Feds tackle tablesaw safety - Higher prices are on the way?

[GhostFist]

Sparky said it best ;D I have to admit I have a craving for BBQ now though oddly enough

 

[BobKovacs]

.  In the same vein, the incredibly stupid woman that successfully sued McDonald's for her own blatant stupidity in putting an open cup of hot coffee between her legs while driving, as well as the entire legal team that created this miscarriage of justice, should be tied to the tree and have every square inch of hide flogged off their butts, rinsed with lemon juice, rolled in rock salt, basted with habanero sauce, and placed on a spit over a nice warm bed of coals for eternity.  (Not that anyone would consider me to be opinionated...)

Veering off topic a bit here, but you obviously don't know the facts behind that case:

1.  McDonalds had over 700 complaints about their coffee being served too hot prior to that incident.  They were putting to coffee into cups at 180-190 degrees, while every other coffee vendor normally serves coffee at 135-140 degrees.
2. The woman in that case wasn't driving the car- she was a 79 year-old woman who was a passenger in the car, which was not in motion when the incident happened- they'd stopped at the end of the drivethru, and she placed the cup between her knees to take the lid off, when the contents dumped into her lap.
3.  She only asked for $20,000 to cover the cost of treatments she had undergone to correct the 3rd degree burns she suffered, which required an 8-day hospital stay.  McDonalds refused to pay, so off to court they went, where the jury awarded her $200k in compensatory damages and $2.7million in punitive damages, which was subsequently reduced to $480k.

McDonalds now serves their coffee at a lower temperature- what a surprise.....

 

[Sparktrician]

.  In the same vein, the incredibly stupid woman that successfully sued McDonald's for her own blatant stupidity in putting an open cup of hot coffee between her legs while driving, as well as the entire legal team that created this miscarriage of justice, should be tied to the tree and have every square inch of hide flogged off their butts, rinsed with lemon juice, rolled in rock salt, basted with habanero sauce, and placed on a spit over a nice warm bed of coals for eternity.  (Not that anyone would consider me to be opinionated...)

Veering off topic a bit here, but you obviously don't know the facts behind that case:

1.  McDonalds had over 700 complaints about their coffee being served too hot prior to that incident.  They were putting to coffee into cups at 180-190 degrees, while every other coffee vendor normally serves coffee at 135-140 degrees.
2. The woman in that case wasn't driving the car- she was a 79 year-old woman who was a passenger in the car, which was not in motion when the incident happened- they'd stopped at the end of the drivethru, and she placed the cup between her knees to take the lid off, when the contents dumped into her lap.
3.  She only asked for $20,000 to cover the cost of treatments she had undergone to correct the 3rd degree burns she suffered, which required an 8-day hospital stay.  McDonalds refused to pay, so off to court they went, where the jury awarded her $200k in compensatory damages and $2.7million in punitive damages, which was subsequently reduced to $480k.

McDonalds now serves their coffee at a lower temperature- what a surprise.....

Sorry, in my opinion, anyone who hasn't learned by the age of 79 to NOT put a very hot cup of coffee between his/her legs/knees, whether driving or a passenger in a motor vehicle, whether in motion or not, deserves NO sympathy, never mind a huge penalty payment.  Any person who picks up a cup of coffee and can't sense that it's really hot, and who subsequently puts that cup of coffee where it ought not to be, deserves no settlement.  Where's the personal responsibility in this case?  No doubt McDonald's should not have been serving coffee that hot, but McDonald's isn't the one that put the cup of coffee between her legs/knees. 

[scratch chin] 

 

[BobKovacs]

Sorry, in my opinion, anyone who hasn't learned by the age of 79 to NOT put a very hot cup of coffee between his/her legs/knees, whether driving or a passenger in a motor vehicle, whether in motion or not, deserves NO sympathy, never mind a huge penalty payment.  Any person who picks up a cup of coffee and can't sense that it's really hot, and who subsequently puts that cup of coffee where it ought not to be, deserves no settlement.  Where's the personal responsibility in this case?  No doubt McDonald's should not have been serving coffee that hot, but McDonald's isn't the one that put the cup of coffee between her legs/knees. 

[scratch chin] 

The jury did find her to be 20% at fault in the case, because like you said, putting a cup of coffee between your legs isn't exactly brilliant.  However, anything over 140 degrees is capable of causing burns like she suffered, which is why most places keep their coffee under that threshold.  If I was to pick up a cup of coffee, it's doubtful that I'd be able to tell if it was or wasn't above 140 degrees, and while I might expect to get a burning sensation if I was dumb enough to spill it in my lap, I certainly wouldn't expect to get 3rd degree burns. 

Along the same lines of "personal responsibility", there's a little thing called "corporate responsibility"- when you've had oh, say 700 or so complaints about people getting burned by your coffee, you kinda owe it to your consumers to fix that problem.  Can you imagine if Festool had received 700 complaints about the blade randomly flying out of their saws, and decided to do nothing about it- instead waiting for one of the flying blades to take someone's head off?  Saying "hey- you bought the saw, and knew it had a blade that could cut your head off- where's you're personal responsibility??" wouldn't fly.  Same concept, don't you think?

 

[mouppe]

I want to take advantage of every possible safety feature that doesn't impede my progress, and which may aid in creating a safer workplace, I do not want Big Brother looking over my shoulder and saying, "Tsk, tsk, tak!".  I do not want the US to wind up being yet another pathetic nanny state like the UK.  I'm all for users of tools (as well as other devices) accepting personal responsibility for learning how to use these devices responsibly, properly and safely, and then doing so.  I am constantly appalled by the crap that lawyers manage to get away with in the name of "public safety".  While I agree that the SawStop technology is a wonderful solution and that the SawStop products are certainly very well made, I think that it is indefensible for the inventor to lock up the technology and the patents so tightly as to discourage other manufacturers from incorporating the technology into other products as inexpensively as possible, given the potential benefit to the many that use these tools daily.  I would think more highly of the inventor if he took the "pro bono" approach and released the technology into the public domain.  In the Osorio case, I think that the company that set this untrained fellow up for failure should be the one held to account, and not the maker of the Ryobi saw.  In the same vein, the incredibly stupid woman that successfully sued McDonald's for her own blatant stupidity in putting an open cup of hot coffee between her legs while driving, as well as the entire legal team that created this miscarriage of justice, should be tied to the tree and have every square inch of hide flogged off their butts, rinsed with lemon juice, rolled in rock salt, basted with habanero sauce, and placed on a spit over a nice warm bed of coals for eternity.  (Not that anyone would consider me to be opinionated...)

[mad]  

A pathetic nanny state? Really?

At least you can buy all the Festools NAINA.

 

[greg mann]

Sorry, in my opinion, anyone who hasn't learned by the age of 79 to NOT put a very hot cup of coffee between his/her legs/knees, whether driving or a passenger in a motor vehicle, whether in motion or not, deserves NO sympathy, never mind a huge penalty payment.  Any person who picks up a cup of coffee and can't sense that it's really hot, and who subsequently puts that cup of coffee where it ought not to be, deserves no settlement.  Where's the personal responsibility in this case?  No doubt McDonald's should not have been serving coffee that hot, but McDonald's isn't the one that put the cup of coffee between her legs/knees. 

[scratch chin] 

The jury did find her to be 20% at fault in the case, because like you said, putting a cup of coffee between your legs isn't exactly brilliant.  However, anything over 140 degrees is capable of causing burns like she suffered, which is why most places keep their coffee under that threshold.  If I was to pick up a cup of coffee, it's doubtful that I'd be able to tell if it was or wasn't above 140 degrees, and while I might expect to get a burning sensation if I was dumb enough to spill it in my lap, I certainly wouldn't expect to get 3rd degree burns.   

Along the same lines of "personal responsibility", there's a little thing called "corporate responsibility"- when you've had oh, say 700 or so complaints about people getting burned by your coffee, you kinda owe it to your consumers to fix that problem.   Can you imagine if Festool had received 700 complaints about the blade randomly flying out of their saws, and decided to do nothing about it- instead waiting for one of the flying blades to take someone's head off?  Saying "hey- you bought the saw, and knew it had a blade that could cut your head off- where's you're personal responsibility??" wouldn't fly.  Same concept, don't you think?

While I have no reason to believe it applies in this case there are certainly 79 year old (and younger) folks who may suffer from mild demensia, arthritis, or who knows what. People have a right to be protected from KNOWN hazards.

I will probably get a lot of flack for saying this but I think most of you who rail against mandated safety regulations do it out of arrogance. Let's face it, we all tend to think we are smarter than the average dude. Nobody needs to tell us how to think or act. Personally, I have had enough humbling experiences to be willing to accept some mandated actions as good, and I think this is a great example of one of those actions. Even if any individual on this forum is so diligent enough, disciplined enough, careful enough, ad nauseum, we have children, grandchildren, spouses, etc. that we need to think about. None of us are that good we cannot benfit from a little extra help now and then.

 

[Sparktrician]

The jury did find her to be 20% at fault in the case, because like you said, putting a cup of coffee between your legs isn't exactly brilliant.  However, anything over 140 degrees is capable of causing burns like she suffered, which is why most places keep their coffee under that threshold.  If I was to pick up a cup of coffee, it's doubtful that I'd be able to tell if it was or wasn't above 140 degrees, and while I might expect to get a burning sensation if I was dumb enough to spill it in my lap, I certainly wouldn't expect to get 3rd degree burns.   

Along the same lines of "personal responsibility", there's a little thing called "corporate responsibility"- when you've had oh, say 700 or so complaints about people getting burned by your coffee, you kinda owe it to your consumers to fix that problem.   Can you imagine if Festool had received 700 complaints about the blade randomly flying out of their saws, and decided to do nothing about it- instead waiting for one of the flying blades to take someone's head off?  Saying "hey- you bought the saw, and knew it had a blade that could cut your head off- where's you're personal responsibility??" wouldn't fly.  Same concept, don't you think? 

 

Bob, I don't disagree with you regarding a need for corporate responsibility.  At the same time, corporate responsibility should not be the end determinant and outweigh individual personal responsibility for one's own actions.  As for one's ability to determine actual temperature when one picks up a cup of a hot substance, I've never known anyone that could ascertain actual temperature (Fahrenheit or Celsius) manually.  Every person I've known has the ability to decide that, whatever the substance or object, it's too hot to maintain contact with it, even when double-cupped and lidded.  The element of common sense should come into play at some point.  Yes, there are those without so much as a lick thereof (which makes Darwin's point about survival of the fittest). 

 

[Sparktrician]

A pathetic nanny state? Really?

At least you can buy all the Festools NAINA.

 

Yes, and despite the ability to acquire all the goodies NAINA, they still have cameras around every corner (and even likely peeking up their kilts) to ensure that some poor, disadvantaged soul doesn't get so much as a hangnail or trip over a doghair.  

[scared]

 

[WarnerConstCo.]

At least there is an override switch.

I know a few people that ran the saw stops and had several false triggers from the wood they were cutting.

Now that would piss me off.

 

[junk731]

Table saws come with excellent safety features already installed, blade guards and more recently riving knifes. Blades prevent direct contact with the blade and riving knifes prevent kickback. Choosing not not use them or removing them is a personal choice. The Sawstop could also be manipulated in such a way as to remove all safety features and cut ones fingers if one desired. The problem isn't the safety of the equipment, but the competence of the operator. Pretty hard to legislate that. The problems with numbers and stats is that can be manipulated to show you what you want to see. 2cents CDN

John

 

[mouppe]

A pathetic nanny state? Really?

At least you can buy all the Festools NAINA.

 

Yes, and despite the ability to acquire all the goodies NAINA, they still have cameras around every corner (and even likely peeking up their kilts) to ensure that some poor, disadvantaged soul doesn't get so much as a hangnail or trip over a doghair.  

[scared]

Perhaps if you were aware of the historical reason behind the large number of security cameras in the UK, you would not be so flippant.

They were installed in the 1980s and 1990s as a response to the IRA bombing campaign.

 

[BobKovacs]

Table saws come with excellent safety features already installed, blade guards and more recently riving knifes. Blades prevent direct contact with the blade and riving knifes prevent kickback. Choosing not not use them or removing them is a personal choice. The Sawstop could also be manipulated in such a way as to remove all safety features and cut ones fingers if one desired. The problem isn't the safety of the equipment, but the competence of the operator. Pretty hard to legislate that. The problems with numbers and stats is that can be manipulated to show you what you want to see. 2cents CDN

John

Hmmmm....maybe they can come up with a "table saw operator's license", kinda like a drivers license.  Then you can buy "table saw insurance", like you buy car insurance, so there's a policy in place to cover you when you hurt yourself or someone else.  I see a whole new government agency in the works here......

 

[Sparktrician]

Perhaps if you were aware of the historical reason behind the large number of security cameras in the UK, you would not be so flippant.

They were installed in the 1980s and 1990s as a response to the IRA bombing campaign.

I am well aware of the original reason, and also aware that the IRA has largely marginalized themselves, yet the number of cameras has not diminished in proportionate response, but in fact grown.  Think about the number of tools that we carry in NA without giving much thought to their construction, like a simple pocket knife (Spyderco Delica, for example).  Nobody gives it a second thought.  The Delica is an intelligently designed product with a locking blade for the owner's safety, so that blade doesn't close on the owner's pinkies.  In the UK, if a constable sees that very same Delica, he's likely to be running in circles, wetting his pants, because the simple tool has a locking blade.  Well, OK, the UK has a challenge in that kids are going around poking each other with cutlery.  Deal with the real problem, i.e., the behavior, not the tool that so many use very successfully every day.  Shifting gears a bit, let's say that you're living in the UK, and some miscreant breaks into your house and accosts you.  Should you have the temerity to defend yourself, and the little darling is injured, however slightly, as you defend yourself, your loved ones and your home, YOU become the target for Big Brother, not the miscreant.  Not acceptable.  I will certainly never be one to accept a nanny state without objection. 

 

[BobKovacs]

Perhaps if you were aware of the historical reason behind the large number of security cameras in the UK, you would not be so flippant.

They were installed in the 1980s and 1990s as a response to the IRA bombing campaign.

I am well aware of the original reason, and also aware that the IRA has largely marginalized themselves, yet the number of cameras has not diminished in proportionate response, but in fact grown.  Think about the number of tools that we carry in NA without giving much thought to their construction, like a simple pocket knife (Spyderco Delica, for example).  Nobody gives it a second thought.  The Delica is an intelligently designed product with a locking blade for the owner's safety, so that blade doesn't close on the owner's pinkies.  In the UK, if a constable sees that very same Delica, he's likely to be running in circles, wetting his pants, because the simple tool has a locking blade.  Well, OK, the UK has a challenge in that kids are going around poking each other with cutlery.  Deal with the real problem, i.e., the behavior, not the tool that so many use very successfully every day.  Shifting gears a bit, let's say that you're living in the UK, and some miscreant breaks into your house and accosts you.  Should you have the temerity to defend yourself, and the little darling is injured, however slightly, as you defend yourself, your loved ones and your home, YOU become the target for Big Brother, not the miscreant.  Not acceptable.  I will certainly never be one to accept a nanny state without objection. 

Sounds like what happens here in the US, with the exception of a few states like Texas.....

 

[fritter63]

Perhaps if you were aware of the historical reason behind the large number of security cameras in the UK, you would not be so flippant.

They were installed in the 1980s and 1990s as a response to the IRA bombing campaign.

I am well aware of the original reason, and also aware that the IRA has largely marginalized themselves, yet the number of cameras has not diminished in proportionate response, but in fact grown. 

And those camera's don't seem to be much of a deturrent either:

6 ROBBERS Vs. ONE ANGRY GRAN! [MUST SEE!!!]

Seems that what london really needs on every street corner is a little old lady with a purse! Ruth Buzzie, where are you now?

 

[JimRay]

I wonder, how many of us would buy it if SawStop technology was available as a reasonably priced retrofit to our existing table saws? By reasonably priced, I would think something in the $250 range for the retrofit kit, plus the cost of the cartridge.

My saw was 15 years old when the SawStop technology was introduced, and several years older before the SawStop saw was available. I'd gladly retrofit it, but I'd prefer not to replace the saw. And if the law changed, would I be required to junk it so that some other poor slob didn't have opportunity to hurt himself with it?

Jim Ray

 

[mouppe]

Perhaps if you were aware of the historical reason behind the large number of security cameras in the UK, you would not be so flippant.

They were installed in the 1980s and 1990s as a response to the IRA bombing campaign.

I am well aware of the original reason, and also aware that the IRA has largely marginalized themselves, yet the number of cameras has not diminished in proportionate response, but in fact grown.  Think about the number of tools that we carry in NA without giving much thought to their construction, like a simple pocket knife (Spyderco Delica, for example).  Nobody gives it a second thought.  The Delica is an intelligently designed product with a locking blade for the owner's safety, so that blade doesn't close on the owner's pinkies.  In the UK, if a constable sees that very same Delica, he's likely to be running in circles, wetting his pants, because the simple tool has a locking blade.  Well, OK, the UK has a challenge in that kids are going around poking each other with cutlery.  Deal with the real problem, i.e., the behavior, not the tool that so many use very successfully every day.  Shifting gears a bit, let's say that you're living in the UK, and some miscreant breaks into your house and accosts you.  Should you have the temerity to defend yourself, and the little darling is injured, however slightly, as you defend yourself, your loved ones and your home, YOU become the target for Big Brother, not the miscreant.  Not acceptable.  I will certainly never be one to accept a nanny state without objection.  

This thread's about tablesaw safety in the US, not your opinions about politics, self-defence and juvenile crime in the UK.

 

[joraft]

I just hate this thread ...

I've actually found it interesting reading, a wide variety of opinions, mostly presented in a thoughtful way.

Isn't that what a forum is all about?  [smile]

.

 

[Brice Burrell]

.....I will probably get a lot of flack for saying this but I think most of you who rail against mandated safety regulations do it out of arrogance. Let's face it, we all tend to think we are smarter than the average dude. Nobody needs to tell us how to think or act. Personally, I have had enough humbling experiences to be willing to accept some mandated actions as good, and I think this is a great example of one of those actions. Even if any individual on this forum is so diligent enough, disciplined enough, careful enough, ad nauseum, we have children, grandchildren, spouses, etc. that we need to think about. None of us are that good we cannot benfit from a little extra help now and then.

Greg, as always, your posts are first rate.  I've done some things on a table saw that would make anyone cringe.  I've never had a table saw accident, not because I'm smarter than the average dude but because my time for an accident hasn't come yet.  I'll be darn lucky if this type of safety device becomes mandatory before that day.....

 

[BobKovacs]

I wonder, how many of us would buy it if SawStop technology was available as a reasonably priced retrofit to our existing table saws? By reasonably priced, I would think something in the $250 range for the retrofit kit, plus the cost of the cartridge.

Personally, I wouldn't retrofit my saw with it, because I'm the only one who uses the saw, and I know myself and my work habits well enough to know that I'll never need the technology.  Both the blade guard and riving knife on my saw are in place exactly as they came from the manufacturer, and I'm always very conscious about where the blade is in relation to my hands.

Now, if I was running a company with employees who were operating that saw, or if my daughters take an interest in woodworking and want to use it, I'd definitely be either retrofitting the saw, or replacing it with a unit with the SawStop technology.  I can protect myself by being cognizant of my actions, but I can't do the same for others, and  the liability is just to great as an employer and/or parent.