The level of risk is magnitudes more with the waterslide.
Allowing children to use exercise equipment is a Darwin award for the parents. It is just below allowing them to use power tools unsupervised
Allowing children to use exercise equipment is a Darwin award for the parents. It is just below allowing them to use power tools unsupervised
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26846986.
> If a product or service causes harm and it can be reasonably mitigated, it must be mitigated
The whole problem is that I don't recognize your right to decide for others what "causes harm" and what "reasonable mitigation" looks like. As was pointed out in another comment, most of our grandparents grew up with open fires in the house. When a child injured themselves or burnt their family home to the ground, it wasn't treated as a social problem, but an individaul one. The only people responsible for the saftey of children in the home are those children's guardians. In this case they have failed in that responsibility. Why not just leave it there and stop calling for social change every time a kid gets hurt?
That's an understandable view, but my view is that the individuals responsible are the ones who designed and approved the dangerous device. The courts should decide which of our views is right.
As a separate point, consider who is hurt more when this goes badly: the company that has some (bad) PR or even (gasp!) a recall, or the parents who enters the room to find their child dead.
That's not how that works though. Responsibility is only derived from action or negligence directly (not indirectly) resulting in harm. Lots of devices are dangerous - why do you get to decide what is "safe" and what isn't?
As for who is hurt most, I would say it's all of us. Increasing regulation of every aspect of our lives causes tremendous harm to, and increases the barrier to entry for pretty much everything.
We put them there because learning on the job carnage was excessive.
That is how "too dangerous" actually gets decided.
It's funny because the consequence of the argument around not expecting companies to build safe equipment is that parents should be constantly watching their children because something could be potentially dangerous. It achieves exactly the opposite of what how our grandparents grew up.
Actually, that is the whole problem for you.
Improving product safety is a time tested, production proven high value add to our lives, and that is true whether you personally recognize that value or not.
We call for change when kids get hurt because kids getting hurt is very highly undesirable. Same goes for people in general.
Secondly, the product motive works great for cost reduction and margin. It does not work so great when we are discussing safety.
There are global, widely recognized standards for safety. They exist because when we do not do that the products end up unsafe because unsafe products are almost always cheaper and people, particularly given these economic times, will favor less expensive products.
Nearly all of them say the same things too:
"It won't happen to us"
"We can be more careful"
"We are careful, it will be fine"
And on it goes.
Fact is people get tired, they forget, they are not perfect, and shit happens.
Where the consequences being life changing, or ending can be avoided, the world is a better place.
And the vast majority are going to take the better world deal hands down.
That is reality.
For those of us who feel differently, there are options:
Remove the safeties and live how you want. Think it through. Personal responsibility right?
Build your own. Same deal, right?
Restore old gear.
Like it or not, business operates under license, and the terms include following the law, and that comes with liability.
It comes with that liability because there would be unbelievable carnage without it.
Why?
Because when we do not make it otherwise, making money is the priority, not safety, just money no matter what anyone actually says.
And that is just fine! We set a reasonable floor, and everyone gets after their share, and we do not harm untold numbers of people in the process.
By the way, one difference between an actual professional engineer and a designer is being unwilling to sign off on something like this.
Had that product been reviewed, it would very likely not been signed off. Or, who ever did just put their license on the line hard.
Designers do not have the same qualifications.
Where threat of harm is well known, we require engineering review and a lot of regulations.
This kind of thing is why. Too much of it happening with exercise equipment and it will end up required just like every other dangerous thing currently is.
For a great example of build your own, see experimental aircraft. If it is made for others, it is regulated as we all know. Build your own and you and yours you take off with experience personal responsibility directly.
> 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.
This isn't a case of user-negligence, this is an inherently unsafe design where Peloton decided not to put a guard on the back of the machine.
It shows a yoga ball being pulled under the machine while the woman is running on it.
Unbelievable!
If you want to stay in shape and lose weight, climbers are heaven comparing to treadmills. On a climber you can set low speed and because you support yourself with hands, your legs joint are not as heavily abused as on treadmill. Do and hour on the lowest speed and I guarantee you lose bunch of weight and also will stay in shape heart wise. Nobody does slow speed on treadmill. Thats boring. But also average climber is some $15,000 comparing it to much simpler design of a belt and two rolls aka treadmill. That’s why Peleton has chosen them. btw treadmills were banned as cruel and inhumane by 1900.
But I have never met anyone else who rows like I do. The rowing machine quickly exhausts some individuals whom appear to be in outstanding health. I always wrote it off to their being out of shape, reformed smokers, recovery from illness, etc. But if you're normal then I may be somewhat unusual in my cardiovascular capacity.
Rowing machines generally work you out very well, because they engage so many muscle groups and the same time, thus requiring a lot of oxygen being delivered to them. In fact rowers typically have the highest lactate tolerance of most endurance athletes.
Next time on the rower try to row with 2:00/500m timing using a stroke rate of ~24. If you can do that for 30min without having rowed for quite a bit i would be seriously impressed.
I'll try what you suggest. Maybe all the machines I've used (about 6 of them) at various gyms are mistuned/broken in some way. These machines don't get the best of care in a gym setting.
I didn't say it wasn't a good workout or that it doesn't work me out well; in fact I said the contrary. But it doesn't challenge me in any particular way while it does seem to challenge some apparently healthy persons(i.e., trim, muscular shape, young, etc.).
I've read the machines' instructions, seen others use the machines, live and on videos, and, while rowing is not difficult for me, it does provide variety. But I was wondering why rowing wasn't more difficult.
Contrast with my recent return to swimming: I swam much of my life but left it about 15 years ago for other sports. I'm trying to get back in swim shape and, while my heart has no problems, I badly want more air faster! Rowing is graceful b/c air is readily available. But in swimming you have only a moment each stroke to breathe. And parts of swimming are anaerobic (sprints, first ~10 seconds of a race). So in swimming I see a clear personal limit to extend.
Anecdata: People with bad knees (like me) do.
> climbers are heaven comparing to treadmills.
Anecdata: Not if you've got bad knees (like me).
Make your argument about treadmills, not about power tools. Also note that power tools are highly regulated and have many safety features.
All treadmills are dangerous. I do not own one at all. I'm not going to tell someone that they are wrong because their level of acceptable risk is different than mine. I only ask that they accept the consequences of their decision.
I have a toddler in my household. Even thinking of them playing around any treadmill gives me an anxiety attack.
If you want a household item, it's like a stand mixer. Something that could break bones if not worse.
Effectively both share the full sum of blame and we ought to both educate parents and force companies to make safer goods.
I get your point, parents are stupid for leaving kids playing nearby. But it's not fair for kids to pay the price.
You can lock power tools in a cupboard or toolbox. The same cannot be said for a treadmill.