Homeowner VS Pro Saws SAFTY QUESTION

[rjh245]

Here is a question of safety for everyone. I have a new 575 and it is covered with warnings how it is capable of kickback. It has far more warning than my 359. Is a 74cc saw that much more dangerous than a 59cc saw? I think that even a 30cc can be dangerous. It seems to me that a saw in the range of 30 to 60cc’s are thought of as safe and all others seem to be dangerous.

 

[KarlP]

I'm guessing it is partially due to the chain that ships on the saw. 95VP and a short bar is low kickback combination. 72LG on a long bar is not low kickback and therefore more dangerous. OTOH, try making a boring cut with 95VP vs 72LG.

 

[rjh245]

Both the saws came with a 72lg chain....20 inch bar.

 

[begleytree]

lawyers

-Ralph

 

[davefr]

Here is a question of safety for everyone. I have a new 575 and it is covered with warnings how it is capable of kickback. It has far more warning than my 359. Is a 74cc saw that much more dangerous than a 59cc saw? I think that even a 30cc can be dangerous. It seems to me that a saw in the range of 30 to 60cc’s are thought of as safe and all others seem to be dangerous.

The level of safety is more a function of the saw's operator then any other factor.

You're probably seeing more warnings on the 575 based on the manufacturers wanting to CYA to a higher degree.

 

[skwerl]

The liberal weenies are winning, pretty soon no one will be responsible for any single act of their own. Any- and everything you do that might possibly result in any sort of self injury will not be your own fault, but will be cause for a lawsuit against the manufacturer of whatever the hail you might have had in your hand when you hurt yourself.

In other words, lawyers are responsible for the additional stickers. I'm amazed that this isn't obscenely obvious to everyone.

 

[computeruser]

In other words, lawyers are responsible for the additional stickers. I'm amazed that this isn't obscenely obvious to everyone.

Yup. That's about it. Stickers are a lot cheaper than lawsuits for the manufacturers.

But look on the bright side: stickers can be pulled off and tossed. That is a lot better than having a batch of lawsuits that end up leading our genius legislators to regulate chainsaws as to limit ALL chainsaw users to no machine larger than 60cc, low kickback safety chain, and a system like Stihl's QS...

 

[rjh245]

The liberal weenies are winning, pretty soon no one will be responsible for any single act of their own. Any- and everything you do that might possibly result in any sort of self injury will not be your own fault, but will be cause for a lawsuit against the manufacturer of whatever the hail you might have had in your hand when you hurt yourself.

In other words, lawyers are responsible for the additional stickers. I'm amazed that this isn't obscenely obvious to everyone.

I guess it is the lawyers, I have a hard time believing that a 74cc saw is that much more unsafe than a 59cc saw. It is all how the operator handles the tool. I can't believe that someone would sue a saw manufacture because they hurt themselves with a saw. If I cut myself, I would wonder what I was doing wrong not how I could sue the manufacture of the saw. I guess it is like people suing Colt if they get shot with a Colt handgun.

 

[begleytree]

(snip) That is a lot better than having a batch of lawsuits that end up leading our genius legislators to regulate chainsaws to a system like Stihl's QS...

I really think the qs system will end up biting stihl in the azz. Imagine the next untrained homeowner professional using a 46/66 and cutting himself up.

lawyer: so, mr stihl, the technology exists today to stop a chain instantly?
mr stihl-yes, we have this system on a few of our saw models
lawyer-but not all models?
mr stihl- no sir
judge- how much money do ya have, mr stihl?

-Ralph

edit-legislators don't make laws anymore, they take free golf outings from lobbyists, judges and lawyers essentially make laws these days

 

[computeruser]

I can't believe that someone would sue a saw manufacture because they hurt themselves with a saw. If I cut myself, I would wonder what I was doing wrong not how I could sue the manufacture of the saw. I guess it is like people suing Colt if they get shot with a Colt handgun.

You're thinking like a responsible, self-reliant person who recognizes that a tool and its user work together to produce an outcome. Most people don't think that way, preferring instead to be like a child and expect a parent (a human, the government, etc.) to only allow them access to things that are safe and to make everything better for them when they screw up/get hurt/make a mistake.

Nothing is anybody's own fault in the eyes of the legal system, and I say this as an attorney (note that nothing I say on this board constitues legal advice, blah blah blah...y'all can fill in the usual disclaimer). From the first time a first-year law student opens up a textbook, the notion of individual being responsible for his or her own actions is beaten out of the student. This applies most obviously in the context of torts, but also makes a strong showing in the law school treatment of topics in criminal law. The guiding principle in civil law seems to be that if somebody sustains an injury they MUST get some sort of monetary compensation, regardless of the moral justification of extracting that compensation from a particular party. The only facts of consequence are (1) someone got hurt and (2) that someone needs monetary compensation from a source that can provide it. So yes, under this popular and accepted misapplication of tort law, someone shot with a Colt handgun should receive monetary compensation from Colt - they did sustain an injury and therefore they deserve compensation and Colt has money, so Colt can pay them, per this "logic."

And Begleytree, I completely agree with your take on the QS issue. It is only a matter of time before that scenario plays out in real life.

So I guess the lesson from all this is that folks who have children can give no greater gift to the future of Western Civilization and the world than to teach their children about personal responsibility.

 

[Jim Mesthene]

I'd like to point out that this flaw in our legal system has nothing to do with "liberals". Most lawyers are "conservatives" and most Republicans are "conservatives". Republicans have controlled all 3 branches of the government for years. Don't blame liberals if you're not happy with the way our legal system has evolved.

 

[460Ted]

So I guess the lesson from all this is that folks who have children can give no greater gift to the future of Western Civilization and the world than to teach their children about personal responsibility.

AMEN

 

[Lawn Masters]

So I guess the lesson from all this is that folks who have children can give no greater gift to the future of Western Civilization and the world than to teach their children about personal responsibility.

AMEN to that brother. it aint the manufacturers fault if you cut an arm off using their brand of tool, its your own friggin fault for misusing it, or not wearing proper protective gear. its called common sense, unfortunately, it aint so common anyore.

Nobody anymore takes responsibility for their own actions, blame it on someone else instead is the game now, and its stupid to me. no point in suing someone over something that was your fault to start with other than easy money.

Now back to the topic, IMO, a larger saw, has more power, which can mean that it could potentially do more damage than a smaller displacment saw in terms of kickback, or something along those lines. the manufacturer just puts more stickers on the saw to warn the operator of the dangers, and cover their own backsides.

 

[bvaught]

In addition to the fact that more people need to take personal responsibility for thier own actions, people need to realize that the net effect of all of these settlements is to raise prices for everyone else.

 

[Diesel JD]

ANSI requires that the saws over 3.8 CU Inch be labeled this way. It has something to do with the fact that you can attach some much more dangerous cutting attachments to a bigger saw. I think if I had started out chainsawing with my 390 or something along those lines I would have messed myself up pretty badly by now. But it is to the user to realize that a chainsaw of any size is a tool that can seriously injure or even kill you in the right situation. And 99% of all injuries if not more are from taking your mind off the work, being careless or something unrelated to teh saw or operator(no one's fault) all the manufacturers now make saws that can be safe. It's up to how they are used adn who uses them.
J.D.

 

[mdlmjohnson]

I think that Computeruser has overstated the situation. I, too, am a lawyer and I have been defending products liability cases (frequently successfully) for over thirty-five years.

It was certainly a good deal harder to defend them back in the early 70s, but even then, if you could make a convincing showing that the manufacturer made reasonable efforts to anticipate and protect against serious injuries and that the particular accident was caused by the user's own carelessness or stupidity, and not a defect in the machine that it was feasible to correct, the manufacturer could win.

To be sure, juries back then probably felt sorrier for the "victim" than a lot of folks would now that there is a much more strongly felt view that people should take personal responsibility for accidents that are really their own fault.

In 1974 I had a jury come back with a defendant's verdict in the case of a worker who lost his right arm in a metal milling machine when he tried to clean the work area without shutting off the power. Some of the jurors had obviously been crying in the jury room, but they didn't give the plaintiff anything. That case would be a good deal easier to defend today and I doubt that many of the jurors would waste any tears before finding for the manufacturer.

So, all is not lost, folks. Largely because of the views of people like the contributors to this thread, I think that most of the time, if a plaintiff wants to collect for an injury, it isn't going to be "easy money" and he'd better be prepared to show that there was really something wrong with the machine, and not with his own care or common sense.

Of course, we have all read newspaper accounts of the occasional aberrations. They get all the media play because they are so outrageous. But from the point of view of one who fights these battles frequently, most of the time, the system works at least as well, and responsibly, as most other human institutions, including the management of business corporations.

Another way to look at it is: all those "clever lawyers" aren't fooling the folks on this forum --do you really believe that they are fooling everyone else??

Just my $.02

 

[Gologit]

Sounds just like a lawyer, doesn't it? Another case of (when you cut through the legalese b.s.) that the end justifies the means. Lawyers are one of the reasons that things are as screwed up in the timber industy as they are. Thats it....no more....enough rant,I'll spoil my appetite for supper.:bang:

 

[begleytree]

deep fried spotted owl, right?
-Ralph

 

[cord arrow]

bullsh*t boboak. angry puppy's fighting the good fight.

i'm not a lawyer, but have resided in numerous legal arenas.
the system does work the majority of the time.

look, there is no one person/place or thing responsible for the current state of the timber industry, or any other endeavour.

this sh*t starts in the cradle. throwing a blanket over modern day society's inablitiy to produce viable, responsible beings hardly addresses the problem, eh?

 

[asb151]

deep fried spotted owl, right?
-Ralph

Ralph, what do you recommend for a side dish with that?