter.com/why-do-woodworkers-hate-the-i...
  - bawolff 2y ago
    > "Many woodworkers argue that the implementation of SawStop technology has disrupted traditional woodworking practices. Some feel that it has altered the craft in a negative way by making it less reliant on skill and attentiveness, instead placing an emphasis on technology to prevent accidents. This shift in focus is seen as a departure from the fundamental principles and values of woodworking." Wow. This is basically: real men enjoy getting their fingers cut off.
    - duskwuff 2y ago
      Ideologically speaking, it's the same sort of people that opposed seat belt laws in the 1980s on the grounds that they'd encourage risky behavior by drivers. (They don't.)
RajT88 2y ago
> Does making tools more expensive really benefit anyone other than the companies which own the patents which make them more expensive? I would pay thousands to avoid losing part of my hand. The increased price is a very good value, tens of dollars. Look at rearview cameras. Cheap tech. Used to be a 1000+ USD option. Now that they are government mandated the manufacturers figured out how to include them for a couple hundred dollars. Price goes up, but just a little. Money well spent.
- PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
  > I would pay thousands to avoid losing part of my hand. I cut off the distal segment of my right thumb on a table saw in 1995. The initial bill, before I disputed it and received a "professional courtesy discount", was $25k. So, you can pay a relatively small price to avoid losing part of your hand, or you can gamble that it will never happen, and then pay a high price for losing part of your hand. Pretty simple choice to me. ps. Doctor: what do want to do with the rest of your life? Me: well, I'm a programmer right now, but I'd rather be farmer Doctor: I know a lot of farmers with less digits than you still have, and you'll still be able to hit the space bar as-is.
  - atmavatar 2y ago
    In effect, a SawStop system is like a one-time health insurance payment that prevents you from getting injured in the first place, only without jacking up the price because you used the tool in someone else's garage.
  - numbsafari 2y ago
    Good thing you and the doc weren’t on opposite sides of the tabs v spaces discussion. Ed: The fact that you can hit the space bar with either hand, whereas the tab would require changing your keyboard layout is not a consideration I had previously considered in this debate.
    - PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
      You might say that the doc and I were aligned over the tabs vs spaces discussion. That is: tabs to indent, spaces to align.
wat10000 2y ago
Are you suggesting that injuries don’t count if the operator’s actions contributed to them and they’re not worth preventing?
- WillAdams 2y ago
  I'm suggesting that people should have a sense of personal responsibility when operating potentially dangerous equipment, and that a person should not be required to pay extra for a business or hobby just because some well-to-do patent lawyer has come up with a business model which has an end-game of requiring that patents from his company be required in products.
  - Spooky23 2y ago
    Your way of thinking is why things like safety glass, headrests, and seatbelts were kept of of cars for so long. It’s a fine principled argument, but stay the hell away from product management.
  - lazide 2y ago
    Just wait until you hear about building codes requiring mandatory AFCI and GCFI breakers.
  - wat10000 2y ago
    You can’t control what sense of personal responsibility people will or will not have. So saying that they “should” have it means absolutely fuck all. A requirement for this safety feature would be enacted in order to prevent a large number of accidental mutilations. It might make money for certain people and they might push it for that reason, but that’s not the main purpose for enacting it. I look forward to your complaint that you’re forced to spend money on seat belts you don’t need.
  - danparsonson 2y ago
    > personal responsibility Ah personal responsibility! The magic bullet that mitigates all accidents. All of your personal responsibility will vanish the instant you injure yourself horribly - then you'll be wholly reliant upon numerous other people who will have to deal with the horror of what you've done to yourself, or else be delayed in receiving their own care because of it.
onlypassingthru 2y ago
> Does making tools more expensive really benefit anyone other than the companies which own the patents which make them more expensive? When it comes to table saws, you only have to make a mistake once to find out. Almost perfect doesn't cut it. (ba dum bum, tss)
bagels 2y ago
Why have airbags in your car? All you have to do is not crash.
ckozlowski 2y ago
This is Stumpy Nubs argument (YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxKkuDduYLk); https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxKkuDduYLk); that patience, forethought, and use of a blade guard and other tools would prevent most injuries. I'm in agreement. But I don't think that companies are trying to make the tools more expensive. In fact, it was the opposite. SawStop sold high-end saws, other manufacturers did not want to adopt the technology because of the cost it added. The issue of proper saw safety and use of sawstop technology are two different issues, I believe. And while I agree, the proper safety procedures you cite should be used by everyone, they aren't. In fact, they often aren't. And we can sit here and shake our fingers, but it won't change the overall culture around them. And I think that's the conclusion that regulators have come to as well: They're not going to get people to always use their blade guards or count to 10, so they'll mandate adoption of a technology that mitigates the risk due to people not following directions. Regarding the licensing, I think that's been addressed by others elsewhere. But in short, SawStop defended their patents in order to license the tech. When the government moved to mandate it, SawStop said they wouldn't enforce their patent, but they're not handing the tech over either. Other companies are free to develop their own method without running afoul of SawStop's patents, or they can license SawStop's tech. To me, it seems like a fair approach that both protects their investment while not putting themselves in a morally questionable position in taking advantage of the upcoming regulation.

unsnap_biceps 2y ago

You're not required to purchase them if you don't want to. Personally, I have a stopsaw. It has never triggered, so beyond initial purchase price, it hasn't cost me a cent extra, but in the unlikely case where I do something dumb or have an accident, I feel better knowing it won't be life altering and all I'll need to do is replace a blade and a $99 cartridge. That's worth it to me.

abakker 2y ago
likewise, but also worth noting that the saw stop saw is just a...nice saw. Better than the old delta I used to have, better than the powermatic 66 that I grew up using. Probably not as nice as my buddy's $20k sliding Felder saw, but...for the price, a Sawstop is a nice tool and highly competitive in build quality.

Blackthorn 2y ago

To be fair, other companies haven't been trying very hard. I hate Felder for this. They have their own tech to drop the sawblade when they sense fingers. And they use it as a form of market segmentation, only offering it on their $30k+ tablesaws and not on their less expensive ones. > The best advice I got in shop class was to slowly and quietly count to 10 on my fingers before throwing a power switch and in doing so to envision the operation from beginning to end and all the forces which would be involved, and to remind myself, that I wanted to be able to repeat that cut when the power was turned off. It's great advice, but injuries tend to happen when people become complacent with the operations.

mlyle 2y ago

> Of these 30,000 injuries per year, how many happen when the blade guards are removed? How many happen when a push stick is not used? Seems like you don't buy into the swiss cheese model of accidents. Because other safety mechanisms and good practices exist, it doesn't mean that there's not reasons to add additional safety. In aviation, we always blamed the pilots for a long time, and it wasn't entirely wrong. However, no matter how much we told pilots "stop crashing and dying!!" they didn't seem to want to stop. This is there for the day when other things go wrong-- when a tired operator reaches for something he obviously shouldn't; when a blade guard is out of place and someone slips; when someone who isn't sufficiently trained doesn't realize he shouldn't use the table saw.

bigstrat2003 2y ago
> Seems like you don't buy into the swiss cheese model of accidents. Because other safety mechanisms and good practices exist, it doesn't mean that there's not reasons to add additional safety. I think it's reasonable to say "we have done enough" at some point though. We can debate where the point is, but safety is not an unalloyed good. It has a cost, and reasonable people can disagree over whether a particular safety invention has enough ROI to justify its existence. For example, we wouldn't countenance banning all motor vehicles even though we could eliminate all car related deaths with that one simple trick. We would get a fair bit of payoff, but the cost would just be too high to justify it. Similarly, if we could inflict a very minor cost on everyone in the world to prevent one death per year, that would be too low of a payoff even though the cost is very low. So yes, we can always add more layers of defense against accidents (or security incidents). But eventually, the juice isn't worth the squeeze and you stop. So I don't think the Swiss cheese model really can justify any particular intervention by itself; you have to evaluate the specifics of whether the particular intervention is worth it.
- toast0 2y ago
  > I think it's reasonable to say "we have done enough" at some point though. We can debate where the point is, but safety is not an unalloyed good. It has a cost, and reasonable people can disagree over whether a particular safety invention has enough ROI to justify its existence. That has to be a point in time decision though. Closed circuit TV backup cameras in cars have been possible since I dunno, probably the 70s, certainly 80s technology could have done it; but they weren't a reasonable intervention (outside of say armored cars for currency transports) until more recently as cameras and displays have gotten less expensive and quality has improved. Also helpful as modern vehicle design has resulted in significantly reduced visibility compared to the past, but that's a rant for a car article :P

bsder 2y ago

The saw manufacturers all blew off SawStop because they were worried that they would now be liable for any injuries which still occurred. Simply make table saw manufacturers liable for any injury from the saw and this kind of mechanism will instantly become default.

Animats 2y ago
Yes, they did. They even tried to legislate against SawStop. See "H.R. 8181: Preserving Woodworking Traditions and Blocking Government-Mandated Monopolies Act"[1] Didn't go anywhere. There is supposedly woodworker opposition.[2] "Many woodworkers argue that the implementation of SawStop technology has disrupted traditional woodworking practices. Some feel that it has altered the craft in a negative way by making it less reliant on skill and attentiveness, instead placing an emphasis on technology to prevent accidents. This shift in focus is seen as a departure from the fundamental principles and values of woodworking." However, no actual woodworkers are quoted, and the author has a tool store, so this is probably astroturf PR. That web site is addressed to people with a semi-religious attitude towards woodworking, not to working carpenters or cabinetmakers. (Having used circular wood saws, I am all in favor of blade-stop devices.) [1] https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/118/hr8181/text https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/118/hr8181/text [2] https://www.woodworkcenter.com/why-do-woodworkers-hate-the-inventor-of-sawstop/ https://www.woodworkcenter.com/why-do-woodworkers-hate-the-i...
- bawolff 2y ago
  > "Many woodworkers argue that the implementation of SawStop technology has disrupted traditional woodworking practices. Some feel that it has altered the craft in a negative way by making it less reliant on skill and attentiveness, instead placing an emphasis on technology to prevent accidents. This shift in focus is seen as a departure from the fundamental principles and values of woodworking." Wow. This is basically: real men enjoy getting their fingers cut off.
  - duskwuff 2y ago
    Ideologically speaking, it's the same sort of people that opposed seat belt laws in the 1980s on the grounds that they'd encourage risky behavior by drivers. (They don't.)

RajT88 2y ago

> Does making tools more expensive really benefit anyone other than the companies which own the patents which make them more expensive? I would pay thousands to avoid losing part of my hand. The increased price is a very good value, tens of dollars. Look at rearview cameras. Cheap tech. Used to be a 1000+ USD option. Now that they are government mandated the manufacturers figured out how to include them for a couple hundred dollars. Price goes up, but just a little. Money well spent.

PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
> I would pay thousands to avoid losing part of my hand. I cut off the distal segment of my right thumb on a table saw in 1995. The initial bill, before I disputed it and received a "professional courtesy discount", was $25k. So, you can pay a relatively small price to avoid losing part of your hand, or you can gamble that it will never happen, and then pay a high price for losing part of your hand. Pretty simple choice to me. ps. Doctor: what do want to do with the rest of your life? Me: well, I'm a programmer right now, but I'd rather be farmer Doctor: I know a lot of farmers with less digits than you still have, and you'll still be able to hit the space bar as-is.
- atmavatar 2y ago
  In effect, a SawStop system is like a one-time health insurance payment that prevents you from getting injured in the first place, only without jacking up the price because you used the tool in someone else's garage.
- numbsafari 2y ago
  Good thing you and the doc weren’t on opposite sides of the tabs v spaces discussion. Ed: The fact that you can hit the space bar with either hand, whereas the tab would require changing your keyboard layout is not a consideration I had previously considered in this debate.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
    You might say that the doc and I were aligned over the tabs vs spaces discussion. That is: tabs to indent, spaces to align.

wat10000 2y ago

Are you suggesting that injuries don’t count if the operator’s actions contributed to them and they’re not worth preventing?

WillAdams 2y ago
I'm suggesting that people should have a sense of personal responsibility when operating potentially dangerous equipment, and that a person should not be required to pay extra for a business or hobby just because some well-to-do patent lawyer has come up with a business model which has an end-game of requiring that patents from his company be required in products.
- Spooky23 2y ago
  Your way of thinking is why things like safety glass, headrests, and seatbelts were kept of of cars for so long. It’s a fine principled argument, but stay the hell away from product management.
- lazide 2y ago
  Just wait until you hear about building codes requiring mandatory AFCI and GCFI breakers.
- wat10000 2y ago
  You can’t control what sense of personal responsibility people will or will not have. So saying that they “should” have it means absolutely fuck all. A requirement for this safety feature would be enacted in order to prevent a large number of accidental mutilations. It might make money for certain people and they might push it for that reason, but that’s not the main purpose for enacting it. I look forward to your complaint that you’re forced to spend money on seat belts you don’t need.
- danparsonson 2y ago
  > personal responsibility Ah personal responsibility! The magic bullet that mitigates all accidents. All of your personal responsibility will vanish the instant you injure yourself horribly - then you'll be wholly reliant upon numerous other people who will have to deal with the horror of what you've done to yourself, or else be delayed in receiving their own care because of it.

onlypassingthru 2y ago

> Does making tools more expensive really benefit anyone other than the companies which own the patents which make them more expensive? When it comes to table saws, you only have to make a mistake once to find out. Almost perfect doesn't cut it. (ba dum bum, tss)

bagels 2y ago

Why have airbags in your car? All you have to do is not crash.

ckozlowski 2y ago

This is Stumpy Nubs argument (YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxKkuDduYLk); https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxKkuDduYLk); that patience, forethought, and use of a blade guard and other tools would prevent most injuries. I'm in agreement. But I don't think that companies are trying to make the tools more expensive. In fact, it was the opposite. SawStop sold high-end saws, other manufacturers did not want to adopt the technology because of the cost it added. The issue of proper saw safety and use of sawstop technology are two different issues, I believe. And while I agree, the proper safety procedures you cite should be used by everyone, they aren't. In fact, they often aren't. And we can sit here and shake our fingers, but it won't change the overall culture around them. And I think that's the conclusion that regulators have come to as well: They're not going to get people to always use their blade guards or count to 10, so they'll mandate adoption of a technology that mitigates the risk due to people not following directions. Regarding the licensing, I think that's been addressed by others elsewhere. But in short, SawStop defended their patents in order to license the tech. When the government moved to mandate it, SawStop said they wouldn't enforce their patent, but they're not handing the tech over either. Other companies are free to develop their own method without running afoul of SawStop's patents, or they can license SawStop's tech. To me, it seems like a fair approach that both protects their investment while not putting themselves in a morally questionable position in taking advantage of the upcoming regulation.