Thread: SAWSTOP - The Argument

Originally Posted by dazzler

BobL

Apples with apples. If you are a business and you are going to use a CABINET SAW then you must use the safest one for your operator. We are talking reasonableness. It would be reasonable to expect the business to have the safest cabinet saw available. It would be unreasonable to expect the business to completely change thier operations to a completely different system.

This is how it would go in court;

SOLICITOR: "Mr L, tell the court why my client was using a cabinet saw that did not have a mechanism for stopping the blade when my client accidentally touched the spinning blade and is now missing his fingers."

Over to you BobL

Sorry this is simply a not an argument as it goes beyond the range of reasonableness since sawstop is not manadatory. Let's say the client is driving a delivery van and it does not have the latest air bag system available and the driver has an accident.
SOLICITOR: "Mr L, tell the court why my client was using a van that did not have the latest air bags and when my client accidentally hit his head on the windscreen and is now missing his head."

This will simply not get past a good defence lawyer - but like I said.
"In schools, Tafes and workplaces the sawstop probably saves its cost in the savings in paperwork and bureaucracy when someone cuts themselves. This is probably how it is priced."

EDIT: Oh I see Toolin got there first!

If this system truly works and works every time I.E. FAILSAFE and works in the majority of situations, then yes it should be manditory for industrial use, home use it should be up to the individual. However the need to instruct one in the safe use of machinery/power tools should never be overlooked

Here's a thought - why wouldn't WorkCover subsidise these things? Might be worth asking them to. $500 off every saw would help them, businesses and workers.

Originally Posted by BobL

Sorry this is simply a not an argument as it goes beyond the range of reasonableness since sawstop is not manadatory. Let's say the client is driving a delivery van and it does not have the latest air bag system available and the driver has an accident.
SOLICITOR: "Mr L, tell the court why my client was using a van that did not have the latest air bags and when my client accidentally hit his head on the windscreen and is now missing his head."

This will simply not get past a good defence lawyer - but like I said.

DEFENDANT: "I cant say your honor, perhaps I was putting profit before my employees safety. I am sorry, really sorry, that I didnt think more about it. Each night I dream about the death I caused, my wife left me and my business is gone"

Dont forget I am talking about upgrading to new equipment, which is a whole different arguement to upgrading for safety reasons.

Here is an example;

Business needs a new 4wd for its employees.

Toyota Prado seems to fit the bill. The model they choose is the GX which costs $44500. During the sale the salesman tells the owner he can add the safety pack with extra air bags/ABS/EBD/DAT for an extra $2900.

If he chooses to not go with the added safety pack and an employee is injured and it could have been prevented with the safety pack then they have failed in thier duty of care and could be liable.

Even a clever, well practiced lawyer cannot stop the asking of a simple question of;

"Our accident investigator has shown that my client would have survived had an airbag deployed. The vehicle was not fitted with an airbag. Can you tell the court why an airbag was not fitted?"

Transpose this to a new cabinet saw purchase and the same arguement applies.

No feelings either way on Sawstop, will probably never afford one.

What I would like to know is how much damage the brake does to the blade. Of course a new blade is cheaper than a finger, but if something like green wood or salt residue on a damp day accidently sets it off ......
Before you say it doesn't happen, safety devices err on side of caution, and do go off when not wanted, never found one that didn't. So does the brake going off mean a trip to the saw sharpner or new blade and does the aluminium brake need to be replaced?

Originally Posted by dazzler

If he chooses to not go with the added safety pack and an employee is injured and it could have been prevented with the safety pack then they have failed in thier duty of care and could be liable.

This is a slightly different argument as you are varying options on the one brand/product but the effect will be the same. If your line of argument were how liability law is generally interpreted in Australia then the motor vehicle manufacturer could also be at fault as well for not fitting the options to all its cars in the first place. Of course they don't because they don't have to because they are not mandatory.

I agree - nothing is black and white - the key words are your "could" and my "reasonable". Fancy talking lawyers may bamboozle the odd judge but fortunately we are not in the USA and most Australian judges and magistrates know what "reasonable" means.

Originally Posted by Toolin Around

Just a wee bit of devils advocate there daz... If that were the case them all companies that supply a vehicle to their employees would be required to buy the best and often the most expensive vehicle on the road every year to keep up with safety inovations... And it would go on and on for pretty well every business out there. The employer obviously has a duty of care to look after his employees within reason. He doesn't have to go out and buy the latest device because is a bit safer than what he already has.

Tool'n
Cars are a poor analogy because what you describe is what happens

once "safer" technology becomes available on "Australian made vehicles" — which for some funny reason are deemed to be the bench mark — it very quicky becomes the norm.

some examples I know of
When air bags first became available on Australian made cars — Volvos, Mercs and other european exotics didn't count because they were not Australian made and therefore were not usually purchased as company cars (something to do with rate of FBT tax at the time) — some NSW Govt departments would only buy cars fitted with air bags
I'm also told by an acquaintance who at the time worked for Qantas, that Qantas instigated a rule that if a woman was pregnant and had to drive a company car (Commodore or Ford) it had to be fitted with an air bag
I also know of a case where the Army was held liable because they supplied a "safer vehicle" (again it was either a Comodore or a Ford) fitted with ABS brakes but didn't train their drivers in how ABS braking differs from non-ABS, especially on gravel


ian

To Daz and Ian because you both are coming at it from the same stand point.

Do you see these sorts of claims clogging up the courts in any industry - no. Yes you do see them but be honest they're relatively rare. So why suddenly do you think you're gonna see a made rush to the courts over a shop not having a SS. A bit of a stretch don't you think. It ain't gonna happen.

When you go to the court, the Judge (and the lawyers) knows only one thing...the law (or regulations).

I'll give you for example the UK SHE (Safety & Health Execution) regulation about table saw...

1. Blade (crown) guard must be installed for any operation...
2. Riving knife must be installed for any operation.
3. The operator must use push sticks and keep his hands 150mm (I think more) from the "blade area".
4. The operator must receive proper training on the machine operation and safety.

I think that you will agree with me that, it will be very difficult (and I say - impossible) to cut a finger IF, you do obey the SHE safety regulations....

So, I'm an employer, and I have 5 guys that are qualified to work on the table saw....

I'm going out, leaving the qualified employees alone in the shop...

I'm coming back just to find out that one or more of them are going to sue me because they just cut there fingers or hands on the table saw...

I think that in the Court, the questions will not be if I used some "super technology" or not but;

"Is the table saw SHE approved and included all the safety equipment as stated by SHE ?"
"Are the employees trained for the machine ?"

If the employee cut his hand, it means that the employee did not obey the safety precautions that he knows (trained) about and that means that he did something illegal....I don't have to pay for illegal actions of qualified employee....

It's very difficult for me to imagine that somebody can cut his fingers while the blade guard is installed and his hands are at list 150mm (6") in any direction, from the blade...according to the SHE...

If there is new technology that is not required by the law, nobody can sue somebody for not using it...Lawyer; "Why you did not supply the SawStop"?....employer; "I don't know what is SawStop, I supplied all the machines according to the safety demands of SHE"... case closed...

I don't understand why anyone objects to Sawstop.

I don't have one, because I don't have the space for a heavy, fixed machine; and I don't have that much money to spend on a saw. I hope I don't regret that prioritisation.

Even though I don't have one, I admire the concept, and I applaud anyone who buys one. I don't feel put down, this isn't a competition. I don't feel harrassed, no-one is making me buy one. I do feel a little jealous, but heck, I feel a little jealous about a lot of tools.

Change the tool. Instead of Sawstop, let's say Philippe Marcou (sp?) plane. Great product. Very expensive. Not for everyone. Wish I had one. See the similarity? And see the stupidity of arguing AGAINST an obvious improvement in woodworking machinery?

There was a guy on this forum recently - sorry, I forget his name - who felt compelled to close his business after the shock of a table saw accident. I wonder what his feeling would have been if his saw was a Sawstop?

Originally Posted by Ron Dunn

There was a guy on this forum recently - sorry, I forget his name - who felt compelled to close his business after the shock of a table saw accident. I wonder what his feeling would have been if his saw was a Sawstop?

It was DIYDAN

Originally Posted by Cruzi

No feelings either way on Sawstop, will probably never afford one.

What I would like to know is how much damage the brake does to the blade. Of course a new blade is cheaper than a finger, but if something like green wood or salt residue on a damp day accidently sets it off ......
Before you say it doesn't happen, safety devices err on side of caution, and do go off when not wanted, never found one that didn't. So does the brake going off mean a trip to the saw sharpner or new blade and does the aluminium brake need to be replaced?

Understand that when the cartridge fires, it drives an chunk of aluminum into a blade spinning at full rpm. Kiss both the cartridge and the blade goodbye. You probably have a twisted blade, definitely some teeth gone and aluminum embedded in the blade. You also cannot put the saw back into operation without a new cartridge.

Things like green wood/wet wood can fire the cartridge so there ware ways to turn the safety feature off. When it's off, it's nothing more than auy other cabinet saw - something that spins a blade.

Paul

Thanks, thought as much.

I hate to think of the stresses placed on the motor and gearbox from the sudden stop.
Is there a slip clutch to protect the motor.
What is the restart time and cost after it fires.