5 ms·

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 "makin

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
grumpyautist 6y ago
Nope it isn't! I bet the manual warns ya it's for adult use only
- buran77 6y ago
  For adult use yes... But perhaps it should warn that no children or pets should be allowed anywhere near it at any time. > > "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. It doesn't take long for a child or small pet to be pulled under and injured even when the adult is on the treadmill. From the video it looks like there's absolutely no mechanism to prevent this, or even detect that it's happening. The treadmill seems to be happily operating without any supervision of any kind, and is lacking even basic fail-safes that should kick in at least when it's lifting off the floor and hopping sideways while still pulling the child under. When the government has to warn people to stop using your product if there are small children or pets at home you know you have bad engineering and bad management.

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

grumpyautist 6y ago

Nope it isn't! I bet the manual warns ya it's for adult use only

buran77 6y ago
For adult use yes... But perhaps it should warn that no children or pets should be allowed anywhere near it at any time. > > "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. It doesn't take long for a child or small pet to be pulled under and injured even when the adult is on the treadmill. From the video it looks like there's absolutely no mechanism to prevent this, or even detect that it's happening. The treadmill seems to be happily operating without any supervision of any kind, and is lacking even basic fail-safes that should kick in at least when it's lifting off the floor and hopping sideways while still pulling the child under. When the government has to warn people to stop using your product if there are small children or pets at home you know you have bad engineering and bad management.