On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 19:57:42 -0700 (PDT), [email protected] wrote:
>On Mar 21, 12:52 pm, dustyone <[email protected]> wrote:
>> All,
>>
>> Isn't it possible that if allowed to stand, this judgement would drive
>> other saw manufacturers to adopt this technology? Cost would likely
>> be more, at first, but with wider use, the cost would necessarily get
>> lower over time. Wouldn't this be an improvement in safety for us
>> all?
>>
>> Curt Blood
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: [email protected] (Edward A. Falk)
>> Date: Mar 18, 4:39 pm
>> Subject: Big payout in table saw suit!
>> To: rec.woodworking
>>
>> All,
>>
>> Isn't it possible that if allowed to stand, this judgement would drive
>> other saw manufacturers to adopt this technology? Cost would likely
>> be more, at first, but with wider use, the cost would necessarily get
>> lower over time. Wouldn't this be an improvement in safety for us
>> all?
>>
>> Curt Blood
>>
>> While I'm sure all the folks at SawStop are popping the Champagne
>> corks
>> as we speak, I really, really, really hope this gets overturned on
>> appeal.
>>
>> I have a 10" table saw. I know full well what it could do to me if I
>> fuck up. I willingly take that risk every time I use it. If I lose
>> any body parts to it, assuming that something didn't go wrong due to
>> defective design, then I would have nobody to blame but myself.
>>
>> This decision, if it's allowed to stand, hurts all of us.
>>
>> --
>> -Ed Falk, [email protected]
>> http://thespamdiaries.blogspot.com/
>
>Provided that sawStop is willing to license the patent. They may not
>be!
...for a *reasonable* amount. That doesn't fix every saw in existence.
"LDosser" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "dustyone" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:f0689b36-33d3-4d95-9b36-23753b501b99@o30g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> All,
>
> Isn't it possible that if allowed to stand, this judgement would drive
> other saw manufacturers to adopt this technology? Cost would likely
> be more, at first, but with wider use, the cost would necessarily get
> lower over time. Wouldn't this be an improvement in safety for us
> all?
>
> Curt Blood
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> IIRC, the safety feature can be disabled quite easily. Would you propose
> Table Saw Police?
Nice theory, but the repercussions will still be very bad. Perhaps
production of all saws should be stopped until they are ready for the new
technology. We should also scrap any existing saw that do not have a blade
stop.
Oh, wait, I think that is on page 2645 of the new healthcare bill.
On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 18:02:01 -0700, "CW" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
><[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 16:07:41 -0700, "LDosser" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>"dustyone" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:f0689b36-33d3-4d95-9b36-23753b501b99@o30g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>>>All,
>>>
>>>Isn't it possible that if allowed to stand, this judgement would drive
>>>other saw manufacturers to adopt this technology? Cost would likely
>>>be more, at first, but with wider use, the cost would necessarily get
>>>lower over time. Wouldn't this be an improvement in safety for us
>>>all?
>>
>> Do you really think that the costs wouldn't be prohibitive? You do
>> understand
>> that SawStop has a legal monopoly on this technology for another couple of
>> decades.
>
>It would be bad enough if it only effected tablesaws but, with lawyers being
>what they are, it could have serious consequences.
>A car gets T boned in the drivers door. The driver sues the manufacturer
>because his car does not come with side impact airbags as some other cars
>do. This could be extended to lots of things.
Really, that's where we *are*
In article <[email protected]>, Larry Blanchard
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 04:52:59 -0700, Tom wrote:
>
> > http://www.finewoodworking.com/item/25130/man-wins-big-money-in-
> tablesaw-lawsuit
>
> Ridiculous! But wait! My pocket knife doesn't have that technology
> either! I'm rich!
I bought a tool that does exactly what it does, and not what another
tool does! Can I get a jury of idiots to give me many dollars?
Why, yes, Dave. Yes, you can.
But only if you live in the US of A.
In Canada, where you live, Dave, you will have to file a Human Rights
Commission complaint.
On 2010-03-21 21:05:10 -0400, Sonny <[email protected]> said:
> And will all contractors need to install SawStop on their older
> machines, or else subject themselves to being sued by any worker using
> their tool? A worker will end up having to supply his own tools, if
> push comes to shove.
I would imagine liability insurance would be less costly for an
employer using SawStop or other safety improvements. Airbags have
similarly affected auto insurance -- cost of physical damage to car or
property was and is minor in comparison to medical and liabilty costs.
On Mar 22, 12:16=A0pm, Glen <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 3/21/2010 9:52 AM, dustyone wrote:> All,
>
> > Isn't it possible that if allowed to stand, this judgement would drive
> > other saw manufacturers to adopt this technology? =A0Cost would likely
> > be more, at first, but with wider use, the cost would necessarily get
> > lower over time. =A0Wouldn't this be an improvement in safety for us
> > all?
>
> > Curt Blood
>
> Improvement in safety is important, but something must be said for
> personal responsibility. =A0Unless the saw itself malfunctioned in some
> way, the onus for safety rests with the operator. =A0The greatest
> "improvement in safety" would be to ban the use of all table saws. =A0Saw=
s
> would then be 100% safe. =A0I don't see that as a practical solution, how=
ever.
>
> At work, I teach HS woodshop, we use a SawStop. =A0Considering some of th=
e
> kids I get in my beginning classes, it was a wise investment. While I
> still am an "absolute bastard" about safety in school, I do breathe a
> bit easier having this particular saw there.
>
> At my home shop I use a more traditional saw. =A0Safety is my
> responsibility. =A0I have a good guard that I use, I have push sticks of
> various configurations and most importantly, I know and utilize good
> practices of saw safety. =A0Having been in the business for a long time,
> and having worked with my father for many years prior to that, I have
> met many woodworkers (some of whom, unfortunately, have also been
> woodshop teachers) missing one or more body parts. =A0I can safely state
> that every individual with whom I have ever spoken who has lost a digit
> to a saw knew full well that it was his own fault, and not the fault of
> the manufacturer. =A0I accept the fact that, perhaps, some of you may kno=
w
> of some digitless operators who blame their tool, but I personally know
> of none.
>
> Perhaps it is everything that I currently see around me of individuals
> placing the blame on outside forces, but I, for one, am growing tired of
> this. =A0If I choose to work when I am tired or inebriated, that is my ow=
n
> stupidity. =A0If I do not know how to operate a saw safely that is my own
> stupid choice. =A0The manufacturer did not force me to operate their saw,
> I chose to operate it, and I must be willing to take responsibility for
> my decision. =A0Even with the SawStop, there is a key that turns off the
> safety mechanism. =A0Should I turn it off, should I be able to sue them
> for providing this turn off mechanism?
>
> I believe that there are some countries that do not allow the use of
> dado blades on home saws. =A0(Limits on arbor length?) =A0This, as I
> understand it, is to make saw operation mor safe. =A0Maybe I am strange,
> but I don't want the government telling me that I can't use a dado blade
> because they believe that I am too ignorant to use it safely.
>
> I try to avoid "pissing matches" on the rec and I don't mean to start
> one, but I had to have my say.
>
> Glen
Glen, you make some interesting points. I would hope that we could
all agree that if blade stop technology were available on all table
saws, we would be able to work more safely. One other point in this
discussion is that there are times that, despite our expertise and
care, accidents do happen. It would be little comfort to know that it
was nobody's fault that I now had only nine digits. So, I wouldn't
mind having the added security of knowing that this technology was in
place. As I see it, the whole personal responsibility/lawsuit thing
is a separate issue. There will always be people who will want to
place blame for their mistakes on others, as well as lawyers who will
represent them. Not much to be done about that. Greed on the part of
the Saw Stop people is also a major factor in this, especially if Mr.
Jaques is correct. It would seem to me that the inventor would have
made a killing with a more modest per unit fee over a broader market,
and this technology would indeed be on nearly every saw.
Curt Blood
Larry Jaques
View profile
More options Mar 22, 8:46 pm
On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 19:57:42 -0700 (PDT), the infamous
[email protected] scrawled the following:
The inventor, a Speaking Weasel (lawyer) had offered the licensing to
other saw companies for a set fee per unit plus EIGHT PERCENT OF THE
SAW'S PRICE. That raises a cabinet saw's price by OVER THREE HUNDRED
DOLLARS. With the amount of money it would instantly give to him I
can't see why he'd withdraw the offer.
If the idiot had said "A couple grand for the license and a buck or
two per unit." the devices would likely already be on every single
new
saw coming out of all factories. But the #%^&%^&*! wanted more, a
lot
more.
--
On Mar 22, 12:16=A0pm, Glen <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 3/21/2010 9:52 AM, dustyone wrote:> All,
>
> > Isn't it possible that if allowed to stand, this judgement would drive
> > other saw manufacturers to adopt this technology? =A0Cost would likely
> > be more, at first, but with wider use, the cost would necessarily get
> > lower over time. =A0Wouldn't this be an improvement in safety for us
> > all?
>
> > Curt Blood
>
> Improvement in safety is important, but something must be said for
> personal responsibility. =A0Unless the saw itself malfunctioned in some
> way, the onus for safety rests with the operator. =A0The greatest
> "improvement in safety" would be to ban the use of all table saws. =A0Saw=
s
> would then be 100% safe. =A0I don't see that as a practical solution, how=
ever.
>
> At work, I teach HS woodshop, we use a SawStop. =A0Considering some of th=
e
> kids I get in my beginning classes, it was a wise investment. While I
> still am an "absolute bastard" about safety in school, I do breathe a
> bit easier having this particular saw there.
>
> At my home shop I use a more traditional saw. =A0Safety is my
> responsibility. =A0I have a good guard that I use, I have push sticks of
> various configurations and most importantly, I know and utilize good
> practices of saw safety. =A0Having been in the business for a long time,
> and having worked with my father for many years prior to that, I have
> met many woodworkers (some of whom, unfortunately, have also been
> woodshop teachers) missing one or more body parts. =A0I can safely state
> that every individual with whom I have ever spoken who has lost a digit
> to a saw knew full well that it was his own fault, and not the fault of
> the manufacturer. =A0I accept the fact that, perhaps, some of you may kno=
w
> of some digitless operators who blame their tool, but I personally know
> of none.
>
> Perhaps it is everything that I currently see around me of individuals
> placing the blame on outside forces, but I, for one, am growing tired of
> this. =A0If I choose to work when I am tired or inebriated, that is my ow=
n
> stupidity. =A0If I do not know how to operate a saw safely that is my own
> stupid choice. =A0The manufacturer did not force me to operate their saw,
> I chose to operate it, and I must be willing to take responsibility for
> my decision. =A0Even with the SawStop, there is a key that turns off the
> safety mechanism. =A0Should I turn it off, should I be able to sue them
> for providing this turn off mechanism?
>
> I believe that there are some countries that do not allow the use of
> dado blades on home saws. =A0(Limits on arbor length?) =A0This, as I
> understand it, is to make saw operation mor safe. =A0Maybe I am strange,
> but I don't want the government telling me that I can't use a dado blade
> because they believe that I am too ignorant to use it safely.
>
> I try to avoid "pissing matches" on the rec and I don't mean to start
> one, but I had to have my say.
>
> Glen
Glen, As I read, it became clear that the guy who was injured filed
for Workman's Comp, which he got because he was on the job, working
with a tool supplied to him by his employer. The WC lawyer on the case
decided to recoup some losses, and sued TTI--Ryobi's parent company.
Obviously, he saw deeper pockets than most people, as well as a level
of blame that most of us (or so I fervently hope) wouldn't. I've used
that saw. It has standard safety features, unless you detach them.
It was not the guy using the saw who filed the suit: I'd venture a
guess he had no say in it. As someone else said, a Speaking Weasel got
into the mix early (my apologies to all weasels out there).
The U.S. has been in serious need of tort reform for over 40 years
now.
Care is a great accident reducer, too. I've been banged around and
nicked and bit by a variety of tools over the years, including table
saws, and damned near tore a knee cap off with poor technique while
using a chainsaw, but generally, I've lost nothing but skin in the
upwards of 55 years I've been doing such things. My worst injuries
came with off-road motorcycles--maybe I should sue to make them pay to
fix my knees. Unfortunately, I think the company folded about the time
I quit riding. Ah well. It was my fault, anyway. No one held a gun to
my head.
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 16:07:41 -0700, "LDosser" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>"dustyone" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:f0689b36-33d3-4d95-9b36-23753b501b99@o30g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>>All,
>>
>>Isn't it possible that if allowed to stand, this judgement would drive
>>other saw manufacturers to adopt this technology? Cost would likely
>>be more, at first, but with wider use, the cost would necessarily get
>>lower over time. Wouldn't this be an improvement in safety for us
>>all?
>
> Do you really think that the costs wouldn't be prohibitive? You do
> understand
> that SawStop has a legal monopoly on this technology for another couple of
> decades.
It would be bad enough if it only effected tablesaws but, with lawyers being
what they are, it could have serious consequences.
A car gets T boned in the drivers door. The driver sues the manufacturer
because his car does not come with side impact airbags as some other cars
do. This could be extended to lots of things.
On 3/21/2010 9:52 AM, dustyone wrote:
> All,
>
> Isn't it possible that if allowed to stand, this judgement would drive
> other saw manufacturers to adopt this technology? Cost would likely
> be more, at first, but with wider use, the cost would necessarily get
> lower over time. Wouldn't this be an improvement in safety for us
> all?
>
> Curt Blood
>
Improvement in safety is important, but something must be said for
personal responsibility. Unless the saw itself malfunctioned in some
way, the onus for safety rests with the operator. The greatest
"improvement in safety" would be to ban the use of all table saws. Saws
would then be 100% safe. I don't see that as a practical solution, however.
At work, I teach HS woodshop, we use a SawStop. Considering some of the
kids I get in my beginning classes, it was a wise investment. While I
still am an "absolute bastard" about safety in school, I do breathe a
bit easier having this particular saw there.
At my home shop I use a more traditional saw. Safety is my
responsibility. I have a good guard that I use, I have push sticks of
various configurations and most importantly, I know and utilize good
practices of saw safety. Having been in the business for a long time,
and having worked with my father for many years prior to that, I have
met many woodworkers (some of whom, unfortunately, have also been
woodshop teachers) missing one or more body parts. I can safely state
that every individual with whom I have ever spoken who has lost a digit
to a saw knew full well that it was his own fault, and not the fault of
the manufacturer. I accept the fact that, perhaps, some of you may know
of some digitless operators who blame their tool, but I personally know
of none.
Perhaps it is everything that I currently see around me of individuals
placing the blame on outside forces, but I, for one, am growing tired of
this. If I choose to work when I am tired or inebriated, that is my own
stupidity. If I do not know how to operate a saw safely that is my own
stupid choice. The manufacturer did not force me to operate their saw,
I chose to operate it, and I must be willing to take responsibility for
my decision. Even with the SawStop, there is a key that turns off the
safety mechanism. Should I turn it off, should I be able to sue them
for providing this turn off mechanism?
I believe that there are some countries that do not allow the use of
dado blades on home saws. (Limits on arbor length?) This, as I
understand it, is to make saw operation mor safe. Maybe I am strange,
but I don't want the government telling me that I can't use a dado blade
because they believe that I am too ignorant to use it safely.
I try to avoid "pissing matches" on the rec and I don't mean to start
one, but I had to have my say.
Glen
On Mar 21, 12:52=A0pm, dustyone <[email protected]> wrote:
> All,
>
> Isn't it possible that if allowed to stand, this judgement would drive
> other saw manufacturers to adopt this technology? =A0Cost would likely
> be more, at first, but with wider use, the cost would necessarily get
> lower over time. =A0Wouldn't this be an improvement in safety for us
> all?
>
> Curt Blood
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: [email protected] (Edward A. Falk)
> Date: Mar 18, 4:39=A0pm
> Subject: Big payout in table saw suit!
> To: rec.woodworking
>
> All,
>
> Isn't it possible that if allowed to stand, this judgement would drive
> other saw manufacturers to adopt this technology? =A0Cost would likely
> be more, at first, but with wider use, the cost would necessarily get
> lower over time. =A0Wouldn't this be an improvement in safety for us
> all?
>
> Curt Blood
>
> While I'm sure all the folks at SawStop are popping the Champagne
> corks
> as we speak, I really, really, really hope this gets overturned on
> appeal.
>
> I have a 10" table saw. =A0I know full well what it could do to me if I
> fuck up. =A0I willingly take that risk every time I use it. =A0If I lose
> any body parts to it, assuming that something didn't go wrong due to
> defective design, then I would have nobody to blame but myself.
>
> This decision, if it's allowed to stand, hurts all of us.
>
> --
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 -Ed Falk, [email protected]
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0http://thespamdiaries.blogspot.com/
Provided that sawStop is willing to license the patent. They may not
be!
shelly
On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 20:39:43 +0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Edward
A. Falk) wrote:
>While I'm sure all the folks at SawStop are popping the Champagne corks
>as we speak, I really, really, really hope this gets overturned on appeal.
>
>I have a 10" table saw. I know full well what it could do to me if I
>fuck up. I willingly take that risk every time I use it. If I lose
>any body parts to it, assuming that something didn't go wrong due to
>defective design, then I would have nobody to blame but myself.
>
>This decision, if it's allowed to stand, hurts all of us.
I agree. The injured party had the opportunity to buy the SawStop,
but didn't. He had the opportunity to choose to use the Ryobi, or
not.
It all comes down to TAKING RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR ACTIONS.
As an aside, I'm currently suing Major League Baseball. I've always
wanted to pitch for the Dodgers, but I'm not very good and my arm is
worn out. I petitioned them to let me pitch from, like, 30 feet away
instead of the 60'6" in the rule book. They said "No". I think I've
got a case.
-Zz
On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 09:44:34 -0400, the infamous "J. Clarke"
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>No, that's going to come later after the precedent that the government
>can force you to buy something is established. They'll save the
>American power tool industry by passing a law that says that everyone
>_must_ buy an American made table saw whether they want one or not. Of
>course Sawstop is going to be screwed because theirs are Chinese.
What? He's selling cheap Chiwanese shit at THOSE triple prices?
That CSing MFing SOB weasel deserves to go _down_!
--
If we attend continually and promptly to the little that we can do, we
shall ere long be surprised to find how little remains that we cannot do.
-- Samuel Butler
All,
Isn't it possible that if allowed to stand, this judgement would drive
other saw manufacturers to adopt this technology? Cost would likely
be more, at first, but with wider use, the cost would necessarily get
lower over time. Wouldn't this be an improvement in safety for us
all?
Curt Blood
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: [email protected] (Edward A. Falk)
Date: Mar 18, 4:39=A0pm
Subject: Big payout in table saw suit!
To: rec.woodworking
All,
Isn't it possible that if allowed to stand, this judgement would drive
other saw manufacturers to adopt this technology? Cost would likely
be more, at first, but with wider use, the cost would necessarily get
lower over time. Wouldn't this be an improvement in safety for us
all?
Curt Blood
While I'm sure all the folks at SawStop are popping the Champagne
corks
as we speak, I really, really, really hope this gets overturned on
appeal.
I have a 10" table saw. =A0I know full well what it could do to me if I
fuck up. =A0I willingly take that risk every time I use it. =A0If I lose
any body parts to it, assuming that something didn't go wrong due to
defective design, then I would have nobody to blame but myself.
This decision, if it's allowed to stand, hurts all of us.
--
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 -Ed Falk, [email protected]
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0http://thespamdiaries.blogspot.com/
While I'm sure all the folks at SawStop are popping the Champagne corks
as we speak, I really, really, really hope this gets overturned on appeal.
I have a 10" table saw. I know full well what it could do to me if I
fuck up. I willingly take that risk every time I use it. If I lose
any body parts to it, assuming that something didn't go wrong due to
defective design, then I would have nobody to blame but myself.
This decision, if it's allowed to stand, hurts all of us.
--
-Ed Falk, [email protected]
http://thespamdiaries.blogspot.com/
"dustyone" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:f0689b36-33d3-4d95-9b36-23753b501b99@o30g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
All,
Isn't it possible that if allowed to stand, this judgement would drive
other saw manufacturers to adopt this technology? Cost would likely
be more, at first, but with wider use, the cost would necessarily get
lower over time. Wouldn't this be an improvement in safety for us
all?
Curt Blood
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IIRC, the safety feature can be disabled quite easily. Would you propose
Table Saw Police?
"Ed Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "LDosser" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> "dustyone" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:f0689b36-33d3-4d95-9b36-23753b501b99@o30g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>> All,
>>
>> Isn't it possible that if allowed to stand, this judgement would drive
>> other saw manufacturers to adopt this technology? Cost would likely
>> be more, at first, but with wider use, the cost would necessarily get
>> lower over time. Wouldn't this be an improvement in safety for us
>> all?
>>
>> Curt Blood
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> IIRC, the safety feature can be disabled quite easily. Would you propose
>> Table Saw Police?
>
> Nice theory, but the repercussions will still be very bad. Perhaps
> production of all saws should be stopped until they are ready for the new
> technology. We should also scrap any existing saw that do not have a
> blade stop.
>
> Oh, wait, I think that is on page 2645 of the new healthcare bill.
You sure? I thought power tool use was an amendment.
On 3/22/2010 12:45 AM, LDosser wrote:
> "Ed Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "LDosser" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> "dustyone" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:f0689b36-33d3-4d95-9b36-23753b501b99@o30g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>> All,
>>>
>>> Isn't it possible that if allowed to stand, this judgement would drive
>>> other saw manufacturers to adopt this technology? Cost would likely
>>> be more, at first, but with wider use, the cost would necessarily get
>>> lower over time. Wouldn't this be an improvement in safety for us
>>> all?
>>>
>>> Curt Blood
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>> IIRC, the safety feature can be disabled quite easily. Would you
>>> propose Table Saw Police?
>>
>> Nice theory, but the repercussions will still be very bad. Perhaps
>> production of all saws should be stopped until they are ready for the
>> new technology. We should also scrap any existing saw that do not have
>> a blade stop.
>>
>> Oh, wait, I think that is on page 2645 of the new healthcare bill.
>
> You sure? I thought power tool use was an amendment.
No, that's going to come later after the precedent that the government
can force you to buy something is established. They'll save the
American power tool industry by passing a law that says that everyone
_must_ buy an American made table saw whether they want one or not. Of
course Sawstop is going to be screwed because theirs are Chinese.
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 3/22/2010 12:45 AM, LDosser wrote:
>> "Ed Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> "LDosser" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> "dustyone" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:f0689b36-33d3-4d95-9b36-23753b501b99@o30g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>>>>
>>>> All,
>>>>
>>>> Isn't it possible that if allowed to stand, this judgement would drive
>>>> other saw manufacturers to adopt this technology? Cost would likely
>>>> be more, at first, but with wider use, the cost would necessarily get
>>>> lower over time. Wouldn't this be an improvement in safety for us
>>>> all?
>>>>
>>>> Curt Blood
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> IIRC, the safety feature can be disabled quite easily. Would you
>>>> propose Table Saw Police?
>>>
>>> Nice theory, but the repercussions will still be very bad. Perhaps
>>> production of all saws should be stopped until they are ready for the
>>> new technology. We should also scrap any existing saw that do not have
>>> a blade stop.
>>>
>>> Oh, wait, I think that is on page 2645 of the new healthcare bill.
>>
>> You sure? I thought power tool use was an amendment.
>
> No, that's going to come later after the precedent that the government can
> force you to buy something is established. They'll save the American
> power tool industry by passing a law that says that everyone _must_ buy an
> American made table saw whether they want one or not. Of course Sawstop
> is going to be screwed because theirs are Chinese.
>
>
>
LOL!
"Glen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 3/21/2010 9:52 AM, dustyone wrote:
>> All,
snip
>
> Perhaps it is everything that I currently see around me of individuals
> placing the blame on outside forces, but I, for one, am growing tired of
> this. If I choose to work when I am tired or inebriated, that is my own
> stupidity. If I do not know how to operate a saw safely that is my own
> stupid choice. The manufacturer did not force me to operate their saw, I
> chose to operate it, and I must be willing to take responsibility for my
> decision. Even with the SawStop, there is a key that turns off the safety
> mechanism. Should I turn it off, should I be able to sue them for
> providing this turn off mechanism?
Someone Will!
On 3/22/2010 9:44 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
> On 3/22/2010 12:45 AM, LDosser wrote:
>> "Ed Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> "LDosser" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> "dustyone" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:f0689b36-33d3-4d95-9b36-23753b501b99@o30g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> All,
>>>>
>>>> Isn't it possible that if allowed to stand, this judgement would drive
>>>> other saw manufacturers to adopt this technology? Cost would likely
>>>> be more, at first, but with wider use, the cost would necessarily get
>>>> lower over time. Wouldn't this be an improvement in safety for us
>>>> all?
>>>>
>>>> Curt Blood
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> IIRC, the safety feature can be disabled quite easily. Would you
>>>> propose Table Saw Police?
>>>
>>> Nice theory, but the repercussions will still be very bad. Perhaps
>>> production of all saws should be stopped until they are ready for the
>>> new technology. We should also scrap any existing saw that do not have
>>> a blade stop.
>>>
>>> Oh, wait, I think that is on page 2645 of the new healthcare bill.
>>
>> You sure? I thought power tool use was an amendment.
>
> No, that's going to come later after the precedent that the government
> can force you to buy something is established. They'll save the American
> power tool industry by passing a law that says that everyone _must_ buy
> an American made table saw whether they want one or not. Of course
> Sawstop is going to be screwed because theirs are Chinese.
>
>
>
With all of the safety devices, there are still times that they
interfere and prevent the accuracy necessary for the job. I make a ton
of mitered corners for picture frames on the table saw. I use a 90
degree miter gauge. Using the blade guard it is almost impossible to
get the final shave cuts to make sure both sides are the same length,
and angle.
I strongly believe in safety but the safety thing can get carried away.
Once we used small milliliter glass bottle to sample air sensitive
material. We received a bad batch of bottles and they broke when you
twisted the lids on them cutting many of fingers. Our safety person
ruled that any time you used glass bottles you had to use heavy rubber
gloves to prevent cuts. Did you ever try to put the top on one
milliliter glass bottle (About 1.5"X.3" in diameter with lids about 0.35
inches high) with heavy rubber gloves?
The only safety device that MUST be used anytime you work on anything is
your mind.
Glen typed much truth: <snip>
> Improvement in safety is important, but something must be said for
> personal responsibility. Unless the saw itself malfunctioned in some way,
> the onus for safety rests with the operator. The greatest "improvement in
> safety" would be to ban the use of all table saws. Saws would then be
> 100% safe. I don't see that as a practical solution, however.
<snip>
> I try to avoid "pissing matches" on the rec and I don't mean to start one,
> but I had to have my say.
>
> Glen
And you said it very well, thanks for doing so.
Phil
dustyone said an odd thing with this: <snip>
Glen, you make some interesting points. I would hope that we could
all agree that if blade stop technology were available on all table
saws, we would be able to work more safely. One other point in this
discussion is that there are times that, despite our expertise and
care, accidents do happen. It would be little comfort to know that it
was nobody's fault that I now had only nine digits. <snip>
That would be you, dusty. That is the whole point, isn't it?
Phil
On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 16:07:41 -0700, "LDosser" <[email protected]> wrote:
>"dustyone" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:f0689b36-33d3-4d95-9b36-23753b501b99@o30g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>All,
>
>Isn't it possible that if allowed to stand, this judgement would drive
>other saw manufacturers to adopt this technology? Cost would likely
>be more, at first, but with wider use, the cost would necessarily get
>lower over time. Wouldn't this be an improvement in safety for us
>all?
Do you really think that the costs wouldn't be prohibitive? You do understand
that SawStop has a legal monopoly on this technology for another couple of
decades.
On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 19:57:42 -0700 (PDT), the infamous
[email protected] scrawled the following:
>On Mar 21, 12:52 pm, dustyone <[email protected]> wrote:
>> All,
>>
>> Isn't it possible that if allowed to stand, this judgement would drive
>> other saw manufacturers to adopt this technology? Cost would likely
>> be more, at first, but with wider use, the cost would necessarily get
>> lower over time. Wouldn't this be an improvement in safety for us
>> all?
>>
>> Curt Blood
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: [email protected] (Edward A. Falk)
>> Date: Mar 18, 4:39 pm
>> Subject: Big payout in table saw suit!
>> To: rec.woodworking
>>
>> All,
>>
>> Isn't it possible that if allowed to stand, this judgement would drive
>> other saw manufacturers to adopt this technology? Cost would likely
>> be more, at first, but with wider use, the cost would necessarily get
>> lower over time. Wouldn't this be an improvement in safety for us
>> all?
>>
>> Curt Blood
>>
>> While I'm sure all the folks at SawStop are popping the Champagne
>> corks
>> as we speak, I really, really, really hope this gets overturned on
>> appeal.
>>
>> I have a 10" table saw. I know full well what it could do to me if I
>> fuck up. I willingly take that risk every time I use it. If I lose
>> any body parts to it, assuming that something didn't go wrong due to
>> defective design, then I would have nobody to blame but myself.
>>
>> This decision, if it's allowed to stand, hurts all of us.
>
>Provided that sawStop is willing to license the patent. They may not
>be!
The inventor, a Speaking Weasel (lawyer) had offered the licensing to
other saw companies for a set fee per unit plus EIGHT PERCENT OF THE
SAW'S PRICE. That raises a cabinet saw's price by OVER THREE HUNDRED
DOLLARS. With the amount of money it would instantly give to him I
can't see why he'd withdraw the offer.
If the idiot had said "A couple grand for the license and a buck or
two per unit." the devices would likely already be on every single new
saw coming out of all factories. But the #%^&%^&*! wanted more, a lot
more.
--
If we attend continually and promptly to the little that we can do, we
shall ere long be surprised to find how little remains that we cannot do.
-- Samuel Butler