Must say (in the nicest possible way - and just to register a view rather than engage in any argument) that i struggle when ideology rather than situation specific practicalities kicks into issues like this - whether the ideology is one of personal freedom, or of big brother knows best.
Rules almost by definition deliver less than optimum results for the majority of situations as the price of preventing extreme happenings in relatively rare specific cases.
I'm no expert, but it seems to me that the problem the legislation is getting at is not so much potentially dangerous practices (what isn't in woodwork - anybody dropped a sharp chisel edge down on their thigh lately?), but the fact that in the work environment employees can be forced as a result of the boss/employee relationship and the power hiring and firing confers to work in situations and with set-ups that truly are dangerous.
It seems to me that there's no piece of wood or metal cutting machinery that doesn't present serious risks if mishandled. There's very little a dado head is going to do you in use that a tenoning head on a spindle moulder isn't, or a legal slotting cutter or a saw blade for that matter.
It's likewise perfectly possible to create a high risk of badly injuring yourself on a guarded saw, or using a badly fitted blade or cutter of safe design on a safe machine - while on the other hand you can avoid most of the risk of an unguarded blade capable of being dangerously installed while cutting a dado IF you adopt appropriate methods.
The problem in both cases (spindle moulder cutters and dado heads) that led to legislation was surely that both left open a high likelihood of accidents if misused or badly set up - but was no doubt partly happenstance too in that somebody in power found themselves needing to be seen to act.
Trouble is that it's a moving target. Accidents usually occur as a result of unthinking errors rather than deliberate risk taking, and one of the problems of creating 'safer' circumstances is that we tend to just reduce our vigilance accordingly to restore the level of perceived risk we feel comfortable with. (or just below that at which we feel the need to bother our arse to respond)
The result is that the tightening of the screws that the safety lobby goes for as a result of this (e.g. speeding) just ends up creating an exponentially increasing overlay of impracticality, restriction, direct cost, and vested interests in return for an ever reducing benefit for a few loons, and probably a nett disadvantage (even in terms of accident reduction) for the majority.
I don't know what the accident statistics are in the US where dado heads have long been the norm, but they surely can't be that bad or they would have long since been canned there too.
For what it's worth woodworking is inherently dangerous, but the reality for those machining wood every day is that the effects of sub par performance by dust systems (or of rushing to get work through as a result of not being very well paid) are probably far more likely to bring them to a sticky end than a dado head....
ian
?
