Maybe the designers decided all the safety junk was too ugly?
lol, no
https://techcrunch.com/2021/05/05/peloton-bug-account-data-l...
Excuse the pedantry, but I think this is the incorrect physical explanation. Larger rollers mean that the linear speed at the rim is larger, and the roller impart in fact less force (e.g. conservation of energy).
Does not mean it is less dangerous. It's just dangerous for different reasons than you state.
My thought is the larger roller surface area just made it better at grabbing stuff and sucking it under the unusually high deck height. Dunno if torque is the correct term.
A treadmill design using large rollers would have a chosen motor and gearing combination to accomodate the large rollers, likewise for one with small rollers. They would likely be able to impart the same force at the roller (or at least which one would be stronger is unknown and a function of other design variables).
I just watched a video that matches this description, and holy shit. The thing that unsettled me the most was the first moment, before the treadmill reversed direction for a second only to suck the kid back in. In that initial capture, the treadmill wedged itself against that kid's throat. Hard to tell for sure from the video, but if not for that momentary spin reversal, the kid would likely suffocate.
As a father of a similarly-aged kid, I can't stop shaking after seeing this.
Fortunately the child was able to escape in this case, but it's pretty easy to see how people, and children in particular, could be injured or worse by these treadmills.
No jail, no meaningful fines.