Sarah and list,
I truly don't mean to burden this list too much with this topic
but this now begins to hit home. Your key phrase for me was the beginning
of your second paragraph. In your perfect world it seems that now once this
law is passed and all saws , used by more than the person who purchased it,
are required to have this new finger saving if not life saving device. Great!
Suppose in a hypothetical world that I run a fledgling piano
rebuilding business where I can barely afford but need some part time help
to make my business work. In my world I can no longer do everything
necessary to run my business alone so I have to trust some , hopefully
adequately, trained help. OK, maybe this isn't hypothetical at all. Because
of my lack of superhuman qualities in personal time management I am unable
to build the bench I promised to a local school. I delegate this task to my
aforementioned help. I have seen this individual use my well outfitted and
properly maintained saw many times and this person is a careful and
conscientious person. What I hear you saying is that while they are trained
and understand the risks of running shop equipment I should be required to
provide this equipment on my saw. As mentioned by others this equipment
will break or malfunction like all equipment does from time to time causing
quite a bit of expenditure on my part. An expenditure I can little afford.
Who pays for this? Furthermore there are many other things around my shop
that could be dangerous. Where does it stop?
How many things must a company provide for it's employees to
prevent even the minutest of possibilities? How many companies would be
left in business if all these mandatory requirements were in force? People
lament the loss of the mom and pop stores. Can you guess why they're all
but gone? Regulations are certainly part of it. Should we be providing any
prospective employee with a litany of papers to sign exempting us, the
employer, of any responsibility of injury or harm for working in a
potentially dangerous environment? Can't we just assume that when we pull
into McDonalds and get hot coffee at the drive through that it is indeed
hot and may burn us if it spills? In my view it's all gone quite a bit too
far.
In summary, I believe that certain things should simply be
understood as common knowledge. Power tools carry risk. If you don't like
the risk don't work in a place that uses them. Nobody has a gun to your
head. If I as a cash rich (yeah right) employer want to install or retrofit
all my existing equipment with the latest and greatest in safety equipment
well and good. It may even help me to attract and keep good employees. If
not my employees should simply know and understand (because nobody is that
stupid) that any tool or any activity carries with it certain risks that
ultimately come down to their own responsibility. People do stupid things
sometimes. Why does it have to be someones' fault other than their own? I
can see your argument for safety. I'm all for it. Just don't run us all out
of business before you step down off that soapbox.
Greg Newell
At 12:20 AM 12/23/2004, you wrote:
>Hi Greg,
>
>OK, true, I agree that we should all have the right to take our own risks
>however we feel appropriate, making decisions as adults, so long as those
>decisions don't impact others. (Geesh, I could talk about quite a few
>things the gubuhment prevents me from doing, just because the good folx of
>this country think they're unusual. The linguistic importance of
>"defining" this and that comes to mind.) I do agree that the government
>often oversteps its bounds.
>
>On the other hand, if you work for XYZ Cabinet Company, which has saws
>unequipped with this safety device, and you zip off four fingers on your
>left hand, you will be going on disability. Then we as a society shoulder
>the expense for XYZ's cost-cutting measures. I bet that sort of stuph
>costs me thousands of dollars each year, so I take it rather
>personally. But I agree that if you risk chopping off your own fingers on
>your own time at your own expense (no insurance, Medicare, govt-subsidized
>hospitals, tax-paid ambulances, etc) , and with no risk that I'll be
>paying your your upkeep, either through my high taxes or through my high
>insurance premiums, then who am I to complain? None of the gubuhment's
>business!
>
>I truly believe, however, that most matters of government regulation
>derives from the belief that people's carelessness, stupidity, etc., would
>otherwise become a burden to the American taxpayer. Beyond that, I doubt
>anyone in Washington gives a fig what happens to any of us -- except
>perhaps when it comes to preventing perceived abominations of linguistics! ;-)
>
>Peace,
>Sarah
>
>
>----- Original Message ----- From: "Greg Newell" <gnewell@ameritech.net>
>To: "Pianotech" <pianotech@ptg.org>
>Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2004 11:04 PM
>Subject: Re: SawStop safety table saw
>
>
>>
>>Sarah,
>> I completely understand your point but what you might be missing
>> is that it should not be crammed down other peoples throats just because
>> someone seems to have found what THEY consider to be a better way. In
>> fact I think that any of the safety equipment that you've mentioned
>> should be OPTIONAL not mandatory. This is just one more example of
>> someone assuming they know what's best for everyone else and working to
>> pass laws to MAKE you conform to their views. I call that meddling in
>> other peoples business. There are many things in life that are
>> considered acceptable risk. If I walk in my suburb and cross the street
>> I might get hit by a bus. I still choose to cross as I deem it an
>> acceptable risk. We drive on wet or snowy roads when the danger of
>> fender benders or a serious accident is a very real risk and yet we
>> drive. Life is full of inherent dangers. It always will be. Not every
>> better way should be legislated and mandatory is my point. If I pose no
>> danger to you why should you tell me what I HAVE to do? You can preach
>> all day why I should but you should never tell me I MUST.
>>
>>
>>
>>At 10:33 PM 12/22/2004, you wrote:
>>>Hi Greg,
>>>
>>>My dad was an architect, so I've been around the construction for a huge
>>>chunk of my life. I've known a few VERY careful professionals who have
>>>removed parts of their bodies, including a very good friend, who chopped
>>>her left index finger off with a miter saw. All it takes is a bit of
>>>fatigue and a fleeting moment of inattention. While I, too, squirm at
>>>the thought of more government regulations, I'm also baffled at why
>>>people don't WANT or even DEMAND these sorts of safety features on their
>>>equipment! They're similar to the folks who drive without seat belts
>>>and leave loaded, unlocked guns around for their kids to play
>>>with. They think that accidents always happen to OTHER people.
>>>
>>>When groaning about the added cost of safety equipment, don't forget to
>>>weigh that cost against the cost of reattachment surgery, down-time, and
>>>impaired functionality. What's the real cost? What is the fraction of
>>>people you know, of your skill level and attention to safety, who have
>>>de-fingered themselves? Multiply that fraction by ten or twenty
>>>thousand (or much more) dollars. That's your estimated lifetime cost of
>>>finger loss, on average, thinking like a gambler. Now compare that cost
>>>against the cost of the equipment.
>>>
>>>And that's just dollars and cents. How much are your fingers really
>>>worth to you? Much more than the cost of reattachment surgery? (Mine are.)
>>>
>>>I applaud the technology -- "air bags" for power tools. You can bet
>>>that my next table saw will have one, provided it's available.
>>>
>>>Peace,
>>>Sarah
>>>
>>>
>>>----- Original Message ----- From: "Greg Newell" <gnewell@ameritech.net>
>>>To: "Pianotech" <pianotech@ptg.org>
>>>Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2004 3:51 PM
>>>Subject: Re: SawStop safety table saw
>>>
>>>
>>>>Not only that Cy and Ron but the first I heard of this unit, the
>>>>inventor was pushing to get this as a mandatory thing for all saws
>>>>sold. Trying to work himself into guaranteed profits it sounds like.
>>>>Besides even the unseemliness of that do we really need one more level
>>>>of government involved demanding that we have safeguards on our
>>>>equipment? When will we learn? Some things are just inherently
>>>>dangerous. Can't we just understand that and exercise caution without
>>>>something more being demanded of us? This item would certainly cost
>>>>more and break down on occasion. I, for one, am not willing to undergo
>>>>more expense for someone's careless behavior that cost them a finger.
>>>>Why punish everyone for something like that? As an add on? Fine! As
>>>>mandatory? I'm against it %1000.
>>>>
>>>>my 2 cents
>>>>
>>>>Greg Newell
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>At 03:27 PM 12/22/2004, you wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>Ron, why wouldn't professional woodworkers like it? What are the
>>>>>>downsides, besides the initial expense? (Assuming you don't trigger
>>>>>>the safety device a few times a day...)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>--Cy Shuster--
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Hi Cy,
>>>>>Typically, the first thing the professional does is take off all the
>>>>>OSHA approved guards and toss them in the shed. They tend to want to
>>>>>be able to see the blade so they know where their hands are in
>>>>>relation to it. In this case, the brake doesn't create a hazard by
>>>>>hiding the blade, but it adds extra cost for magic that looks
>>>>>altogether too good to be believable. Professionals tend to get hurt
>>>>>on table saws by kick-backs while sawing something. Can this braking
>>>>>system tell the difference between cutting a piece of maple and
>>>>>cutting a piece of maple AND a couple of fingers? Seems like that's
>>>>>asking a lot, especially to a professional who has spent a lot of
>>>>>years experiencing the limitations as well as the capabilities of
>>>>>machinery. It supposedly can, but how far can it be trusted, what kind
>>>>>of maintenance is required, does it reset automatically, and do you
>>>>>have to risk an occasional hot dog to verify that it is still working?
>>>>>Electronic ignitions come to mind. I've spent thousands of dollars
>>>>>through the years having electronic ignition systems on furnaces and
>>>>>cars repaired (replaced, actually), when I could have fixed something
>>>>>with a standing pilot or gapped points easily, cheaply, and quickly
>>>>>myself. Does it affect changing blades quickly and easily? Maybe I'm
>>>>>wrong, but professionals I've known want simple sturdy precise
>>>>>indestructible machinery that doesn't get in their way, or depend on
>>>>>something they can't see to work. Ah, that's another thing I didn't
>>>>>read. Will a saw thus equipped still work if the sensor dies, or is
>>>>>there a "dead man" switch that shuts down the power? Is it
>>>>>self-diagnostic? Can replacement parts be gotten for self-maintenance,
>>>>>or is the saw down until it can go in to the service center for
>>>>>authorized, and presumably expensive, repair? None of this would look
>>>>>awfully good to the professional. Is there a site that has some
>>>>>detailed practical information?
>>>>>
>>>>>Ron N
>>>>>
>>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>>pianotech list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives
>>>>
>>>>Greg Newell
>>>>Greg's piano Forté
>>>>mailto:gnewell@ameritech.net
>>>>
>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>pianotech list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives
>>>
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>pianotech list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives
>>
>>Greg Newell
>>Greg's piano Forté
>>mailto:gnewell@ameritech.net
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>pianotech list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives
>>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>pianotech list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives
Greg Newell
Greg's piano Forté
mailto:gnewell@ameritech.net
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC