4 ms·

> the answer here is maybe making sure kids can't activate it That doesn't help if a kid or pet are caught in there while the adult is on the treadmill, especi

> the answer here is maybe making sure kids can't activate it That doesn't help if a kid or pet are caught in there while the adult is on the treadmill, especially at higher speeds or when reaction time is slowed due to wearing headphones. The answer is to install protection. Having slats instead of the classic band doesn't make it impossible to protect that pinch point, rather just makes the machine bulkier (longer) and less aesthetically pleasing. There are plenty of mechanisms and sensors that can detect something being caught in there and immediately stop operation but they cost more. See the video above, with the small child being slowly pulled under the treadmill. The machine not being able to detect *it lifted off the ground repeatedly while operating" in order to come to a full stop immediately is the kind of thing that happens when half-assed engineers meet half-assed managers, thinking they can make a "full-assed" product.

BoorishBears 6y ago
Yeah, no... there is no "one answer" unless you want to say "don't be a negligent parent and let your kids near running power equipment" Why are you acting like this is a binary choice instead of a case where multiple mitigations can try and help make a bad situation slightly less worse? There are multiple stories of children dying on treadmills without ever leaving the top surface of them. Mike Tyson's daughter died after getting caught in a rope hanging near the machine. - At the end of the day with you on it or not, if your kids are near the running machine, it's already a dangerous situation and the most important mitigation called "parental supervision" has failed. No other mitigation will change that. I wonder how long until I get the requisite "have you seen how easily kids escape supervision!" I sure have, and that's why having a system only an adult can activate goes a long way. I'm a fully grown man with one and I'm certain if I were to put just a single foot on it at full tilt I'd violently injure myself. I can't even imagine what it'd do to a child. A guard wouldn't change that
- buran77 6y ago
  Who said anything about this being a binary choice or about negligent parents? I mentioned the adult on the treadmill to highlight that the answer is not "making sure kids can't activate it". The device is expected to be used with unsupervised children or pets around it so a simple child lock is not nearly enough. The back of the treadmill is always unsupervised during use so you either make it safe, or you clearly instruct the owners to only operate them in strict isolation from children or pets. > that's why having a system only an adult can activate goes a long way. And I'll just say it again so it's very clear: it doesn't go nearly far enough. But I want to see a guard behind and under the treadmill so it can't grip and drag anything under it. I want to see sensors that detect when something was grabbed by the belt past a certain point, detect the (sudden) change in drag, detect the inclination of the treadmill, detect and only operate when someone is on the treadmill so that putting "just a single foot on it at full tilt" is simply not possible. When the failsafe is triggered it should cause an immediate but relatively gentle stop and maybe even slowly reverse the direction of the belt for a short time to release whatever was caught. My cheapo gardening tools make sure they only operate when both my hands are tightly gripping the handles, they detect when something is wrapped around the spinning parts and stop to prevent damage, some even detect if you hold them at the wrong angle and cut power. The are plenty of engineering solutions to to cover 99.9% of accidental and maybe even intentional misuses. But they cost $10 more and don't look that nice. So killing or injuring a child as a cost of doing business is preferred.
  - BoorishBears 6y ago
    You literally start your comment by acting like what I described is useless then follow with "The answer is to install protection." Sure sounds like you're saying "the answer" is install protection. When there is no "the answer" other than "kids and abrasive belts moving at 6 miles an hour don't mix" - Thats is why I said this is about negligent parents because it is! That child on the top of the treadmill could have easily grasped the nice tactile looking knob on the side of the machine. They would have been instantly catapulted off the machine at full speed and no guard would have helped. These machines will launch a grown man off them at just 5 mph, at 8mph he's being chucked clear across into whatever happens to be at the other side of the machine: https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/great-scott-dad-rides-laundry-043946082.html https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/great-scott-dad-rides-laundr... - Like a Tread has a safety key clipped to you, your "reaction time" would literally be turning your body. But even that is a red herring: if you're letting your kids near the machine while you're using it and unable to react to them even getting near you, let alone on it, again you're being negligent and no mitigation will change that. That's not saying there should be no safety features before someone starts misconstruing this comment to say that...but the machine by it's nature exposes its most dangerous surface. It's like if your cheap gardening tool required holding it by the blade to use it, the treadmill belt has to be exposed in large swaths for the thing to work and presents an immediate danger to children. Like seriously, think of a treadmill as a chainsaw you run on because it's not that far off in terms of power or how many people get hurt by them every single year. Again treadmills injured over 20 thousand people in one year. 20 thiusand ER visits... if it was as easy to make a treadmill "99.9% safe" as you're handwaving it away to be with grandiose psuedo-political pandering... I'm sure someone would have thought of it.
    - buran77 6y ago
      I literally started just by saying that I have no idea how you came up with the binary choice claim (still don't). Then I clearly highlighted that the answer isn't simply to implement a child lock like you suggested. That's a very small part of the answer. Like a positive attitude is just a very small part of the answer for curing disease. > When there is no "the answer" other than "kids and abrasive belts moving at 6 miles an hour don't mix" Kids don't mix with a lot of things that still fill our houses because we designed them to be as safe as they reasonably can. Even your lowly power outlet isn't just 2 hanging wires with a warning post-it because someone smart enough thought it'd be a bad idea to expect humans to not make mistakes. The live wire buried in the wall, holes covered with plastic, fuses or GFCI/RCBO, etc. to keep you safe. Most of your belongings are designed to enforce some safety measures. But a treadmill operating by itself and dancing around the floor while sucking in a child is OK because the parent should have been there?? That's a bad product and an indefensible position. Engineering for consumer devices has to be done with safety in mind and compensating for the mistakes that the customers will inevitably make. I'll leave this here: > "It is believed that at least one incident occurred while a parent was running on the treadmill, suggesting that the hazard cannot be avoided simply by locking the device when not in use," the CPSC said. So with your answer being categorically classified as "not the answer", the big part of the real answer is to install many protections that Peloton and others skimped on. Some of them I listed and would have prevented anyone from being thrown off, or sucked under of the treadmill unless they were going out of their way to achieve this. > if it was as easy to make a treadmill "99.9% safe" as you're handwaving it away It is easy to make them safer than they are now. Manufacturers just choose not to because it's cheaper that way, because regulation doesn't force their hand, and because the occasional injury or death is the cost of doing business. And I say this as someone who saw every step of this, from designing and building (up to and including medical devices to give you an idea of my upper limit for safety and caution), to setting the company strategy, in a time when there was no "move fast and break things, we'll just send an OTA to fix it". You had multiple opportunities to understand the point I'm making very clearly but chose to focus on covering your weak position. That's too bad.

BoorishBears 6y ago

Yeah, no... there is no "one answer" unless you want to say "don't be a negligent parent and let your kids near running power equipment" Why are you acting like this is a binary choice instead of a case where multiple mitigations can try and help make a bad situation slightly less worse? There are multiple stories of children dying on treadmills without ever leaving the top surface of them. Mike Tyson's daughter died after getting caught in a rope hanging near the machine. - At the end of the day with you on it or not, if your kids are near the running machine, it's already a dangerous situation and the most important mitigation called "parental supervision" has failed. No other mitigation will change that. I wonder how long until I get the requisite "have you seen how easily kids escape supervision!" I sure have, and that's why having a system only an adult can activate goes a long way. I'm a fully grown man with one and I'm certain if I were to put just a single foot on it at full tilt I'd violently injure myself. I can't even imagine what it'd do to a child. A guard wouldn't change that

buran77 6y ago
Who said anything about this being a binary choice or about negligent parents? I mentioned the adult on the treadmill to highlight that the answer is not "making sure kids can't activate it". The device is expected to be used with unsupervised children or pets around it so a simple child lock is not nearly enough. The back of the treadmill is always unsupervised during use so you either make it safe, or you clearly instruct the owners to only operate them in strict isolation from children or pets. > that's why having a system only an adult can activate goes a long way. And I'll just say it again so it's very clear: it doesn't go nearly far enough. But I want to see a guard behind and under the treadmill so it can't grip and drag anything under it. I want to see sensors that detect when something was grabbed by the belt past a certain point, detect the (sudden) change in drag, detect the inclination of the treadmill, detect and only operate when someone is on the treadmill so that putting "just a single foot on it at full tilt" is simply not possible. When the failsafe is triggered it should cause an immediate but relatively gentle stop and maybe even slowly reverse the direction of the belt for a short time to release whatever was caught. My cheapo gardening tools make sure they only operate when both my hands are tightly gripping the handles, they detect when something is wrapped around the spinning parts and stop to prevent damage, some even detect if you hold them at the wrong angle and cut power. The are plenty of engineering solutions to to cover 99.9% of accidental and maybe even intentional misuses. But they cost $10 more and don't look that nice. So killing or injuring a child as a cost of doing business is preferred.
- BoorishBears 6y ago
  You literally start your comment by acting like what I described is useless then follow with "The answer is to install protection." Sure sounds like you're saying "the answer" is install protection. When there is no "the answer" other than "kids and abrasive belts moving at 6 miles an hour don't mix" - Thats is why I said this is about negligent parents because it is! That child on the top of the treadmill could have easily grasped the nice tactile looking knob on the side of the machine. They would have been instantly catapulted off the machine at full speed and no guard would have helped. These machines will launch a grown man off them at just 5 mph, at 8mph he's being chucked clear across into whatever happens to be at the other side of the machine: https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/great-scott-dad-rides-laundry-043946082.html https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/great-scott-dad-rides-laundr... - Like a Tread has a safety key clipped to you, your "reaction time" would literally be turning your body. But even that is a red herring: if you're letting your kids near the machine while you're using it and unable to react to them even getting near you, let alone on it, again you're being negligent and no mitigation will change that. That's not saying there should be no safety features before someone starts misconstruing this comment to say that...but the machine by it's nature exposes its most dangerous surface. It's like if your cheap gardening tool required holding it by the blade to use it, the treadmill belt has to be exposed in large swaths for the thing to work and presents an immediate danger to children. Like seriously, think of a treadmill as a chainsaw you run on because it's not that far off in terms of power or how many people get hurt by them every single year. Again treadmills injured over 20 thousand people in one year. 20 thiusand ER visits... if it was as easy to make a treadmill "99.9% safe" as you're handwaving it away to be with grandiose psuedo-political pandering... I'm sure someone would have thought of it.
  - buran77 6y ago
    I literally started just by saying that I have no idea how you came up with the binary choice claim (still don't). Then I clearly highlighted that the answer isn't simply to implement a child lock like you suggested. That's a very small part of the answer. Like a positive attitude is just a very small part of the answer for curing disease. > When there is no "the answer" other than "kids and abrasive belts moving at 6 miles an hour don't mix" Kids don't mix with a lot of things that still fill our houses because we designed them to be as safe as they reasonably can. Even your lowly power outlet isn't just 2 hanging wires with a warning post-it because someone smart enough thought it'd be a bad idea to expect humans to not make mistakes. The live wire buried in the wall, holes covered with plastic, fuses or GFCI/RCBO, etc. to keep you safe. Most of your belongings are designed to enforce some safety measures. But a treadmill operating by itself and dancing around the floor while sucking in a child is OK because the parent should have been there?? That's a bad product and an indefensible position. Engineering for consumer devices has to be done with safety in mind and compensating for the mistakes that the customers will inevitably make. I'll leave this here: > "It is believed that at least one incident occurred while a parent was running on the treadmill, suggesting that the hazard cannot be avoided simply by locking the device when not in use," the CPSC said. So with your answer being categorically classified as "not the answer", the big part of the real answer is to install many protections that Peloton and others skimped on. Some of them I listed and would have prevented anyone from being thrown off, or sucked under of the treadmill unless they were going out of their way to achieve this. > if it was as easy to make a treadmill "99.9% safe" as you're handwaving it away It is easy to make them safer than they are now. Manufacturers just choose not to because it's cheaper that way, because regulation doesn't force their hand, and because the occasional injury or death is the cost of doing business. And I say this as someone who saw every step of this, from designing and building (up to and including medical devices to give you an idea of my upper limit for safety and caution), to setting the company strategy, in a time when there was no "move fast and break things, we'll just send an OTA to fix it". You had multiple opportunities to understand the point I'm making very clearly but chose to focus on covering your weak position. That's too bad.