[andrew_v4]

I've read a lot of the comments here condemning Peloton, and I don't think I completely agree.

A treadmill is a big fast moving piece of gym equipment. It is definitely dangerous to kids, as are all treadmills. And what about like freeweights or those universal gyms with the plates that go up and down?

What about power tools? Or vacuum cleaners? Or plastic bags, or cleaning products, or whatever? Lots of stuff is dangerous for kids. This is not something for kids or suitable for use around kids, and it's hard to believe anyone thinks it would be. What happened is horrible, but I don't see why it should mean peloton cant make their product

[romwell]

There are many treadmills out there.

And those treadmills don't tell to pull people underneath them, like this device did.

Let's not be facetious here, Peloton didn't get CPSC's attention because it is a treadmill -- it got that attention because it is an unsafe treadmill.

As far as treadmills go, preventing being pulled underneath has been a solved problem.

EDIT: compare and contrast: what Peloton does [1] vs. a $700 treadmill design [2].

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onXNnlCYJ4Y

[2] https://www.walmart.com/ip/3-0HP-APP-Bluetooth-Control-Incli...

[ghusbands]

A majority of the google image results for "treadmill" don't have an obvious guard, so the Peloton one doesn't seem uniquely dangerous.

[tapland]

The guards are often just a bit tucked in under it for the clean look but without cutting corners.

Edit: Pelotons are really heavy as well starting at about 300 lbs. Most of the ones in that weight class seem to have safety bars? The difference in a child getting a fraction of a 200 vs a fraction of a 300+ lbs treadmill from getting pulled under is massive.

[romwell]

> A majority of the google image results for "treadmill" don't have an obvious guard, so the Peloton one doesn't seem uniquely dangerous.

Seem being the key word.

Please look at the consumer report[1], section "Unique Hazards".

The TL;DR is that height off the ground, belt design, and other factors form a uniquely unsafe combination that results in Peloton causing injuries that other treadmills don't cause.

[1]https://www.consumerreports.org/product-safety/peloton-plus-...

[matwood]

I think both Peloton and the parents share in the responsibility. It sounds like Peloton can do some things to make the Tread safer, and they should. But, that doesn't change that things like treadmills, exercise bikes, even free weights are dangerous for kids to be around unsupervised.

An exercise bike is another item that can easily hurt a child or pet if they get under the pedal when riding. Because of the flywheel, there is a lot of weighted momentum at the pedal when riding and it does not just stop if someone gets under it. I've seen videos of kids pushing something under the pedal while the parent is riding and the bike flips over. Now imagine a kids or pets head...

Finally, many say that Peloton and Apple are similar (Apple was rumored to be buying Peloton for a long time) because of their product design and rabid fan base. Now we can add another item, Peloton gets clicks on a news story. If this had been about any other equipment manufacture we likely wouldn't have even heard about it.

[wil421]

I assume you don't have kids. Most other products have warnings or safety features. Like guards covering circular saws or miter saws. A kid couldn't put a drill bit on a drill. My reciprocating saw could be used by a child but it's like 8 pounds. A child would never be able to put the blade on and you keep it off. If a kid started a saw everyone would come running. Treadmills are quiet.

Treadmills are dangerous and they only require a couple finger presses to operate. Kids would be in a room with one unlike power tools. Kids are not meant to be in an area with tools, gas, paint, lawn equipment etc.

[xyzzyz]

Don’t put the gym equipment where vulnerable kids can access them, then. That’s what I do.

[Someone1234]

That seems like an opinion given from a privileged position, wherein you own a large enough dwelling to have a dedicated gym area you can prevent children entering.

Equipment should be safe enough to have in non-optimal circumstances, rather than basing things on rarely obtained ideals held by a privileged few.

[andrew_v4]

Are you saying that all "equipment" sold should be in the category that it can safely be installed in a multi-use area of a home with kids in it? I get the idea that there is demand for such products, but it's pretty backward to mandate that a product can't exist that requires a dedicated area to house it. As a concrete example, everywhere I have lived requires your pool to be fenced off from the rest of your yard, because of the danger to kids (which would dwarf that of a treadmill). Should we ban pools because you need to have dedicated space for a pool in order to have one?

[Someone1234]

> Are you saying that all "equipment" sold should be in the category that it can safely be installed in a multi-use area of a home with kids in it?

No. I was pointing out the non-ideal reality. People commonly use gym equipment in multi-use area with children, if that gym equipment can suck up a child or pet, and won't stop even as it jams on them, that is a safety concern. Basing product safety on a rare ideal instead of reality is a recipe for further tragedy.

[thegrimmest]

But why is it that every time tradgedy occurs we're looking for a systemic casuse that we can regulate away? Why not leave this to parental negligence and stop calling for more regulation everytime a child gets injured or killed?

[throwaway_isms]

>That seems like an opinion given from a privileged position

Well, the Peloton is a $4,300 device, so it goes without saying anyone who owns one is in a privileged position. Of course it doesn't mean owners have an extra room. In situations like this, there is probably at least comparative negligence.

[Someone1234]

People who live inside New York City could be in that income bracket while lacking the space you assume they have. There are multiple areas of the country with that cross-section of high property costs and high income.

[xyzzyz]

Sure, and if they lack space, some things simply are not an option. These folks in tight NYC spaces wouldn’t install a table saw and a router table in their living room either.

I guess the real issue here is that many people simply do not understand how dangerous gym equipment can be. Small kids simply should not be allowed around it, no matter if there is some plastic guard part around it or not.

[throwaway_isms]

>lacking the space you assume they have

Did you even read my comment?

>Of course it doesn't mean owners have an extra room.

[woah]

The peloton treadmill is uniquely, unnecessarily, gratuitously dangerous. Peloton could have spent $5 on a guard over the back, but they didn’t, probably because they wanted it to look cool.

[ghusbands]

A majority of the google image results for "treadmill" don't have an obvious guard, so the Peloton one doesn't seem uniquely dangerous.

[raverbashing]

Gym treadmills probably can do without it, others might be close enough to the floor to prevent such accidents happening

The Peloton one seems to be higher and with ample space at the bottom for things to get sucked into

[thegrimmest]

> The peloton treadmill is uniquely, unnecessarily, gratuitously dangerous.

This is not an absolute fact, but just your opinion. People are allowed to disagree with what degree of design compromise constitues "unnecessarily dangerous". Furthermore, they are allowed to object when some people try to impose their ideas of what's right and wrong onto others.

Personally I think Peloton should be able to sell treadmills with circular saw blades at each corner if people want to buy them. Who are you to decide what's right and wrong for other people?

[dannyr]

"Personally I think Peloton should be able to sell treadmills with circular saw blades at each corner if people want to buy them. Who are you to decide what's right and wrong for other people?"

Are you even serious?

[aidenn0]

We allow companies to sell dangerous items all the time. People are mad at Peloton because treadmills are not generally thought of as unsafe.

The treadmills at many gyms lack a guard like other commenters suggest it should have. I can buy one for my home if I want.

I don't think this is the point the commenter above was making, but if it had circular saw blades on the corners, the pitchforks and torches would be out for the parents who let their kids near it; or even had one in a house with small children at all.

[fakename11]

Most houses are sold with outlets that can be extremely dangerous for kids. Do we need more regulation for this too?

[anonymfus]

The regulations should be based on how people actually use things, not on how they supposed to use them. If these treadmills cause more deadly incidents than other appliances then comparably more effort should be spent on making them safer.

[andrew_v4]

I agree that's fair (normalized for any past regulatory overreach). Products that are death traps compared with others in their category should definitely be called out. I did a google search and the first link [0] says about 3 treadmill deaths per year and 24k (!) injuries is typical in the US (well, those are the numbers the article quotes).

That's not enough information, but certainly not a smoking gun showing that peloton is dangerous vs others in its category.

[0] https://www.mensjournal.com/health-fitness/exercise-equipmen...

[hagy]

I agree. The CPSC graphic video [0], graphically demonstrates the "safety failure" of a Pelton treadmill with two young children playing on an active treadmill unsupervised. While I certainly agree Pelton and other manufactures should attempt to mitigate the dangers of such a negligent situation, I was astonished that parents would allow this to happen. Imagine the same video, but replace the treadmill with a loaded bench press.

Pelton highlights that there is a safety key required to operate the machine and that parents are instructed to store it in a secure location inaccessible to children. [1] No treadmill manufacturer can ever fully eliminate the dangers of an active treadmill to young children and pets, and therefore I think this safety key is the essential piece. I find this similar to locking power tools away from curious young hands.

I don't want this to lead to additional regulation and compliance. Such regulation could even mislead consumers as to the danger of a treadmill. E.g., requiring some autodetection of a stuck belt to stop the motor. A foolproof mechanism would be not only expensive, but require regular inspection and maintenance to guarantee it performs this function. One could trust this mechanism while neglecting maintenance and therefore be further negligent in not securing the safety key away from children.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onXNnlCYJ4Y

[1] https://www.consumerreports.org/product-safety/peloton-plus-...

[wirrbel]

Thats not how SAFETY in engineering works. You cannot declare that certain situations that are likely to come up (children around a product that is in apparment / homes) are out-of-scope.

Source: Have worked in product development for devices.

[andrew_v4]

Safety engineering is a matching between user expectations of safety and actual safety. If there's evidence that this treadmill is disproportionately dangerous for it's category, that's one thing. But if it's just "dangerous" without qualification, that's not a reason in itself to be especially concerned about it.

[slver]

Most treadmills don't have this problem, they have a basic plastic guard below so it can't suck up toddlers and pets and kill them. It's not expensive, it's not hard.

Your argument is buy this flawed treadmill, which is almost exclusively intended for home use, and never have children and pets in your home. Ever.

I don't think you informed yourself well on the issue.