Ars Technica:
In 2015, 4,700 people in the US lost a finger or other body part to table-saw incidents. Most of those injuries didn’t have to happen, thanks to technology invented in 1999 by entrepreneur Stephen Gass. By giving his blade a slight electric charge, his saw is able to detect contact with a human hand and stop spinning in a few milliseconds.
Now federal regulators are considering whether to make Gass’ technology mandatory in the table-saw industry. The Consumer Product Safety Commission announced plans for a new rule in May, and the rules could take effect in the coming months.
But established makers of power tools vehemently object.
I’m a danger to myself and others whenever I use any kind of tool and table saws in particular scare the living daylights out of me. But forcing manufacturers to use the “safe” saw technology presents its own challenges.
“But forcing manufacturers to use the “safe” saw technology presents its own challenges.”
Such as? I get the legal and possible monopoly issues, but…
Seems like a problem for the market to solve rather than rules and regulations.
The technology exists. It’s simply a matter of pushing leading tool makers to use it.
Chainsaw makers put chain brakes on their saws and it was a great addition; saved many lives. I don’t see any downside to this except a price increase that will come with safety.
Yes. Because people always accurately price in the actual, analytically-calculated likelihood of serious injury when purchasing these tools.
The product exists too. You can run right out and buy a saw with this technology in it. You won’t though, and neither will most of us, because of the cost. When we get cut, though, we’ll sue the manufacturer of the saw for not having that technology. According to the article, everybody is balking because the guy wants 8%. I guess margins are razor thin and that not doable. Also when another company used a different technology to stop their blades, he sued them out of existence. If the Fed mandates this tech, hopefully, they’ll force some kind of FRAND thing.
Really, you’ve never heard of people weighing a purchase of a heavy tool based on how user-friendly it is compared to other options? Haha, give me a break.
Right, price. Ugh. I don’t think 8% is too much to pay for a hand full of fingers!
Just put both for sale on the market. If your fingers matter to you, you’ll pay for the one that will be no doubt heavily marketed as finger safe. If not, you won’t. It’s not like lost fingers are some huge drain on taxpayers (smokers, for example).
And that should absolutely be your choice. If I were buying a table saw, it would be my choice too, as I’m fond of all my digits. However, do we need the feds deciding for you? If accidents from tables saws were adding up to millions in taxpayer costs (smokers, non-seatbelt wearers, etc.), then I’d be for it. However, I doubt it has any net impact on anyone except the 9 fingered woodworkers.
It’s a slippery slope. I doubt Stihl and husqvarna were all that thrilled about chain brakes but in the end it became a good marketing tool to sell new saws. I’m glad all saws have them now.
Right. Like seat belts.
Yeah, those of us who don’t live in libertarian fantasy world recognize that customer safety regulation doesn’t work that way.
It’s why you can’t buy Tylenol Cheap – It May Have Shards of Glass!
There appear to be patent law problems. But that’s what patent law reform is all about.
Was that really your analogy? One with shards of glass? I do love internet comments.
Sorry, not a libertarian or a conservative for that matter.
A more proper analogy would be child safety tops. You can buy pain medications with easy open caps or with safer, child proof caps. Your choice. See how that works?
Do a Google search. Look at all the products out there that could be improved with available safety technology. Then ask yourself if you really want the federal government mandating it across the board.
“A more proper analogy would be child safety tops.”
Right. Because they routinely threaten to slice off my fingers.
Nope, nothing so harmless as a lost finger. They’ll only kill your children.
Blanket reply to all the commentators who obviously didn’t read the Ars article. The “challenge” is that, right now, exactly one company (SawStop) has a number of patents on this technology. If the CPSC adopts this rule then every table saw maker would be required to licence SawStop’s tech.
Before the inevitable “develop different tech” replies, Bosch did, SawStop sued. Bosch lost.
Getting the balance right on stuff like this is hard. Do nothing no matter the risk, and the bodies pile up (children included). On the other hand, ever check out British safety standards? Don’t use your cell phone when refueling? The reasoning behind this? No matter how unlikely, even the remotest risk is too much to bear.
The safer saws have been on the market for quite a while as I understand it. I remember hearing a version of this story years ago at least. I can’t swear it’s the same tech.
Getting your finger cut off is exactly the sort of thing no one can imagine themselves doing… at least no one who would purchase a table saw. “Other people” cut their fingers off.
The manufacturers should be falling all over themselves to put in a cheap safety feature like this because at some point a jury is going to hear a case where somebody lost a hand and their job and house and family all because the table saw manufacturer saved 3 cents and the jury is going to give $50 million in damages.
In San Francisco, the cable cars from the late 1800’s still run, and they are incredibly dangerous because they were built with almost no safety features. Tourists lose feet regularly, and San Francisco almost shuts the cable cars down every year. What makes it worse is today’s riders expect the safety features to be there. They do not understand how much danger they are in when they ride and that contributes to the injuries. Same for home power tools. People are expecting consumer products to be safer and safer. The trend in manufacturing is not just towards cheaper, better, smaller — it is also very much towards safer. So a company that makes table saws absolutely has to put this feature (or a better one) in their consumer saws. Once the safety feature is invented, you can’t turn your back on it and say we decided to improve the paint color in this year’s saw instead. You are going to be massively liable.
Nothing stops you from buying one of those saws, because you’re right about that. But when the time comes to buy a saw, you won’t buy one. But somehow it would be better if the government makes you. Why?
<
blockquote>my classmate’s step-mother gets $71 an hour on the internet.. she’s been unemployed for twelve months, last month her pay was $19438 working on the internet two hours every day…➤ check out ➤ this➤ link
➜➜➜http://www.GoogleFinancialCashJobs11SmartCare/Home/Wage….
✶✶✶✶✶✶✶✶✶✶✶✶✶✶✶✶✶✶✶✶✶✶✶✶✶✶✶✶✶✶✶✶✶✶✶✶✶✶✶✶✶✶✶✶✶✶✶✶✶✶✶✶✶✶✶✶::::qj11.
People are notoriously bad at accurately assessing risks. We exaggerate risks that are unexpected, random and outside our control, such as that of terrorist attacks or plane crashes; and radically under-estimate risks that we think we understand and are in control of, such as our ability to never get distracted or make an ever-so-brief miscalculation of the type that would result in a severed thumb when using a table saw.
There is an additional market problem, which is that if a given safety feature is optional, it will sell in lower (usually very low if history is a guide) proportions, increasing its cost, probably radically. If all widgets-x are required to have safety-feature-y, economies of scale will make it much less expensive. The market has no way of correcting for this.
I don’t disagree with you fundamentally, there are grey areas, but the market has never been good about addressing safety because of these basic human and market tendencies.