How to use push sticks to cut wood safely on a table saw.

[novocaine]

Yes, of course it's possible. An argument for buying some spurious piece of equipment, on the grounds that it would make working safer, would be an abuse. I agree totally with your premise that health and safety should not be overlooked or ignored, but it is possible to take advantage of people's ignorance or fears to sell them stuff that won't help them or make them safer.
Bob

it's called the ALARP principle and it's the basis of H&S in the UK, Europe and most of the world (unless you are in the states, than it's ALARA). I could give a history lesson on lord cullens step change in safety and edwards vs the coal board (where the principles of ALARP and the health and safety at work act stem from) but I won't, because.

ALARP, the point at which the cost of further reduction (in terms of time, effort or monetary expense) of risk is grossly disproportionate to the level of reduction.
very quick and dirty argument:

push stick,
cost: couple of quid,
amount of reduction of risk: lots.
outcome: implement. (also falls under legislation and good practice within industry which are the first steps of ALARP)*

silly expensive gadget,
Cost: 10 times that of push sticks, nearing the cost of the tool:
amount of reduction of risk: after implementing push sticks, virtually nothing.
outcome: don't implement. *

There is a cost limit of safety, saying there isn't is defeating the point of H&S.

for anyone interested it's worth looking at the hierarchy or control and the HSE framework of tolerability, if you want to place no cost against safety, because the answer will always be, don't do it. the one stop shop in the UK for this is the HSE document Reducing Risk and Protecting People (R2P2), which is a bit long in the tooth now but still applicable.

the previous statement is, I agree an abuse of H&S, typically made by someone with little to no knowledge of the basic principles of safety.

* none of this takes account of modification factors or weighting of safety.

 

[Daniel2]

it's called the ALARP principle and it's the basis of H&S in the UK, Europe and most of the world (unless you are in the states, than it's ALARA). I could give a history lesson on lord cullens step change in safety and edwards vs the coal board (where the principles of ALARP and the health and safety at work act stem from) but I won't, because.

ALARP, the point at which the cost of further reduction (in terms of time, effort or monetary expense) of risk is grossly disproportionate to the level of reduction.
very quick and dirty argument:

push stick,
cost: couple of quid,
amount of reduction of risk: lots.
outcome: implement. (also falls under legislation and good practice within industry which are the first steps of ALARP)*

silly expensive gadget,
Cost: 10 times that of push sticks, nearing the cost of the tool:
amount of reduction of risk: after implementing push sticks, virtually nothing.
outcome: don't implement. *

There is a cost limit of safety, saying there isn't is defeating the point of H&S.

for anyone interested it's worth looking at the hierarchy or control and the HSE framework of tolerability, if you want to place no cost against safety, because the answer will always be, don't do it. the one stop shop in the UK for this is the HSE document Reducing Risk and Protecting People (R2P2), which is a bit long in the tooth now but still applicable.

the previous statement is, I agree an abuse of H&S, typically made by someone with little to no knowledge of the basic principles of safety.

* none of this takes account of modification factors or weighting of safety.

You managed to express my sentiment much better than I did.

 

[Jacob]

Had to look it up: ALARP, which stands for "as low as reasonably practicable", or ALARA ("as low as reasonably achievable"),
Common sense really and if safety as low as reasonably practicable is not safe enough - just don't do it!

 

[Ozi]

Yes, of course it's possible. An argument for buying some spurious piece of equipment, on the grounds that it would make working safer, would be an abuse. I agree totally with your premise that health and safety should not be overlooked or ignored, but it is possible to take advantage of people's ignorance or fears to sell them stuff that won't help them or make them safer.
Bob

I used to work in safety inspection, mainly LOLER and PUWER but also LEVs. The thing that used to annoy me far more than the "it's health and safety gone mad" was when it had. If you ask or worse force people to do stupid things they ignore them, then they ignore the ones they don't understand. Sell someone a piece of junk and they are less likely to buy something good when it comes along. One of the good things about this site for me is getting to hear from people who have used kit, understand it and share the knowledge - thanks guys I'm learning a lot.

 

[simoncmason]

Useful thread, thanks @Cabinetman for starting it, I for one will be a bit safer using my table saw - it came with one pushstick so I use this to push the work along, but have used my hand to push the wood into the fence, or an offcut of wood if the work piece was too narrow.

Having read this it is now obvious to me that two push sticks and hands kept behind the table at all times is a sensible rule to adopt.

 

[LJM]

Though not from the HSE perspective, part of the ALARP process for an employer (at least in the industry in which I work) is to understand the financial cost of the worst case outcome.

So let’s say the loss of a hand is the worst case scenario for a machine. The cost of safety is weighed against the financial cost to the company if someone looses a hand. From memory of the last contract I signed, that was about £30k. That’s then your upper limit on additional safety for that machine.

Applying the same principles to safety on my own machines, even a severe cut to my hand would prevent me from working. I’m self employed. That would cost significantly more than, for example, a set of stock guides.

So given that I’m single, and use these machine alone, I am certainly considering a set of stock guides as an extra safety measure, guarding against the little mishaps that can happen to a lone worker; that moment of distraction when the neighbours head appears around the door asking exactly how much longer I’ll be making a racket!

 

[Trainee neophyte]

The fence on my table saw runs the full length of the table. I happen to have a spare which fits, but belongs to the bandsaw (Axminster very kindly sent me a replacement because there was a tiny dink in the first one). Would it be insane for me to shorten the spare fence to use for ripping? It seems a brutal thing to do, but adding offcuts to use as a temporary fence always feels clumsy, and the fence is still there running the full length, but with a bit of wood and a clamp in between it and the workpiece to add extra excitement.

If I did this, where exactly do I cut it to stop at the correct point? At the arbor? Somewhere between the teeth at maximum height and the arbor? Before the teeth?

Your thoughts would be welcome.

 

[Spectric]

So let’s say the loss of a hand is the worst case scenario for a machine. The cost of safety is weighed against the financial cost to the company if someone looses a hand. From memory of the last contract I signed, that was about £30k. That’s then your upper limit on additional safety for that machine.

There is something wrong here with this statement, safety is all about preventing a potential hazzard from occuring by implementing suitable safety measures to reduce the risk, in this case one would be suitable guards which would be part of a PUWER assessment . You cannot put a value of say £30k on someones hand and then decide it will be to expensive to reduce this hazzard so an occasional hand loss is acceptable, there has been a few major companies in the auto industry that got heavily penalised for basicaly just that. I believe one of them was to do with tyres and they ignored the manufacturers recomendations and had some fatal accidents as a result, rather than address the immediate issue they thought it would be easier and cheaper to just settle the few lawsuits that may arise.

 

[doctor Bob]

Though not from the HSE perspective, part of the ALARP process for an employer (at least in the industry in which I work) is to understand the financial cost of the worst case outcome.

So let’s say the loss of a hand is the worst case scenario for a machine. The cost of safety is weighed against the financial cost to the company if someone looses a hand. From memory of the last contract I signed, that was about £30k. That’s then your upper limit on additional safety for that machine.

I have never seen that principle in operation. I find it very surprising it exists on that basis.

 

[Spectric]

That may be where the saying blood, sweat and tears comes from!

 

[Cabinetman]

The fence on my table saw runs the full length of the table. I happen to have a spare which fits, but belongs to the bandsaw (Axminster very kindly sent me a replacement because there was a tiny dink in the first one). Would it be insane for me to shorten the spare fence to use for ripping? It seems a brutal thing to do, but adding offcuts to use as a temporary fence always feels clumsy, and the fence is still there running the full length, but with a bit of wood and a clamp in between it and the workpiece to add extra excitement.

If I did this, where exactly do I cut it to stop at the correct point? At the arbor? Somewhere between the teeth at maximum height and the arbor? Before the teeth?

Your thoughts would be welcome.

Hi well the health and safety executive say the fence should stop somewhere around the gullet of the first tooth the wood meets, obviously that changes with moving the blade up and down, personally I’m not quite so rigid and as long as it’s somewhere between there and the centre of the blade I’m happy, I’m lucky on my saw that my fence which is an aluminium extrusion is held on with two levers so that I can move the fence in and out as required.
In your case I think I would fix a permanent short fence to your saws fence so that wherever the blade is vertically, it’s somewhere between the gullet and the arbor, talking off the top of my head here, you may find it useful if you extend your new short fence towards you a few inches to give you that little bit more run-up. Ian

 

[HamsterJam]

Hi well the health and safety executive say the fence should stop somewhere around the gullet of the first tooth the wood meets, obviously that changes with moving the blade up and down, personally I’m not quite so rigid and as long as it’s somewhere between there and the centre of the blade I’m happy, I’m lucky on my saw that my fence which is an aluminium extrusion is held on with two levers so that I can move the fence in and out as required.
In your case I think I would fix a permanent short fence to your saws fence so that wherever the blade is vertically, it’s somewhere between the gullet and the arbor, talking off the top of my head here, you may find it useful if you extend your new short fence towards you a few inches to give you that little bit more run-up. Ian

I’m sure this is a common feature but the fence on my Bosch site saw is made up of two aluminium extrusions. The main fence is set as normal and the other actas a sub fence which is fixed to the main fence by two bolts and wing nuts. Loosening the wing nuts allows the sub fence to be slid back and forth.
When the sub fence is set so it ends before the arbor, it sticks over the front of the saw giving extra support on the feed in. This seems like a good solution.
The only gripe I have is that with the sub fence slid forward, the lever to adjust the main fence is blocked. This means the sub fence has to be slid back before the width of cut can be reset.

 

[Jacob]

The fence on my table saw runs the full length of the table. I happen to have a spare which fits, but belongs to the bandsaw (Axminster very kindly sent me a replacement because there was a tiny dink in the first one). Would it be insane for me to shorten the spare fence to use for ripping? It seems a brutal thing to do, but adding offcuts to use as a temporary fence always feels clumsy, and the fence is still there running the full length, but with a bit of wood and a clamp in between it and the workpiece to add extra excitement.

If I did this, where exactly do I cut it to stop at the correct point? At the arbor? Somewhere between the teeth at maximum height and the arbor? Before the teeth?

Your thoughts would be welcome.

Ideally it wants to be conveniently adjustable so you can set it with the end lying anywhere between the front and back edges of the saw blade. If not adjustable maybe half way. Any less and it might not reach the front of the blade when it's set low.

 

[MikeJhn]

I think you could make it safer - by having a short rip fence. The long through fence you have means that if you saw reaction timber it could get pinched between the blade and the fence and whilst your guides may minimise the tendency to kick back I very much doubt it will do the saw much good and you will still potentially have a greater risk of kickback. With a short position rip fence top guides are redundant.

Like the crown guard , though. Good idea

The JessEm stock guides have a bias towards the fence and are a one way bearing guide, the likelihood of kickback is almost eliminated .

 

[Daniel2]

Riving Knife + Short Fence ≈ No Kickback

 

[Jake]

So let’s say the loss of a hand is the worst case scenario for a machine. The cost of safety is weighed against the financial cost to the company if someone looses a hand. From memory of the last contract I signed, that was about £30k. That’s then your upper limit on additional safety for that machine.

What do you do after the first person loses a hand?

 

[Jake]

The JessEm stock guides have a bias towards the fence and are a one way bearing guide, the likelihood of kickback is almost eliminated .

Not a theory I'd take risks to test out under the force of a big kickback.

 

[Jacob]

The JessEm stock guides have a bias towards the fence and are a one way bearing guide, the likelihood of kickback is almost eliminated .

Close to eliminated by having riving knife and crown guard in situ, or feather board or push stick.
Not obvious but the crown guard also stops the workpiece being lifted to the top of the blade where it can be caught up and flung out at rim speed.
Some of the DIY bodged imitation SUVA guards aren't sturdy enough to do this and the guard itself may also get flung across the room

 

[MikeJhn]

Not a theory I'd take risks to test out under the force of a big kickback.

Not a theory, fact, I will put my faith in the JessEm stock guides, riving knife and crown guard rather than a couple of push sticks, Oh and have for the last few years without experiencing any type of kickback.

Post 111 shows my set up.

 

[JobandKnock]

The JessEm stock guides have a bias towards the fence and are a one way bearing guide, the likelihood of kickback is almost eliminated .

I'd say it is merely reduced rather than "almost eliminated". Pushing the stock against the fence if the fence is a long, through fence (like yours) still doesn't cure the problems of reaction timber, such as badly kilned black walnut, which may bend uncontrollably away from the blade and towards the fence. With your guides the best outcome is that the material will bind between the blade, fence and roller - with the possibility of a kickback happening if that small contact patch of rubber doesn't do its' job. In the case of a short rip fence the errant material has the space to move wherever it needs to without constraints

In any case just because you haven't had a kickback doesn't mean that you won't have one. "I've done that tens/hundreds/thousands of times without any problems", is a mantra every accident investigator and safety officer has heard or read on numerous occasions. Use the correct technique and you are even less likely to ever have an accident to start with