Skin Sensing Table Saw

killabrew writes "Check out this article from Design News about a new skin sensing table saw technology that is on the verge of becoming a mandatory piece of hardware on every table saw. For years inventor Stephen Gass persevered in the face of legal, corporate and technical foes, he is forcing society to rethink its acceptance of saw blade accidents."

Comments

I tried to buy one.

[RonTheHurler]

I saw this demonstrated once, on the Tonight show, with Johnny Carson (yes, I'm that old and yes, this thing's been around that long!)

So, when I finally had a reason to go buy a tablesaw for my business, and I saw the horrible cost of insurance, I tried to buy the auto-shut-off table saw. Of course, I searched the web. Then I called the big saw distribution importers and distributors. It took some effort, but I finally got an answer why they were not, and probably would never be available.

It's not a perfect product. It is still possible to get your fingers cut off, and it is possible to have it "jam" on plain old wood too. When it jams, you have to replace the blade and the whole blade jamming mechanism- it can take most of a day to do that, if you have the parts, and it's expensive. It can cost as much as a whole new table saw each time it goes off.

All those things are solveable, but I was also told that the insurance companies hate the thing. It sounds counter-intuitive, but you know that a table saw is dangerous. If you believe that it's less dangerous, then you might be more careless too. The car companies had a similar argument against seat belts back in the 1960s.

There are better solutions in industry. CNC automated machines are used where lots of similar parts need to be made. There are very few, if any, one-off parts in manufacturing environments. So the only real market for this machine is the hobbyist or general contractor and cabinet maker, and the professionals have really good stafety rules anyway (at least the ones where I worked did).

But, as it stands, nobody has a case if he tries to sue the manufacturer because he cut off his finger. But put an auto-brake on the saw, and every time it fails the manufacturer and insurance company have a dismemberment case to settle.

-------------------

Use your table saw today! Get catapult and trebuchet kit plans at http://www.trebuchetplans.com/

Need a "good samaritan" exemption

[Kadin2048]

But, as it stands, nobody has a case if he tries to sue the manufacturer because he cut off his finger. But put an auto-brake on the saw, and every time it fails the manufacturer and insurance company have a dismemberment case to settle.

An well-said, although unfortunate, point.

It's seemed to me for a while that we need -- if we can't actually accomplish all-over tort reform -- some sort of a "good samaritan" law for corporations as well as individuals.

There shouldn't be any liability reasons for not putting a safety device like this on your equipment. But the system as it stands doesn't encourage it, for exactly the reasons you mention. Without a safety device, and as long as they're not "expected," when someone takes their finger off, it's just their own damn fault. But with the safety device, they'll be a massive lawsuit whenever it doesn't work perfectly -- even though it might work very well most of the time.

This reminds me of the situation in many states prior to the introduction of "good samaritan" liability laws. You'd have doctors and off-duty paramedics driving past the scene of an accident and not stopping, because nobody wanted to risk getting sued. It was only after some pretty ridiculous and unfortunate situations, where it became clear that as a society, we shouldn't be encouraging people to leave their fellows bleeding to death in a ditch because of fear of being sued later, that many states have changed the law.

A company which makes it's products safer than the norm shouldn't be liable for suits when the safety mechanism fails, if the result of the failure is that the product is only as dangerous as the device would normally be expected to be (assuming the manufacturer has not advertised it as being much safer, or that less precautions are necessary).

Any time you have the law encouraging the creation of more-dangerous products for perceived liability reasons, you have a problem. The goal of the law should be to encourage and reward productive behavior, not discourage and punish it.