cat0020

That's your opinion.
Fact is they are both related to ebikes & deaths; hence fair game.
Failure to see the connection is exactly what the politicians want you to do, ignore the more important problem of cyclist deaths in NYC.

I'm on the side of what's important about ebike related casualties in NYC.

Just in time:
https://electrek.co/2024/01/15/no-e-...-death-in-nyc/

FBinNY 

Yes, as I said in post #3, this is only a start, and the end is not yet in sight. Ultimately, the issue is likely to be resolved by the USDOT declaring Li-ion batteries as hazardous commodities, and requiring certification for Li-ion batteries in commercial transit. Oddly enough, this is how all kinds of things are indirectly regulated, but it works, because you can't by or sell what you can't ship.

veganbikes

You really are bad at this, I made it easy either A or B that is all you needed to say but clearly I think we know your answer it was A! You are opposed to UL regulations for batteries and chargers. Anyone else could have said B easily, it would really be hard to oppose B. The fact you cannot say B and keep doing the same old B.S. of trying to dodge the question and blame other things not being talked about in this thread makes it quite clear what side you are on.

If you have a financial stake in one of these companies who are opposed to UL listings then I would recommend just being honest about it. Honesty is the best policy.

cat0020

Wrong, I have zero financial stake in regulations, as always, you have not clue who I am nor my positions, simply pretend like you know.
The world is not limited to choose A or B, but plenty of situations and positions that you don't have any clue of.
Blinded by your obsession to make me wrong, you just fail to see the importance of the risk that involve ALL cyclists in traffic.

veganbikes

Ok then why won't you say you support UL regulations on batteries and chargers? Why do you keep deflecting to other topics not being discussed here?

Either you are for UL (or similar) regulations for batteries and chargers or you aren't. If you have differing positions tell us we are all curious currently you just are hemming and hawing and won't give a simple answer to a simple question. There is something there, if you don't have a financial stake then what is it? I think again everyone else in this thread has made it clear they are for regulation you are the only one who seems to be against it or if you are for it you sure are doing a bad job of telling us.

I have seen this before where people have an untenable position but don't want to give it up so they try and blame everything else instead of staying focused on the topic at hand. If you want to talk about cyclists in traffic, go to the Advocacy and Safety sub-forum and post about that this has been a thread about getting batteries and chargers listed and getting electrical stuff up to some quality standards . It is not just a general thread about anything safety related, it was posted in the E-bike sub-forum and is related directly to that in this case.

Everyone else seems to understand that but you seem to have gone off on a tangent and in this thread have blamed others for it.

noglider 

@cat0020 --

Some people get injured or killed in vehicle crashes. Some people are working on improving that.

Some people are involved in battery fires. Some people are working on improving that.

We don't have to decide which problem gets worked on. We can work on both. When one problem is bigger than the other, the smaller problem does not become a non-problem.

There is a problem with battery fires. Let's figure out how to improve it. Let's not say that improving it is a bad idea.

Oy vey.

tds101 

It's not an opinion, it's a fact. But you like to tell people otherwise, all the while claiming apples aren't apples, and oranges are apples. Ebike fires being a leading cause of death or not, regulations have nothing to do with car accidents or other types of fatalities. As someone stated, you love to use a strawman argument, and you refuse to acknowledge the fact that there's some other motive behind the numerous ebikes you constantly post in other threads (are you actually a seller? A shill?).

Have a wonderful day, and enjoy the snow. ❄️


​​​Just to make you feel happy. Yes, electric scooters and euc's have been included in the stats. It doesn't change the fact that ALL of these e-vehichles should be regulated. All pose a danger, not just ebikes. It doesn't change the FACTS.

Bald Paul

No, there are opinions. As it is said, opinions are like a certain body part. Everyone has one and thinks theirs is the only one that doesn't stink.

cat0020

Where did you read that I am opposed to UL regulations?
I'm here because there is more
Are you the forum moderator that regulates which post should be in which thread?
If everyone jumps off a cliff, do you jump, too?
Tangent or not, prioritizing the regulations to keep riders safe is not limited to ​​​​​​battery safety.

Do you deny that there will still be casualties even when these UL regulations take place?
I doubt it, and as the article I posted previously,
it is clear that battery related fire is far from the actual safety concern the people think it is.
Statistics clearly shows vehicle accident related injury & deaths FAR out number battery fire casualties.
Maybe we should prioritize what's killing people over the ones that are so low in comparison.
Yes, let's improve it, I never said that bad regulation is a bad idea, just that you assume what's in my posts.

There are already regulations in these e-vehicles, just as regulations per helmets, bicycles and most other things related to cycling. Most of them are pay-to-pass kind of regulations, pay a fee, put a sticker on the product and done.
Regulators have no manpower to inspect all manufacturers for each product to be certified.
As in my previous post, If you can't see the relations, that's just you ignoring the FACTS about cycling related casualties.
Calling me shill doesn't change that FACT.
You have a good day, too.

Actually, all of them stink, there are those who cannot support their opinions with facts (or evidence) are invalid.
If one can't determine valid vs invalid opinions, that is just lack of critical thinking.
But that's a tangent to the topic of this thread; you should move your post to another discussion like VEGANBIKES suggested.

noglider 

It appears to me you didn't understand me. I said there are two problems, and we should work on solving both. Some people are working on one, and others are working on the other. There might be people working on both, but that's irrelevant.

You cite the fact that one problem being bigger than the other as a reason for leaving the smaller problem alone. This is silly.

True you never said bad regulation is a bad idea. I don't know why, because I think bad regulation is, indeed, a bad idea. Are you saying it's a good idea?

I suspect some of us might be wasting our efforts, given how unclearly you write and how you don't seem to understand what we are saying, even when it's simple stuff.

cat0020

To me it appears that most of you want to see what's not written in my posts and just assume what you want to see.
I never said regulations are bad ideas, I never said that we should leave the smaller problem alone; I said to prioritize the regulations over the threat to cyclists.

The battery fire issue has been overblown by the media, and politicians are just putting regulations in to make themselves look like they are prioritizing the problem of battery fire; instead of dealing with far more serious and deadly problems of vehicles vs cyclists accidents.

Can you tell the difference between what's typed and not typed in the posts, and stop assuming what's not written in the posts?
If not, that ok, too; keep ignoring the real problem in cycling safety.

Trakhak

As I used to write (very frequently) in queries when I was making a living editing articles submitted to scientific journals:

Please clarify what is meant by the bolded passage.

cat0020

I've never worked as a scientific journal editor nor writer.
English is not even my first, second or third language.

What I meant in the passage is that:
we, as cyclists & participants in policy making,
should prioritize policies & regulations that are trying to solve the more significant & deadly threat to cyclists over the regulating battery fire concerns.

Regardless of regulations of battery safety, without education to end users to properly operate, store & charge batteries,
seems to me, the regulations would just be another cause for battery & ebike prices to go up.

I apologize for the run-on sentences, but I hope that it clarifies what I meant.

veganbikes

You haven't said you are for them in any way shape or form in this thread you have been given multiple opportunities to say you are either for or opposed to UL regulations you keep trying to change the subject. In a thread where everyone else has given their vote for UL regulations you keep dodging the question like a politician so it is pretty damn clear where you land. If you were for UL regulations you would have said that it is a hard thing to oppose.

There is more red herring in this thread from you than in the entire ocean.

You have chosen to back yourself into a corner and are really really desperate here. I would have long ago said "I am for UL regulations" or I would have been honest if I were you and believed what you believe and just said "I am opposed to UL regulations". You can say "well I never said that, stop putting words in my mouth..." but nobody who is for safety regulations would not say it in a thread where everyone is pretty much in agreement except you. Nobody would need to say "well what about stuff we aren't discussing that is so much worse" Nobody is arguing on what is worse, we are discussing UL and similar regulations for batteries and chargers and you cannot even keep to that in the least.

Imagine if I asked if Ed Gein was a bad person, you would be the one saying "Well he was a great craftsman, nobody talks about the art he made and his brother Henry was worse because he didn't share a soda pop when they were 8..." while everyone else would say "no he is universally bad"

cat0020

You mean I haven't said what you want to hear.. and you're not going to; stop your baiting and get lost stalker.

veganbikes

No you cannot admit either way if you are opposed or not opposed to UL regulation. Nobody is stalking you or at least not here this is a public forum and a debate we are involved in. There is no stalking or baiting you are trying to bait everyone with your talk about things unrelated to battery and charger regulation. If you really are for UL regulation you would have said that and if you are against them you would likely go on the war path you have. It's ok to have a differing opinion but to claim it is not your opinion when you have pretty much made it clear it is, is just silly.

Again if you were for UL regulations you would have said that it is a popular opinion amongst a lot of people other than maybe those creating non-UL listed batteries and chargers. Nobody else seems to be opposed to safety on the front of batteries and chargers and if you are for safety you wouldn't need to hide it especially not here. If you were opposed you would probably want to deflect and make the issue less of an issue and do as you have done. If you want to dispel what I have said you would give your opinion and we would know for sure but barring that we go by your attitude and what you have written here and you have made it clear.

Nobody else is hiding and dodging just you. Kind of silly.

cat0020

Regardless of you or anybody thinks, we don’t live in a world of “A or B”.
It doesn't matter how much you want to believe it to be true.
Repeating it over and over is not going to change reality. That would be silly.

From your posts in this thread, it seems clear that you would only be satisfied when I admit to something that you say.
I hope I'm not the first person to tell you this:
that's not how the world works. No matter how much you want it to be true.
Good luck with you, keep telling yourself how the world works.
These personal attacks in your posts clearly give the stalker/baiting/troll vibe.

Smaug1

They do. UL 2271 covers eBike battery packs. UL 2849 covers the power systems in eBikes. There are also a couple different standards that can be used to cover eBike battery chargers, and they're already required to be Listed everywhere in the country. (as they are mains-powered devices, and there is not only a possible fire hazard, but also shock hazard)

Check my other recent threads for more information; I wrote one recently with lots more detail. (I'm a regulatory engineer)

veganbikes

Just say you are opposed to UL listings and end this. In this case it is an A or B what middle ground is there you either want regulations for batteries and chargers or you don't. On this one issue it is pretty cut and dry. There is certainly a lot of nuance in the world and there are plenty of things that are not A or B but in this instance it is very much the case.

It is quite simple, maybe not simple enough for you who has the narrative of me being a stalker because we are members of the same public free to join online forum and having an open public discussion on that forum which anyone could tell you, unless they have lost everything and are desperately grasping at straws, is not stalking. I haven't emailed you separately or found other online presence from you or anything like that it has all been purely limited to this forum of which we are both members.

I think you are even more stubborn and hard-headed than me and that says something I mean any sane rational person with a working functional brain could easily say as they have in this very thread that they are for UL (or similar) regulations to keep people safer. That is not barring other safety measures for other things in other areas it is just a simple we want safety in this particular area we are discussing. You cannot even say that it is pretty telling. You are so desperate for anything to stick in your untenable position it is quite sad.

The one lone soldier on top of a tower out of ammo, food and water screaming "I will never give up" as they are surrounded and the army they fought for has already surrendered.

cat0020

Goodbye, troll.

veganbikes

Troll? How am I trolling? Please explain yourself better than your other positions? Or probably don't because you don't have a leg to stand on here. I am sorry that you couldn't ever explain your positions on the topic being put forth in this thread. Maybe it was a lack of understanding or something but it is sad when someone gets involved in a discussion and cannot discuss anything and just has to resort to calling people trolls.

If you don't understand things just say so or if you have a position contrary to popular belief that is fine as well, you are allowed to have that position. People may sit and wonder being that in this case that position is counter to safety but you can still have it. If you believe in something stand up for it don't hide and cower behind silly attacks just be honest with people. Everyone else in this thread for the most part has been for UL regulations on batteries and chargers you seem to be the only opposition but you won't admit it because I guess you fear something that just won't happen.

FBinNY 

Thank you for this.

If you don't mind a few questions....

1- is UL compliance required nationally for the batteries?
2- do any of the standards require special plugs to prevent mismatch of chargers to batteries?
3- are there structural standards for the battery cases to prevent crash damage?
4- how about labeling info?

I'm not trying to challenge you, just hoping you can offer easy to understand answers.

So, please answer if you know and/or can easily summarize, otherwise possibly point people in the right direction.

Smaug1

Not yet, but it is required in some local areas, like NYC and I think some big cities in CA as well. I think it is coming.


I don't believe so, but they either have to be keyed to prevent polarity issues or tested to make sure nothing bad happens when they are hooked up in reverse polarity. There are marking requirements saying to use only xx battery with the charger and with the bike. There are lots of required instructions in this vein too. I'm not 100% sure on this and would have to dig into the standards quite a bit to confirm.

Yes, there are tests to evaluate the battery's resistance to all manner of mechanical use and abuse while remaining safe. (not necessarily functional)

• Shock
• Crush
• Drop
• Mold Stress relief (checks that the molds don't open up and expose live or moving parts under higher temperatures)
• Vibration
• Roll-over

Yes, there are lots of marking requirements and also durability tests on the markings themselves.

Smaug1

Note that the standards I'm referencing are safety standards, not quality standards.

I've found there is often correlation between the quality and safety. For example, a Listed product has safety-critical components strictly controlled. The manufacturer cannot just swap to cheaper components all the time without having them tested to make sure the product is still safe with them. For example, in eBikes, only certified cells are allowed to be used, (to a UL standard for the USA/CA or IEC 62133 internationally) so there would be a LOT fewer problems with not only fire, but also quality of the cells, as construction is checked and must meet many requirements.

Last thing: UL writes the standards and also certifies products. The government and local authorities consult with UL directly. There are many Nationally Recognized Test Laboratories that can test and certify to the aforementioned standards. My Juiced HyperScrambler 2 has an SGS certified battery pack. I would have preferred UL Listing, as I believe they're the best* but they are hard to find, as UL can be more expensive. But it's lots better than nothing.

* I worked at UL for 21 years and have seen the work of the some competitors.

FBinNY 

The reality is that the major E-bike makers already spec certified batteries, either UL, DIN or other based on either country of manufacture or destination. This is because their liability insurers insist on it. After all, nobody wants the President, or a company representative testifying in a product liability case to answer the following 2 questions wrong.

1- are your batteries certified?
2- why not?

So it will ultimately boil down to managing issues arising from direct retail sales by sources overseas. IMO (only an OPINION) the only way to do this would be through rules affecting transit. But there will always be stuff slipping under the radar.