Future Motion, the maker of the Onewheel electric skateboard, is recalling every one of them, including 300,000 Onewheel self-balancing vehicles in the US. Alongside the US Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), the company now seeks to remedy the products after four known death cases — three without a helmet — between 2019 and 2021.

The recall comes a year after Future Motion took issue with the CPSC’s calls for recall and claimed that it tested and found nothing wrong with the Onewheels. At the time, the company issued a press release in objection to the CPSC and called the agency’s statements “unjustified and alarmist.”

Now Future Motion is moving forward with a voluntary recall it chose not to do almost a year earlier. The company is asking owners to stop using their Onewheels until they take appropriate action. For the newer Onewheel GT, Onewheel Pint X, Onewheel Pint, and Onewheel Plus XR, a software update with a new warning system is the remedy.

For early adopters, however, the CPSC and Future Motion are telling owners to stop using and discard the original Onewheel and Onewheel Plus. We asked Onewheel chief evangelist Jack Mudd in an email how many of the original units are affected, but Mudd refused to answer. Mudd also wouldn’t tell us why the company claimed there were no issues and publicly resisted issuing a recall back in 2022.

Mudd did say that the software update for the other models is rolling out worldwide, not just in the US.

Some crashes occurred due to Onewheel skateboards malfunctioning after being pushed to certain limits. The Onewheel GT, Onewheel Pint X, Onewheel Pint, and Onewheel Plus XR will receive a firmware update that will add a new warning “Haptic Buzz” feedback that riders can feel and hear when the vehicle enters an error state, is low on battery, or is nearing its limits and needs to slow down.

“This update is the culmination of months of work with the CPSC,” reads the company’s recall website. Last November, it called the CPSC’s warning about Onewheels “misleading” but stated it would “work to enhance the CPSC’s understanding of self-balancing vehicle technology and seek to collaborate with the agency to enhance rider safety.”

To install the update, owners must connect their Onewheels to the accompanying app and run a firmware update — the process is fully explained in a new video.

For early adopters, however, owners can receive a “pro-rated credit of $100 to the purchase of a new board,” according to Mudd. The credit will only be issued after owners confirm that they have disposed of the old model.

Alongside Future Motion’s blink on the decision to recall Onewheel, the company shared a new video on YouTube highlighting the new Haptic Buzz feature as well as best practices when riding. “We’ve been working closely with the CPSC for over a year in order to develop this new safety feature,” Mudd says in the video. He adds that ignoring pushback or Haptic Buzz “can result in serious injury or death.” It took engineers a while to whip up Haptic Buzz; perhaps it’s something that would not have been ready in a timely fashion after CPSC’s first whistle last year.

    • Hildegarde@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      40
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Cars and bikes would be banned if they were invented today.

      We are incredibly tolerant of dangers that we are already familiar with.

      • tomi000@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        1 year ago

        Not sure how not wearing a helmet makes it okay to be killed by a faulty product.

          • tomi000@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            11
            arrow-down
            16
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            No its not and I cant believe I even have to say this lol. If I shoot you with a gun its on you for not wearing kevlar right? If your car explodes out of nowhere thats also on you for not wearing a seatbelt I suppose?

            • WoahWoah@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Correct, you don’t recall the windshield of a car for being faulty if they’re breaking because people not wearing seat belts keep flying through them. Deaths from not utilizing required protection should be considered differently.

              If it was suddenly a TikTok fad to not wear bicycle helmets while riding in traffic and bicycle-related deaths went up, would you suddenly consider bicycles themselves more dangerous?

              No.

              These were “recalled” because people were pushing them beyond their designed and stipulated limits leading to fatal accidents, especially for people not wearing helmets.

              All they were required to do was add haptic feedback indicating “you’re doing what you’re not supposed to,” which, if you ride one, you would know that was already pretty clear.

              The fact that they weren’t required to change anything about the design or function of the OneWheel itself should tell you something.

              • tomi000@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                You wouldnt recall the windshield because thats not the part malfunctioning. If a car keeps braking randomly while going 120 on the highway, it doesnt matter if you use a seatbelt or not, the car is faulty and thats what would get recalled.

                I reread the text passage, it says pretty clearly ‘the Onewheel was malfunctioning’.

                Just because you didnt follow the instructions to wear a seatbelt doesnt make it okay to be killed. Thats like saying running over pedestrians is alright if they are jaywalking, they dont count as traffic casualties. If the only deaths counted are those where every party involved perfectly obeyed all rules and acted 100% correctly, there wouldnt be many left. Cars would be considered completely safe.

                • NιƙƙιDιɱҽʂ@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  You wouldnt recall the windshield because thats not the part malfunctioning

                  And you just kind of proved their point. You wouldn’t recall the board because that’s not the part that’s malfunctioning if the user isn’t wearing their PPE.

                  Onewheels are a board sport. Board sports come with inherent unavoidable risk. They also have limits which these users chose to push through, three of which did so without mitigating said risk by wearing PPE.

                  • tomi000@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    It IS the part malfunctioning though, it says so pretty clearly. Boards come with risks but the board malfunctioning is neither inherent nor unavoidable. Thats the whole point.

                • capital@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  If a car keeps braking randomly while going 120 on the highway, it doesnt matter if you use a seatbelt or not, the car is faulty and thats what would get recalled.

                  Except this “car” was advertised from the start to only go a maximum speed of 120. If you buy a car knowing the max speed is 120, don’t bitch when it only goes 120 safely.

                  • tomi000@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    If the maximum speed is 120, the car wont go over 120. You cant advertise a car with ‘only go 120 or the car will kill you’.

    • tomi000@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      The difference as far as I could tell from the text would be that car accidents are usually the users fault while this is attributed to the products failure or bad usability.

        • tomi000@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Thanks for that link, very interesting. I didnt cite the 94% though, I didnt even know about that statistic. Also, even if it isnt 94%, its probably close to that. Even if its just half of that, you cant blame the other half directly on the cars malfunction, those accidents are probably caused by many factors. So like I was saying, in this case the fault seems to lie entirely with the product.

          • SwingingTheLamp@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yup, I’m not here to argue with you, but just share that information. The fact that other countries have different safety standards for vehicles and better road designs, and have decreased fatalities dramatically, points to design as a stronger factor than driver error. (And I’d argue that driver error should be mitigated by design, not just waved off as a personal, moral failure.) What’s really odd to me is the very different societal response, and different approach by different regulatory agencies, to design flaws that have killed a handful of people versus design flaws that kill tens of thousands annually.

      • thepianistfroggollum@lemmynsfw.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s definitely not a false equivalency. The death rate per capita is one way you compare how deadly a mode of transportation is.

        • iAmTheTot@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I don’t deny that, but there’s different reasons why they are deadly, and not all of those reasons are CPSC’s oversight.