Drama over table-saw safety
Should all table saws be required, by law, to have more stringent safety mechanisms?
This is the crucial question at the heart of a heated debate that’s been roiling the table saw industry for decades but has recently reignited. However, the issue is not quite so cut and dry. The technology to stop saw blades within milliseconds upon detection of a finger was first sold by SawStop in 2004—but should companies be forced to rejigger, retrofit or redesign their machines to incorporate this sort of active injury mitigation feature at the behest of a government agency? As NPR explains:
“The federal Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) appears poised to mandate a SawStop-type safety brake on all new table saws sold in the United States. The move would follow years of failed efforts and false starts by the agency to impose such a standard. Manufacturers have consistently fought a new rule, saying it would raise the price of table saws for consumers.”
In a fiery recent CPSC meeting, that skeptical view was espoused by Susan Orenga, executive manager of the Power Tools Institute, a trade group that represents the interests of large tool-making brands like Milwaukee, DeWalt, Stihl, Black and Decker and many more. The group opposes the view maintained by SawStop, which holds several patents specific to blade-halting technology. At the same hearing where Orenga spoke out against a proposed mandate to incorporate more robust active injury mitigation technology, SawStop CEO Matt Howard made a stunning announcement to “dedicate” one of his company’s key patents to the public.
“Opponents of the proposed rulemaking have identified this patent as their key obstacle to offering safer saws,” said Howard, who added, “We invest heavily in safety innovation, and our patents have real value. Even so, we will not allow this patent to be an obstacle to a safer future. To that end, SawStop is prepared to dedicate this ‘840 patent to the public upon the effective date of a rule requiring active injury mitigation technology on all table saws.”
Though Orenga and the Power Tools Institute did not respond to requests for comment for this story, they have made their stance clear. In the most recent commission meeting, Orenga lays out three reasons her group opposes the mandate. Firstly, she says, a mandate of this nature would supersede the commission’s authority. Second, Orenga claims that existing table saws already adhere to an acceptable, established level of safety features. Finally, she says, the costs to both manufacturers and consumers alike would not outweigh the potential benefits of adopting a universal mandate requiring saw-stopping safety brake technology. Orenga posits that the costs of table saws could double and that companies would be forced out of business. (You can read more about PTI’s stance on its “Save Our Saws” website.)
Take the survey
Should the CPSC madate amputation-prevention technology in all table saws? Take the HBSDealer survey here.
Politicians are taking sides, too. A bipartisan bill co-sponsored by Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (Dem., Washington) and Jeff Duncan (Rep., South Carolina) titled “Preserving Woodworking Traditions and Blocking Government-Mandated Monopolies Act” also aims to thwart any attempts to implement a safety-brake mandate. As the bill text states, “The legislation would help maintain access to lower-cost table saws and prevent a proposed Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) rule from leading to a monopoly on table saws with finger-detection technology.”
The bill’s sponsors also stated their case in the text. “When our federal government considers safety regulations, it’s critical it does so in a way that doesn’t raise costs, limit choice or lead folks to seek out alternative solutions that are potentially more hazardous,” said Rep. Gluesenkamp Perez, who adds:
“The Consumer Product Safety Commission’s proposed mandate on finger-detection technology could create a monopoly and price out small woodworkers and tradespeople in rural communities like mine.”
Duncan, meanwhile, says: “While I believe finger-detection technology is a great safety implementation, the CPSC cannot force the market to adopt a technology that is under patent.”
But what if a patent’s no longer a major impediment?
The view from SawStop’s top brass
In a recent discussion with HBSDealer.com, Howard clarifies that this mandate is not a “SawStop mandate,” adding that the company didn’t ask for or initiate any of this current drama. “We’re not gatekeepers. We’re not obstructionist,” he says, emphasizing that the company is not as “confrontational” as it perhaps once was.
Howard conveys that SawStop is interested in protecting people and helping to prevent devastating, life-altering injuries. That concern for doing something “practical, sensible and helpful” to reduce the estimated 65,000 table saw injuries per year in the U.S. was the driving motivation behind releasing the patent, Howard says.
At least one CSPC commissioner, Richard Trumka, views SawStop’s recent moves as a huge step in the right direction. After the most recent commission hearing on table saws, Trumka writes:
“In the name of consumer safety, SawStop has just made an incredible gift to the public.”
Trumka goes on to write he’s “never witnessed such generosity from a manufacturer,” and that “giving up intellectual property to help others is an honorable and admirable thing to do.”
Of course, SawStop is a business, not a charity, and is under no compulsion to release any of its patents or proprietary technology. Howard says he is simply trying to do the right thing—both for his company and for the general public. And for what it’s worth, he says SawStop has “never spent a single dollar” on lobbying efforts.
As for when or if the mandate issue will be settled, Howard said he has no clue. “It’s not my process. I went to the hearing and said my piece. This is not my battle to fight.”
In Howard’s view, this fuss over the proposed table saw mandate has become more about politics and manufacturers, rather than good-faith efforts to benefit or protect consumers. CPSC funding is determined by Congress, so any decision that might rankle certain members could put future funding in jeopardy.
Asked what he’d like to say to PTI and those who vehemently oppose the mandate: “I’d want to know what it is they want? What outcomes do they want to make customers safer?”
Howard emphasizes that he doesn’t have a “prescriptive outcome” but is in favor of having meaningful conversations that lead to substantive outcomes for people who use table saws.
“I traveled to Washington because I wanted to do something practical to make saws safer,” he says. “SawStop isn’t interested in drama, we’re interested in outcomes. We want people to be safer.”
