Dado saws

[Midnight]

Why is it that some here have a serious objection to dado saws?

Regan...

it's fairly common knowledge here that dado's are a "politically incorrect" subject... the logic behind it however isn't so obvious.

Our HSE has decreed that dado equipped machines are quite legal provided the width of the dado doesn't exceed 15(and a wee bit)mm, and that where necessary, the machine is properly guarded with Shaw guards or their equivalent. All operators in a commercial shop should be suitably qualified to use the said machines... with me so far..??

Enter the Eurocrats... Eurocracy has imposed legislation upon manufacturers to the effect that all CE compliant rotating blade machinery must be fitted with brakes that slow the cutter to a standstill inside 10 secs...
Now..
Enter the mass / momentum prob... a dado head will always have more mass than a single conventional blade right..?? More mass = more braking required to comply with the 10 sec reg.... so how much brake should they design into their saws?? They've opted to make the fitting of dado heads all but impossible to new table saws by restricting the arbour length to just enough to handle a conventional blade, thereby minimising the amount of braking force required.

still with me??

I'm not sure if it's an HSE or Eurocrat regulation, but someone's decreed that all machinery in a commercial shop with more than 1 employee must be compliant with current CE certification; any older machines must be modified to comply with the regs re guarding, braking and fitting riving knives... However, 1 person shops needn't be totally compliant with the regs provided the user of the machine is the owner...

It's that last point that seems to have raised the bulk of the controversy..

Companies such as Woodford sell Chinese made imitations of Delta saws that are built to suit US specs, up to and including the dado compatable arbour... These machines don't carry CE certification (that I know of) and therefore can't be used in commercial workshops.

Leaving aside the commercial reasons behind using a dado head, the common perception is that it's safer to route dados rather than mill them on a saw bench, and that seems to be the sole basis for the fuss... someone's idea of safe is always someone elses idea of dangerous... hence the continual argument...

Personally it's a non issue for me; I don't have enough shop space for a dado capable saw, however I've little doubt that if I had, I'd have no qualms with buying one, fitting it with a power feeder and milling housing joints on the saw; it's faster, safer, more accurate and way cheaper in the long run... in my opinion at any rate.....

 

[Bean]

Mike if i remember some training I did a little while ago you can always and quite legally put your own CE mark on the saw, or possibly use a Certificate of Incorporation to get round the lack of CE mark. Its a mass of confusion is CE marking

Bean

 

[Midnight]

Its a mass of confusion is CE marking

why doesn't that surprise me....?? (homer)

bloody eurocrats.....

 

[Anonymous]

My thanks to Mike, and whoever else provided a serious answer.

As far as I can tell, apart from EU regulatory issues, some here have become essentially fear mongers about a type of machinery. A quick survey through injury statistics will tell you that most injuries are entirely preventable and have more to do with operator incompetence (operation and set up) than faulty or dangerous machinery.

It seems to me that the HSE's attitude runs something like "Gosh wouldn't it be nice if everyone just stayed in the house with lights off?, then we'd never be at risk of anything".
:lol:

 

[Noel]

Regan, what are regulators like your side of the pond? Has Canada a crazy litigation situation similar to the US?

Noel

 

[johnelliott]

some here have become essentially fear mongers about a type of machinery. A quick survey through injury statistics will tell you that most injuries are entirely preventable and have more to do with operator incompetence (operation and set up) than faulty or dangerous machinery.

Of course most injuries are entirely preventable!
The point about striving to make machinery and processes safer is to reduce the severity of the consequences not only of 'operator incompetence' but operator inattention, distraction, illness, fainting spells, being affected by external events, ec etc etc
Road accidents are also virtually all preventable, but that's no reason not to make cars and roads safer.
Attitudes like yours appal me.
John

 

[Philly]

Ah, thought this was going too well, too good natured :twisted:
At last someone comments from the "other" side! (I'm sure the curtains issue will also be brought back into line shortly, too! :roll: )
Cheers
Philly

 

[Anonymous]

We've not quite got the "I'll sue if something goes wrong, regardless of fault" American-style system.

However, most of our technical standards seem to be very similar to US ones, if not identical. I can't comment specifically as I am not entirely familiar with US regulations. That said, I'm fairly certain I could drive across the border, purchase a table saw, drive back and not have any problems apart from duty.

Hope that helps.

As for appalling attitudes, well I won't comment on that. Suffice to say that if you think work can ever be made entirely safe you are completely oblivious to the nature woodworking. You can't make the world safe for those who do not pay attention to what they are doing, nor can you make it safe for those that suffer, as you put it, "fainting spells". All I would suggest is that at a certain point a line has to be drawn between reasonable safety measures and irrelevant interference and overcautioness.

 

[ike]

Regan,

All I would suggest is that at a certain point a line has to be drawn between reasonable safety measures and irrelevant interference and overcautioness

a.k.a. "risk assessment". Unfortunately it's not an exact science, rather, about reaching a consensus. So it can seem right to some and not to others - but the nub of it is that we all have to live with the consequences of our own actions (stupid as some of them can be!).

John,

That was unnecessarily rude of you.

Ike

 

[johnelliott]

John,

That was unnecessarily rude of you.

Ike

I don't see it as being rude at all. The attitude that 'accidents happen because of operator incompetence' is appalling. You don't agree?

From time to time I read threads on North American forums about whether or not table saws should be fitted with riving knives (called splitters over there) and guards!!!!!! Ususally several posters will offer the view that it is fine to run saws completely unprotected, and that 'incompetence' is the only cause of accidents in such situations.

What do you think? How do you feel about such attitudes?

John

 

[johnelliott]

As for appalling attitudes, well I won't comment on that. Suffice to say that if you think work can ever be made entirely safe you are completely oblivious to the nature woodworking. You can't make the world safe for those who do not pay attention to what they are doing, nor can you make it safe for those that suffer, as you put it, "fainting spells". All I would suggest is that at a certain point a line has to be drawn between reasonable safety measures and irrelevant interference and overcautioness.

Regan,
What I said was
"The point about striving to make machinery and processes safer is to reduce the severity of the consequences"
I did not say make safe, I said safer

OK, what I said about fainting spells was open to misinterpretation. I didn't mean that a person who suffered from fainting spells should be allowed to operate machinery, what I should have said was that anyone, including you, could faint when they least expect it. Fainting or any other type of loss, either complete or partial, of consciousness can happen entirely unexpectedly. Might be a very small chance, hopefully miniscule.

John

 

[ike]

John wrote:

The attitude that 'accidents happen because of operator incompetence' is appalling. You don't agree?

No I don't think it's an appalling attitude. It's a sweeping generalization I'll agree, but also makes a fair point.

A competent operator can recognize the degree of risk and possible consequences of particular actions, related to their area of competency. Risk awareness through proper training can allow otherwise dangerous tasks to be safely completed. In that sense, incompetence (through lack of sufficient knowledge, training and experience) does cause accidents. But as you rightly say, that's no reason not to continue making things safer.

I did not say make safe, I said safer

... and you don't have to shout, we can read you fine!

Ike

 

[Philly]

I thought the idea of this forum was to ask for help when we come up against problems, discuss opinions of tools, air subjects and generally share our enthusiam for woodworking. If you have strong opinions on a subject thats fine-but throwing a wobbly every time something you disagree with is raised is un-necesary.
Philly

 

[Adam]

Lets keep the thread directly on topic now please. 8)

Adam

 

[Frank D.]

Hi everyone,
Regulations on this side of the pond are virtually nonexistant. The greatest regulators for small non-unionized shops are the insurance companies. Anyone can buy any saw and start a small woodworking business. I think Europeans and North Americans have the best and the worst of their own worlds. Lack of legislation over here has given us the freedom to start a business with very little initial investment and hassle. It has also made working conditions more dangerous and tool companies very lazy. I bought a new cabinet saw last year, a General, which is considered as a great saw but there have been virtually no design improvements or changes worthy of mention on the machine or in the safety features in the last fourty years. I always make it a point to complain that so-called professional saws are not available with riving knives and cannot even be retrofitted with one (I personally don't use the archaic blade guards/splitters that come with the saws, but I don't pretend it's safe nor do I recommend it).
On the other hand, I'm kind of glad that we aren't hampered by innumerable rules and regulations that would stop most people in their tracks if they chose to make a living or part of their living as a woodworker. We do enjoy that freedom here, but unfortunately free to live can be free to die.
Frank D.
PS I use dado blades.

 

[Travis Byrne]

Just to get back on subject (per instructions)

I use dado cutters-------------and moulding head cutter on the table saw and I think I do it safely.
Someone else could come behind me and use the same setup and be throwing lumber and cutting fingers but I have no dents in the shop walls and type w/ ten fingers.
99.9% of safety is in the mind of the operator but if he doesn't want to be safe, then there are not enough safety items/equipment in the world to keep him safe. :shock:
My 2 cents
Travis

 

[Alf]

Okay, on topic, as curtains seem ruled out. :roll:

I'll quit beefing about dado heads on the day every dado-capable saw is equipped with a dado-capable guard as standard. Not just an adequate one mind, but easy to use so it'll actually get used. And that's a promise.

You can think safety as much as you like, but stuff happens, and if you come into contact with a whirling blade no amount of experience is going to save you. Why do anything other than try to minimise that risk? At least that's my view on the matter, but then I don't like rollercoasters and stuff either.

Cheers, Alf

 

[Adam]

OK, I think this topic is drawing to a close. We've thrashed out the same arguments as last time. Unless you have something relevent and on topic, I suggest we leave it there.

Adam*

*Mod hat on!

 

[Midnight]

You can think safety as much as you like, but stuff happens, and if you come into contact with a whirling blade no amount of experience is going to save you. Why do anything other than try to minimise that risk? At least that's my view on the matter, but then I don't like rollercoasters and stuff either.

<serious hat on..

I think this whole issue boils down to one of an individuals definition of "acceptable risk" based on doing a proper risk assessment...

give a task to any bunch of individuals and ask them to assess the risks, you'll get a bunch of different answers....none of which are wrong...
Assessments are all about how an individual perceives risk, and deals with the management of that risk...

Case in point...

call me a girls blouse... but thesedays I refuse point blank to use a grinder; for me, the risk of causing a repetition of vibration white finger simply isn't worth it...
As Tony (for example) has demonstrated, he's quite happy to use a grinder to get something done; my objection to it needn't impair his choice to use the tool...

I can hear someone in the back saying PPE.... anti vibe gloves for instance..???.... I tried them; ended up so encumbered that I couldn't safely operate the on / off switch... not exactly a safe situation right...???

If Europe has it's way, ANYONE using potentially hazardous machinery will be subjected to each and every control measure anyone's ever dreamed up..... up to and including banning anything potentially risky....

damn morphadites....

as I see it... the whole thing hinges on an individuals idea of acceptable risk... this is something everyone practices on even a subconscious level daily... another case in point.... I reckon euro-boxes (cars) are death traps waitin for a place to happen... so I don't drive one.... I drive a Landrover instead... simple low level risk management...

bottom line, nobody has the right to say that anyone's definition of acceptable risk is wrong... period...


edited cos I really oughta read this drivel before I post it...

 

[Noel]

'Bout time you spoke a bit of sense, well said.


Noel