Thread: SAWSTOP - The Argument

In the context of overall DIY injuries, we seem to be focusing on spending a lot of money for safety on the wrong tools/activities.
From http://www.iccwa.org.au/new%20info/D...y%20Report.pdf





BTW by far the majority of power saw injuries reported are with portable power saws - I have seen a figure of around 80% of these being for portable saw. This still leaves a lot of people being injured with tablesaws (ie from fig 1 above in Victoria of about 13 per year) but there is no indication of what type of incident eye/cut/kickback jamming finger in fence etc incident occurred. These are also DIY - so who knows what the pros are doing?

I know we should be looking at injury rates per unit tool type but it still shows where the bigger picture problems occur and what should be being addressed.

Ruddi ,- it looks like we need "grinderstop" or "ladderstop" I still can't convince my 80 year old mother she should not use a ladder.

317 posts to arrive at a rational argument

Looking at things from a statistical point of view only makes sense if you are making broad decisions, like whether to invest public funds or introduce legislation. The above is interesting from a risk identification point of view but it doesn't change the fact that people DO cut off their digits with table saws.

The problem with stats like these is that, of course more people fall off ladders than cut themselves with power saws: because significantly more people climb ladders than use power saws. That should be obvious.

I don't think any of this helps anyone decide if they should buy a Sawstop or not. What it shows is that they also need to be careful climbing ladders. It doesn't show that they have less to fear from a table saw.

I don't understand the argument that the Sawstop is a bad idea because there are other causes of injury out there. If I have 15 power tools in my work shop, and if there are only 14 that can injure me severely if I make one tiny error in judgement, then I am a small amount safer than if 15 can injure me. I'm very well aware of the awful mess a router can make of a finger/hand. When someone makes a router that has the same kind of safety capability as the Sawstop, I'll probably buy that router (assuming it is well made and other things are equal etc). I've got no idea how you'd make a router like that - but then again I wouldn't have dreamed up the Sawstop solution with the aid of a million engineers in a thousand years.

If someone would make a hammer that didn't hit me on the thumb, I'd probably buy that too. Because I get to use a hammer half a dozen times a year, I'll never become an expert (like all of my tools unfortunately), and I'll take all the help I can get to avoid crushing a thumb.

There are a lot of table saw accidents. These only occur when people are using a table saw, and rarely occur when they are climbing a ladder (although I guess doing both things is theoretically possible - but it won't be something I'll be experimenting with...). Accidents involving a table saw can be fairly severe, and can cause permanent injury. Such injuries can be expensive to treat and can result in loss of income, changed life circumstances, expensive insurance claims, etc. etc. Some of the accidents involving table saws that result in permanent injury involve very experienced, professional operators. Some involve amateurs without a lot of expertise (that'd be me...). If these accidents can be prevented by buying a Sawstop (and spending the additional money) rather than a different table saw, then I for one think it is a good investment.

If I damage a hand using a table saw it won't be because I don't know how to safely use one. It will be because I made a mistake. Unfortunately, I'm a pretty fallible human, and I make mistakes all the time. If making one on a table saw costs me a bit more money instead of a hand, I'll be grateful. If it saves the hand of one of my children, I'll be eternally grateful. For me (and I freely acknowledge that this is a personal decision for all of us, I'm just explaining the motivations behind mine), saving the money doesn't even come into it...

Originally Posted by silentC

Looking at things from a statistical point of view only makes sense if you are making broad decisions, like whether to invest public funds or introduce legislation. The above is interesting from a risk identification point of view but it doesn't change the fact that people DO cut off their digits with table saws.

Correct. But it does show no one died from a power saw injury during that time. From a hard nose economic - money versus risk point of view, expenditure on a sawstop mechanism is about equivalent to expenditure on air bags and seat belts on a car - which clearly save lives and severe (quadriplegic) type injuries and huge amounts of taxpayers money (and still does not prevent accidents happening). Table saw type injuries are nowhere near in that category. But as you say from an individuals point of view having ones pinkies cut off is a different story.

The problem with stats like these is that, of course more people fall off ladders than cut themselves with power saws: because significantly more people climb ladders than use power saws. That should be obvious.

Yep - see my post "I know we should be looking at injury rates per unit tool type but from a community cost point of view it still shows what we should be being addressed."

I don't think any of this helps anyone decide if they should buy a Sawstop or not. What it shows is that they also need to be careful climbing ladders. It doesn't show that they have less to fear from a table saw.

Sure but all injuries and deaths can be analysed by a simple risk v cost.
Lets look at the "vehicle maintenance" death rate, about 3 per year in Victoria. The are largely caused by people getting crushed by vehicles falling on them while DIY vehicle maintenance.
A simple solution to reducing this ("death" not "pinkie loss" rate) problem is to talk people into buying fully automated car lifts/jack with interlocks etc. (I have no idea what they cost ~$20k?) Why don't we do this? why don't we see it made mandatory? - because the cost versus risk is not seen as worth it. People that are concerned about this might buy them, and those that do not will probably not, those that worry about it and think they can take other precautions to reduce risk also do not buy them - it's the same with sawstop.

I'm not saying sawstop is a bad idea - all i'm saying is it is too expensive for my perceived risk.

Originally Posted by Poppa

There are a lot of table saw accidents.

What do you mean by "a lot"? What is probably safe to say is that there are more table saw accidents per TS than most other tools but the number of accidents is much less than portable power saws. Don't forget, there are also TS accidents that sawstop will not prevent.

The risk of injury is also dependent on how often you use tools. I use my tablesaw about once every two weeks for about 10- 15 minutes. I use my 42" long chainsaw for about 6 hours a week and would say it is far more dangerous than my table saw. I spent about $200 on a CS safety course and ~$300 on CS protective personal equipment to operate my chainsaw. Yes I could do more to reduce risk - I could even buy a $200k fully automated mill. The reality is as a DYIer I cannot see/justify the cost/risk saving of $2000 on a safety saw safety mechanism when I can take other precautions, for the small amount of time I use my TS.

If you use a TS for many hours a day there might be a greater rationale for sawstop. I'm not saying its a bad idea - I happen to think it is a very clever bit of engineering, it's just not a complete solution or a "cost/benefit/risk averting" solution for everyone.

For those that have bought the sawstop to avert risk why did you stop at sawstop?. Why didn't you buy a fully automated controlled sawmill. You could put the timber in one end and stand in a clean air conditioned booth and cut to high accuracy in complete cotton wool comfort? No kickback, no dust in your lungs, etc. ..... Ahh . .. . $250k suddenly a little above your budget? Not willing to purchase the 200 m2 of extra land and a $20k + 3 phase shed needed to set up the mill? "You lot are a bunch of cheapskates who have no real commitment to safety and reducing risk and should be reported to auforidies"!

This reminds me a little of the meningococcal immunisation debate. As you know, there are several types. Doctors came up with a vaccination for type C, a less dangerous strain - but some were saying that because it doesn't protect against Type B - the most lethal form, what was the point of inoculation against type C. I could never understand that argument.

Niki, I'm very interested in your new idea, I'm into stripping.