I meant to add…that is it time to legislate against the type of people likely to buy this stuff?
Reading the thread on ST, it seems like the issue is the height of the Tread vs say the Woodway. The way the slats close is an issue compared to a belt but yes, ultimately, if you’re dumb enough to let kids or cats wander around whilst fast moving machinery is about, then give yourself an uppercut.
Thanks - i will go and run some tests on mine and see how risky it is…anyone got some spare children for a research project???
Wouldn’t some sort of rear guard prevent this? I used to have an ex-gym treadmill and cannot be sure, but think there was a floor beneath the rear roller so it would have been difficult to get pulled under
Bit like this
I do love a good uppercut !
Tyson fury famously uppercutted himself once.
was he running on a peleton treadmill at the time?
Not sure Tyson fury and any sort of treadmill would ever appear in the same sentence.
His dads a very good runner for his size though !
Yes, exactly. Or a cover on top of the belt before it goes around the roller and underneath. It’ll be a simple retrofit but a costly PR problem.
Classic engineering flaw where they’ve only designed for the user rather than the environment in which it will be used.
Or the user hasn’t considered the environment…
From the Sky news report:
The safety commission said one child became pinned under the treadmill while one of their parents was running on it, which suggests they are dangerous even under the supervision of an adult.
There’s that, but the engineer should have considered that they’re used in a family home (their clear cut target market) so children and animals are to be considered in its design.
A chest of drawers has always been completely innocuous. But the design has evolved such that they should be fastened to a wall - because you think of the absolute worst case scenario because they are in a home with children and animals.
There would’ve been a slightly different set of safety principles for a treadmill for a public (read adult) gym as opposed for a home. But manufacturers would’ve realised that
a. It’s just cheaper to design to one set of standards and
b. Many gyms will sell on old equipment and wouldn’t know the difference in safety principles.
It’s the whole new sector of design safety called “human performance”. Yes it’s part of “human factors” and ergonomics but it’s the incorporation of the psychological element and the human interaction.
I am guessing that there wasn’t much child supervision going on at that moment in time…
Or you teach children when and how to use them properly…
As is noted above, you can’t rely on the buyer to think with a bit of common sense. And the regulators don’t like that argument…
You can’t expect any sense when you regulate the need to think for yourself out of existence…
It has always been the case that not all those in positions of responsibility will fully understand and appreciate the role…and you can either try to educate or you can legislate…but education covers greater scope than trying to legislate the minutiae of risks…
I’d love to just design to common sense in my day job. And I work in an incredibly specialised industry, so you’d expect operators to have that common sense. I can’t assume they do and for the most part they don’t. That’s why we have regulators. It may seem counter intuitive but I’m sure even you’ll agree we kill less people with domestic accidents these days.
So I’m afraid the “they should just have common sense” doesn’t cut it. And that’s after we’ve all been through the same education system.
I have not used a common sense argument in this thread. Other than to create a straw man, i am not sure why you are using it, despite going through the same education system…
I went in search of some data but couldn’t immediately find specifics (It looks like you have to contact Rospa). It may well be the case, but whether this reduction comes from improvements in electrical supply and products as an example (useful regulation) than screwing your chest of drawers to the wall (a very unlikely but avoidable accident) i would be interested to know.
Up until this house (and even 6mths after we moved in), I’ve always had my bikes in the lounge room, including old dumb turbos. It’s been a part of our life and when LO arrived and could crawl, I physically blocked off the trainer.
But IMO, as a parent and being responsible for a life, there comes a point where education is a really good factor. Toddlers will always be curious about stuff and if you show them what is going on, why they shouldn’t touch it and what could happen if they do, it can really help.
This doesn’t mean that you can just forget about putting up a physical guard but something like a Tread, without a guard, to a toddler just as well be a huge red button that says ‘DO NOT PRESS’,
It’s certainly and engineering flaw. Yes users need to think for themselves, but as was stated in the thread title, what makes THIS treadmill more dangerous.
I’ve never heard of a kid being sucked under a treadmil before. Has anyone else? Would anyone think that is a risk? I would worry about someone stepping on it whilst it’s running and them being flung backwards. As amusing as it is when people do it in the gym it wouldn’t be funny for a kid.
I would keep kids away from if I had. Same as when I used a dumb trainer, they weren’t allowed near it.
The issue is not treadmills in general but the slat types. A moving belt on a treadmill is constant, it will give you a friction burn but that’s all (as bad as that is).
The slat types like Tread and Woodway mean that the gap between slats physically closes at it rounds the curve. So if hair or clothes get stuck, it just grabs tighter, there is no pulling back.
Watch the video - as noted above it has absolutely no guarding at the rear of the treadmill and has a big enough gap at the back for a child to be pulled under.
I’m not sure it’s slat v belt, it’s merely the friction/traction on a belt or slat that will pull a piece of child’s clothing in. After all the belt is designed to be entirely non-slip.