Very very Nice Bling Safe Sliding Saw by Altendorf.

[jcassidy]

No I'm arguing for simple safety measures which are easy to implement and highly effective.

Can't make big profits from simple and effective, Jacob!

Accidents arising from complex safety features are inevitebly declared "human error" requiring increasingly complex safety features!!

 

[Doug71]

Anything that adds to safety has to be a good thing, the technology is only going to get cheaper and more accessible to us all. I'm sure in 50 years even the cheapest router from Lidl will have some kind of flesh sensing technology, hand tools like chisels will then be thought of as really dangerous as the sharp edge doesn't disappear when it gets near your finger.

Regarding saw guards I think some of the old fashioned ones seem safer. On my old Wadkin you could drop a nose piece down to just a few mill above the timber and lock it off, there was no way you could push your fingers through on top of the timber which is how I presume many accidents happen. Some of the modern ones with a roller on the front seem to just lift up as you push something under them, surely you could just push your hand under on top of the wood removing a few digits? Can you lock off these lift up guards so you can't get your fingers under or do they just ride over your fingers?

 

[Ttrees]

Can you lock off these lift up guards so you can't get your fingers under or do they just ride over your fingers?

I've asked on the creek,
https://sawmillcreek.org/showthread...-saw/page2&s=9973b56fea4e2254b94e98af10b4641cand Joe Calhoon replied mentioning he has one for his traditional enough Martin saw,
which I found piccies of on the Canadian woodworking forum.

He hasn't responded yet, but seems like he prefers the ones with rollers.

I've being trying to find a video of a European style floating guard I've seen, which has
a de-tent system like a socket wrench.
Seems that might be out the window also, in favour of the type you mention.

 

[bansobaby]

It's a solution looking for an accident.

 

[bansobaby]

I've read most of the replies and you all seem to be missing the point.

If you make it impossible to get cut by the saw, you can put an untrained person on it and not incur (much) production line delays due to accidents.

You then undercut your rivals by a huge margin because they need trained and certified staff, and you don't.

So that's the solution to all occurrences of injury in the workplace? Eliminate the need for use of the brain........
Fantastic idea.....

 

[Jacob]

So that's the solution to all occurrences of injury in the workplace? Eliminate the need for use of the brain........
Fantastic idea.....

Or you could see it as very generous of them to spend so much money on technology, to protect morons from their own incompetence if they happen to find themselves on the wrong job.

 

[Ttrees]

Just an assumption, but perhaps not generous if you getting cheaper insurance?

 

[deema]

So that's the solution to all occurrences of injury in the workplace? Eliminate the need for use of the brain........
Fantastic idea.....

Now you understand, you’ve got it exactly. First principle after doing the risk assessment, remove the opportunity for it to occur.

 

[Samkilby]

I think it’s probably a bit reductionist to say blah blah spending 25 grand to get this technology etc. I can’t imagine many are going to upgrade their modern all singing all dancing altendorf to one with this tech (unless their dealer offer some kind of incentives)
I don’t know how much more this costs than the same model without. But if someone is buying an altendorf (and the 4 professional small furnituremakers I have worked for have all run altendorfs of various ages) then why wouldn’t they consider adding this tech ? It after all entirely up to the consumer.
Now I suppose the real stinger is that there are lots of other potentially dangerous tools in your woodworking workshop, some of which definitely should probably never have a similar tech (spindle, router table etc ?) and some which seem like they might not be able to be fitted even with a destructive break (bandsaw ?)
Really the focus on table saw safety is odd, I believe many more accidents are from (poor) table saw use, but then in order of magnitude of use I would say in most pro shops it’s by far the most oft used stationary tool. It’s probably just low hanging fruit as it’s relatively easy(er) to figure out how to make it stop/remove the blade from danger zone.
If you have people working for you, you can’t guarantee their safety, lor following of safety rules either. You can give them bollockings when you are present and see bad practice, or try and ensure they are trained correctly, but you never know what you don’t see.

 

[Jacob]

..... why wouldn’t they consider adding this tech ? I......

because there are cheaper and more effective ways of achieving the same ends.

 

[Agent_zed]

The simple fact is nobody reading this has thought them worth buying so far, including yourself! Why not?

This is just a ridiculous arguement. I don't run a workshop that needs a saw this big for a start. I've already stated I'm looking to purchase a sawstop machine in the future, which is a similar idea and much more suitable for a home workshop.

You don't have to buy something because you think it's a good idea?!

I also believe that ejector seats are a good idea but I have no intention of buying an F16. Maybe we should just train the pilots better so they don't rely on them?

I'm not disabled but I think buses that drop down to allow people to board easily are a good idea, but I am not intending on buying a bus. Is that overly complicated when you could just train the bus driver to put a ramp down?

No I'm arguing for simple safety measures which are easy to implement and highly effective.

Nobody on here is arguing against using push sticks and training. You are actively arguing against having a system on an industrial saw that would prevent catastrophic injury seemingly on the basis that it might make some people slightly more complacent, and that it is expensive.

Well the only alternative to that is if someone does make a mistake they will end up in A+E, which is one hell of a 'I told you so' and a whole lot of paperwork.

 

[Jacob]

....You are actively arguing against having a system on an industrial saw that would prevent catastrophic injury seemingly on the basis that it might make some people slightly more complacent, and that it is expensive.

no - it's on the basis that there are cheaper and more effective alternatives.

 

[AJB Temple]

This thread is pretty much repetitive trolling from Jacob.

The tech clearly works, and is safer. In a pro workshop the incremental capital cost of the added safety (and reduction in accident risk and down time that comes with it) is likely to be relatively trivia; and is tax allowable. No brainer in a production environment.

 

[Jacob]

This thread is pretty much repetitive trolling from Jacob.

...

I didn't start it!
I quite like trolling on this theme - more people may pick up on the simple idea of two push sticks, just as I did myself, and as result there are probably fingers out there still attached to hands, which otherwise might have been lost! We'll never know.
As to the saw-stop plus variations - it's just more daft-gadget promotion - the curse of modern woodwork.

 

[Samkilby]

But you are thinking in a very closed off way, and not putting yourself in someone else’s shoes. Example - if I was speccing a workshop with a big budget, lots of staff of varying levels of experience and high turnover then why wouldn’t this saw (or several of them) be top of my list. We likely would have a long list of jobs that need to be done right now, and training or assuming that everyone can or will obey best practice.

Regarding the point cheaper and more effective.
Cheaper maybe. Budget might not be an issue. And arguably corporate manslaughter rulings have made this an area where people in larger organisations might leave themselves open to lawsuits. Not even starting with America.
More effective ? Not a chance. I have trained and am employed as a cabinetmaker, and regularly use all manner of equipment, because this is what we have. Why would I not prefer to use equipment with better built in safeguarding ? Would it really make me complacent or more likely to operate incorrectly ? What if for example I was not informed of the additional safety measures installed to a new piece of equipment ?

I’m afraid Jacob, you are just assuming everyone in the world has the same needs regarding their employees and budget as you, and you must accept that this simply isn’t the case.

 

[Sideways]

I quite like trolling on this theme ....

A lot of the rest of us find it tedious. Your points been made. Give us a break ...

 

[bansobaby]

So that's the solution to all occurrences of injury in the workplace? Eliminate the need for use of the brain........
Fantastic idea.....

Now you understand, you’ve got it exactly. First principle after doing the risk assessment, remove the opportunity for it to occur.

Therein lies the rub, during a risk assessment the term "do all that is reasonably practicable" accompanies all levels of mitigation.

Cost can and has been used to justify not undertaking certain mitigations.

Another well used term in RAMS is "training and experience".

The big problem is that it is all somewhat subjective........

 

[Spectric]

The issue we face today is that to many people cannot take responsability for their actions and will always look for a 3rd party to lay blame and then we also have this culture of making money with the legal system. We live in a world where we try and wrap everything up in cotton wool which starts from day 1, a good example is the kids playground where there are safe surfaces and safe everything so unlike previous generations where we grew up knowing our vunerabilities they are now isolated from this experience. Later in life they get a job but expect there employer to be there protector who can only do so much and cannot protect people from themselves so when faced with using machinery where they have been taught and trained there attitude is just way off.

When working on projects that are safety critical you apply safety as a system of layers starting with basic features like guards and barriers upto SIL rated key and interlock systems where the objective is to make such a system respond and bring the process to a known state without human intervention because you cannot rely on the human link. The downside to this type of enviroment is that everyone believes safety has been covered to such an extent that they can take a backseat.

We just have to accept life is dangerous and nothing is really that safe, take nothing for granted and make working safe as important as the actual job in hand, but at the same time treat all your tools and machines as equal when it comes to safety because even that little chisel could inflict serious harm and there is no technology that could be applied to make it any safer, well maybe once I have had a go at sharpening it then yes it is much safer and unlike a table saw which is in a fixed location your chisel could be hidding anywhere.

 

[Spectric]

Therein lies the rub, during a risk assessment the term "do all that is reasonably practicable" accompanies all levels of mitigation.

The term is ALARP where it is as low as is reasonably practical and you have to reduce the hazard and or the risk of that hazard occuring to acceptable levels irrelevant of cost. There is always a point where an extra million will deliver 5% increased reduction and so you do it but if that million only delivers 1% then depending on the analysis it may or may not be done but I have seen far more spent on getting much less reduction but it was the right thing to do.

Nobody on here is arguing against using push sticks and training. You are actively arguing against having a system on an industrial saw that would prevent catastrophic injury seemingly on the basis that it might make some people slightly more complacent, and that it is expensive.

Even the most thought out safey systems and measures of protection cannot guarantee prevention of catastrophic injury, they can reduce the risk but are no different to that RCB in your consumer unit that unless a regime of periodic testing is undertaken then it only delivers a feeling of safety and cannot be relied on, ie Buncefield. Lets also not forget that even the best planing and systems only need to exclude one variable or synario to defeat the whole system, ie Fugishima.

So lets just get on with making sawdust and getting projects done but keep safety in mind and accept there is no magic cotton wool or invisible protective barriers so down to you.

 

[Samkilby]

If it is safer and is a practical control why wouldn’t you want it to be developed and then applied ?
Accidents happen, I liken this technology to abs on cars. I moderate my behaviour for example when it’s wet I may drive more slowly or with a larger gap to the car in front. I am taking action to prevent accidents. However if an accident or potential accident causing situation happens, the abs would step in and hopefully help prevent catastrophic injury.
What reason could I possibly want to not utilise this technology ?

Yes I can’t afford a saws top or whatever else for my home workshop. Not an I in the market for a new altendorf either. But I’m not going to kid myself and say I wouldn’t prefer to use any potentially dangerous equipment with additional well thought out built in safety equipment.