We've been very aware of an issue that is holding captive the table saw industry as it plays out, in our time, before our very eyes. The government, aided by largely ignorant news coverage, is considering a petition by patent attorney Stephen Gass - inventor of SawStop technology, an admittedly impressive system to reduce table saw injuries due to blade contact. The problem, however, is that Gass's petition could mandate a specific design standard that has the potential to all but eliminate portable benchtop saws from the market due to the cost of compliance.

Meanwhile, the Power Tool Institute (PTI), a trade association comprised of the nation's largest manufacturers of portable and stationary power tools, has been working to promote increased safety through a voluntary standard process - one that does not add hundreds of dollars to the price of a portable or benchtop table saw. PTI and its members are working to promote safety, specifically (and most recently) through the updated UL 987 safety standard. They have invested hundreds of millions of dollars, not in lobbying, PR campaigns, patents and lawsuits, but in actual efforts to make table saws and other power tools safe when used properly.

When used properly. That last bit is important. It's important, because when used properly, there is NEVER any contact with the spinning blade. When used properly, a table saw would never require the use of SawStop technology.

So what's changed in the UL 987 standard? Primarily, the blade guard and anti-kickback system has gotten a lot more user-friendly, adopting many of the features we've seen in European models and finally bringing that (and possibly more) to the US.

In fact, since 2007, PTI informed us that manufacturers have introduced over 800,000 saws with these newly designed guards that meet the requirements of the UL 987 safety standard.

To date, there has been only one reported blade contact injury on a table saw with the new guard. One.

Despite the success of UL 987, Mr. Gass, who owns SawStop and holds a network of over 70 U.S. patents, is petitioning the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) to create standards in an effort to require a specific technology for all table saws, providing a de facto mandate for the use of technology developed by SawStop. Mr. Gass has represented that SawStop’s patent web would give it a monopoly if the CPSC were to adopt the standard requested in SawStop’s petition. Granting the petition would generate millions of dollars for SawStop, but hurt consumers, undermine the development of new table saw safety technology, and possibly eliminate portable benchtop saws from the market.

This is a big deal for anyone who uses a table saw and a HUGE deal for professional contractors and renovators who will have to deal with the repercussions of outfitting its workforce with tools costing up to 4x as much.

So what are the details? Let's look at some details provided by PTI to get a handle on several different aspects of what's happening in this proposed legislation and why it may not be a wise decision. In our observation, this has more to do with money and lobbying efforts.

Existing Table Saw Safety Standards

The efforts of the Power Tool Institute (PTI) members, thanks to the investment of hundreds of millions of dollars, has resulted in declining injury rates, even as saw usage has more than doubled in the past 10 years.

The updated voluntary standard for table saw safety, UL 987, includes new guard designs and other safety features and the results have been positive.
These new guarding systems are modular and offer excellent visibility and ease of removal and installation. The guards protect the operator from blade contact as well as and injuries caused by thrown objects from kickback.

Petitioning the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC)

The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) is being asked to impose mandatory standards, requiring a specific technology for all table saws. The company petitioning the CPSC to act is SawStop, which is owned by patent attorney Stephen Gass. The trouble is - SawStop saws are available to any consumer who chooses to purchase them. SawStop technology is currently available on belt-driven saws such as cabinet or contractor saws. These cabinet and contractor saws constitute just 30.6% of saws on the market.

SawStop has stated that it "hopes" to develop a portable bench top saw with SawStop technology that will cost under $1,000. Portable bench top saws on the market today range in price from $99 to $600 for a premium model. While each company would independently establish its own pricing, the price of a current inexpensive saw model could increase in price from $100 to approximately $400 and the price of a current professional benchtop saw model could increase from $500 to approximately $800.

The SawStop Terms

SawStop is demanding an 8% royalty on the retail value of all table saws with its technology, among other onerous terms. If the SawStop CPSC petition were granted, it could be tantamount to the elimination of portable benchtop saws from the market due to the cost of compliance. The increased cost of even the least expensive table saws would result in power tool users resorting to unsafe methods to accomplish cuts normally performed on a table saw.

SawStop is neither appropriate for all table saws nor does it mitigate injuries caused by kickback or ejected material. SawStop's own data show that operators are nearly five times more likely to contact the SawStop's saw blade as opposed to an operator of a conventional saw. This increase in the accident rate on SawStop saws is likely due primarily to a user's decision to use the blade guard less frequently due to a “sense of security” in having the SawStop flesh-sensing technology on the saw. This absence of the blade guarding system will result in an increased rate of facial or eye injuries from high velocity particles ejected by the saw blade as well as injuries caused by workpiece kickback.

PTI encourages the CPSC to work with the power tool industry and others in the table saw community to promote safety through the voluntary standard process.

Based on what we've seen, the voluntary standard is already working, has demonstrated positive acceptance by table saw users, and is in the best interest of safety. Handing the future of table saws to SawStop seems like a knee-jerk reaction and one that will fundamentally change the market for the worse and likely generate a tremendous amount of "unintended consequences" that have yet to be seen in the volume that will occur should SawStop become a standard. There are also economical consequences that will result as well. Forcing more expensive saws on consumers and business owners alike is a terrible idea and will only exasperate, or worse, morph one problem into another.