5 ms·

This guy is my personal hero, but -- alas -- this is also a story about worse is better: http://www.taunton.com/finehomebuilding/how-to/articles/sawstop-revisi

This guy is my personal hero, but -- alas -- this is also a story about worse is better: http://www.taunton.com/finehomebuilding/how-to/articles/sawstop-revisited.aspx http://www.taunton.com/finehomebuilding/how-to/articles/saws... "Having heard all of the various reasons put forth by the manufacturers for not doing anything, I firmly believe it simply comes down to money," says Gass. "They cannot figure out how to make more money by adding SawStop. They are not paying for the injuries that occur now, so why should they spend money to change their product to eliminate a cost they aren't bearing?" So, although this guy has offered his safety technology to all tool manufacturers, SawStop is only available on SawStop-branded saws, which cost a bit more money, which causes people to bitch and moan, because who wants to spend money on a feature that merely prevents injuries? The appropriate software-platform analogy is left as an exercise for the reader. ;)

wallflower 18y ago
According to SawStop PR, SawStop has prevented about 150 injuries. It appears that Stephen Gass is attempting to extort revenues. > Here in the States the argument over licensing the SawStop technology has been hot, heavy, and plenty of it. Mr. Gass wants 8% for a license, which will add about $80USD to the cost of the typical table saw, plus the cost of the mechanism and the labour to install it. Delta, et al. balked at the price. http://www.woodworkforums.com/showthread.php?t=60686&page=3 http://www.woodworkforums.com/showthread.php?t=60686&pag... Woodworkers are pretty smart and safety conscious. I've taken a couple wood working classes at my local community college. As our teacher, a master woodworker, told us - "woodworking is about problem solving. it doesn't matter how you do it - there is no right or wrong - only smarter, faster, and safer. it doesn't matter how you do it, as long as it looks nice"
- mechanical_fish 18y ago
  It appears that Stephen Gass is attempting to extort revenues. Don't you think you should... rephrase that? I believe the term is "negotiate a price", not "extort revenues". I'm no fan of software patents or obvious patents, but if ever an invention deserved a patent, this is it. I'm not suggesting that this is a story of greedy companies, or of greedy inventors. I believe the companies when they say that most people aren't willing to pay an additional 8% (for a tool that will probably last a lifetime) to hedge against amputation injuries. I just don't understand that, is all. Check out this abstract from some epidemiologists: http://www.joem.org/pt/re/joem/abstract.00043764-199610000-00014.htm;jsessionid=JQFLj8wtHx028CNSrxnkybFn3GFnvybCCLTBvtHWqTGxf1CycfNn!136317464!181195628!8091!-1 http://www.joem.org/pt/re/joem/abstract.00043764-199610000-0... They sampled 283 amateur and pro woodworkers in New Mexico and report that "5% of all respondents suffered partial amputations." That is a really big fraction. Obviously, I'm unlikely to saw as much wood in my life as a professional carpenter, but it still seems like my odds of losing a finger as an amateur woodworker are probably far higher than one in 100,000. They might even be on the order of 1%. Which, to me, makes SawStop a no-brainer at $80. I want the miter saw and band saw versions, too.
  - wallflower 18y ago
    Perhaps 8% is a reasonable number to not lose your digits. Unfortunately, the customer isn't going to be able to decide (unless they buy SawStop's own) until Delta et al. license. and/or significant public pressure is brought (e.g. someone famous losing their fingers woodworking) Another reason why companies like Delta et al. are resistant to the innovation is the imminent threat of tens of millions of damages in retroactive lawsuits (e.g. by licensing this technology now - it is tantamount to admission that they were negligent in not providing it earlier [at least in the years since SawStop was announced to the industry]. 720k * 40% * (2009 - 2003) is a lot of potential class-action litigants. 2003 is the year when Stephen Gass stepped up his negotiations by approaching the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission about a federal mandate. "Woodworking equipment produces approximately 720,000 injuries per year often causing severe psychologic and functional impairment. Responses from 1000 injured woodworkers to a demographic survey revealed that 60.5% of injuries occurred to amateur woodworkers; 42% of injuries were caused by the table saw and 37% of respondents reported amputation of one or more digits. The most significant causal factor reported was failure to use properly installed guards, but personal factors, such as fatigue and postprandial somnolence were also implicated. Twenty-seven percent of respondents required hospitalization for an average of 3.7 days, and 22.8% were treated by hand surgeons." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3498745 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3498745
    - nebula 18y ago
      I don't know anything about retroactive lawsuits. But if people can sue these companies after they license the technology, why can't they sue them for not licensing and providing safety? It would sounds so ironic. Am I missing something here or the laws are really in such a way ...
    - newyorkcitywest 18y ago
      8% is an off-the-wall royalty. I mean, if you write a book, an entire book, you're only going to get a 15% royalty. 8% is too high by at least an order of magnitude.
  - codemonkey 18y ago
- huhtenberg 18y ago
  > Woodworkers are pretty smart and safety conscious And so are the car drivers, which doesn't prevent a vast majority of accidents from happening because of a human error.
  - diN0bot 18y ago
    human error is part of it, but also the not safety conscious part. how many drivers actually think about how they're hurtling across the ground in a metal or plastic box sometimes faster than the fastest land animal can sprint? most people who drive are not thinking about safety, they're just "driving" which often means a background task while they talk or think, etc.
    - huhtenberg 18y ago
      Sure, of course. My point was that any inherently dangerous activity whether it's sawing, driving or even something as mundane as cooking will dull the perception of danger with time. Woodworkers are not the exception.
      - diN0bot 18y ago
        ahh, my bad for reading in one direction and not thinking. A is like B, not B is like A. good point.
- trefn 18y ago
  "Woodworkers are pretty smart and safety conscious." I agree, but there can times when control slips. This is anecdotal, I know, but my Dad cut his arm off with a radial arm saw when I was 3. My brother was a baby and he wasn't getting much sleep, so my Dad was pretty distracted at the time. He's very careful now. I sent him this video and he told me later that it gave him the shakes.
mhb 18y ago
Or it might be a story about the expected value of an injury which would be sustained without the technology vs. its cost. If you haven't considered what various potential injuries are worth and their probabilities and what this technology costs then you are just playing the "if it saves just one child its worth it" game.
- LogicHoleFlaw 18y ago
  The "if it saves just one child" problem is more of a problem when you try to force your solution and the associated costs onto other people. In a free market, where it's my own finger on the line. Well, I'd be very likely to buy a saw with this technology. In my garage sits my grandfather's table saw. He was a pro woodworker. It's big, heavy, and runs on three-phase power. It runs like a champ, but scares the crap outta me. I use it, but am very, very careful. Always respect your tools. Take care of them, and they will take care of you.
  - deleted 18y ago
    [deleted]
- mechanical_fish 18y ago
  Agreed, and see my other post for the numbers I could find with a quick Googling. And it's true that anecdotal evidence has limited utility, but: My high school's shop teacher? Missing fingers. My wife's father, a former carpenter? Missing fingers. What does every shop teacher fret about, constantly, out loud? Fingers. I don't think we're talking about saving just one child, here. These injuries are not that rare.

wallflower 18y ago

According to SawStop PR, SawStop has prevented about 150 injuries. It appears that Stephen Gass is attempting to extort revenues. > Here in the States the argument over licensing the SawStop technology has been hot, heavy, and plenty of it. Mr. Gass wants 8% for a license, which will add about $80USD to the cost of the typical table saw, plus the cost of the mechanism and the labour to install it. Delta, et al. balked at the price. http://www.woodworkforums.com/showthread.php?t=60686&page=3 http://www.woodworkforums.com/showthread.php?t=60686&pag... Woodworkers are pretty smart and safety conscious. I've taken a couple wood working classes at my local community college. As our teacher, a master woodworker, told us - "woodworking is about problem solving. it doesn't matter how you do it - there is no right or wrong - only smarter, faster, and safer. it doesn't matter how you do it, as long as it looks nice"

mechanical_fish 18y ago
It appears that Stephen Gass is attempting to extort revenues. Don't you think you should... rephrase that? I believe the term is "negotiate a price", not "extort revenues". I'm no fan of software patents or obvious patents, but if ever an invention deserved a patent, this is it. I'm not suggesting that this is a story of greedy companies, or of greedy inventors. I believe the companies when they say that most people aren't willing to pay an additional 8% (for a tool that will probably last a lifetime) to hedge against amputation injuries. I just don't understand that, is all. Check out this abstract from some epidemiologists: http://www.joem.org/pt/re/joem/abstract.00043764-199610000-00014.htm;jsessionid=JQFLj8wtHx028CNSrxnkybFn3GFnvybCCLTBvtHWqTGxf1CycfNn!136317464!181195628!8091!-1 http://www.joem.org/pt/re/joem/abstract.00043764-199610000-0... They sampled 283 amateur and pro woodworkers in New Mexico and report that "5% of all respondents suffered partial amputations." That is a really big fraction. Obviously, I'm unlikely to saw as much wood in my life as a professional carpenter, but it still seems like my odds of losing a finger as an amateur woodworker are probably far higher than one in 100,000. They might even be on the order of 1%. Which, to me, makes SawStop a no-brainer at $80. I want the miter saw and band saw versions, too.
- wallflower 18y ago
  Perhaps 8% is a reasonable number to not lose your digits. Unfortunately, the customer isn't going to be able to decide (unless they buy SawStop's own) until Delta et al. license. and/or significant public pressure is brought (e.g. someone famous losing their fingers woodworking) Another reason why companies like Delta et al. are resistant to the innovation is the imminent threat of tens of millions of damages in retroactive lawsuits (e.g. by licensing this technology now - it is tantamount to admission that they were negligent in not providing it earlier [at least in the years since SawStop was announced to the industry]. 720k * 40% * (2009 - 2003) is a lot of potential class-action litigants. 2003 is the year when Stephen Gass stepped up his negotiations by approaching the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission about a federal mandate. "Woodworking equipment produces approximately 720,000 injuries per year often causing severe psychologic and functional impairment. Responses from 1000 injured woodworkers to a demographic survey revealed that 60.5% of injuries occurred to amateur woodworkers; 42% of injuries were caused by the table saw and 37% of respondents reported amputation of one or more digits. The most significant causal factor reported was failure to use properly installed guards, but personal factors, such as fatigue and postprandial somnolence were also implicated. Twenty-seven percent of respondents required hospitalization for an average of 3.7 days, and 22.8% were treated by hand surgeons." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3498745 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3498745
  - nebula 18y ago
    I don't know anything about retroactive lawsuits. But if people can sue these companies after they license the technology, why can't they sue them for not licensing and providing safety? It would sounds so ironic. Am I missing something here or the laws are really in such a way ...
  - newyorkcitywest 18y ago
    8% is an off-the-wall royalty. I mean, if you write a book, an entire book, you're only going to get a 15% royalty. 8% is too high by at least an order of magnitude.
- codemonkey 18y ago
huhtenberg 18y ago
> Woodworkers are pretty smart and safety conscious And so are the car drivers, which doesn't prevent a vast majority of accidents from happening because of a human error.
- diN0bot 18y ago
  human error is part of it, but also the not safety conscious part. how many drivers actually think about how they're hurtling across the ground in a metal or plastic box sometimes faster than the fastest land animal can sprint? most people who drive are not thinking about safety, they're just "driving" which often means a background task while they talk or think, etc.
  - huhtenberg 18y ago
    Sure, of course. My point was that any inherently dangerous activity whether it's sawing, driving or even something as mundane as cooking will dull the perception of danger with time. Woodworkers are not the exception.
    - diN0bot 18y ago
      ahh, my bad for reading in one direction and not thinking. A is like B, not B is like A. good point.
trefn 18y ago
"Woodworkers are pretty smart and safety conscious." I agree, but there can times when control slips. This is anecdotal, I know, but my Dad cut his arm off with a radial arm saw when I was 3. My brother was a baby and he wasn't getting much sleep, so my Dad was pretty distracted at the time. He's very careful now. I sent him this video and he told me later that it gave him the shakes.

mhb 18y ago

Or it might be a story about the expected value of an injury which would be sustained without the technology vs. its cost. If you haven't considered what various potential injuries are worth and their probabilities and what this technology costs then you are just playing the "if it saves just one child its worth it" game.

LogicHoleFlaw 18y ago
The "if it saves just one child" problem is more of a problem when you try to force your solution and the associated costs onto other people. In a free market, where it's my own finger on the line. Well, I'd be very likely to buy a saw with this technology. In my garage sits my grandfather's table saw. He was a pro woodworker. It's big, heavy, and runs on three-phase power. It runs like a champ, but scares the crap outta me. I use it, but am very, very careful. Always respect your tools. Take care of them, and they will take care of you.
- deleted 18y ago
  [deleted]
mechanical_fish 18y ago
Agreed, and see my other post for the numbers I could find with a quick Googling. And it's true that anecdotal evidence has limited utility, but: My high school's shop teacher? Missing fingers. My wife's father, a former carpenter? Missing fingers. What does every shop teacher fret about, constantly, out loud? Fingers. I don't think we're talking about saving just one child, here. These injuries are not that rare.