Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by Someone1234 1888 days ago
> 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.

1 comments

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?
The penalty for momentary negligence should not be death, especially when there are simple, cheap safeguards to mitigate the risk. No one is asking them to ship light fences with the thing. Moreover, having the treadmill standing up in a living room is exactly how they advertise it. It's hard to argue that's somehow unintended and unforeseeable usage.
It's not the penalty, it's just a natural consequence. Momentary negligence does frequently result in death. Taking your eyes off of two small children could kill them in many situations. It's easy - just watch your kids. My living room is perfectly safe for me and other adults, but I could come up with 5 ways those two kids could seriously harm themselves if I left them there alone for 5 minutes. The world is dangerous. The responsibility for protecting your children from harm ends with you.
Because there are lots of overworked parents and their kids do not deserve to die.