Slashdot Mirror
Feds Say There Isn't A Single Safe 'Hoverboard' (engadget.com)
In the Consumer Product Safety Commission's letter to manufacturers, importers and retailers, it urged them to make sure the scooters they make and sell comply with the safety standards set by Underwriters Laboratories, the organization in charge of certifying that products are safe for use. According to UL Consumer Safety Director John Drengenberg, "no hoverboard has passed the certification process at this time."
There isn't a single [] hoverboard. Big neas.
CLI paste? paste.pr0.tips!
The UL standard is still a draft proposal. I know because I tried to acquire a copy late last week. UL only released the document 1/29 and was prepared to evaluate devices as of 2/6. This is a simply an inflammatory sound byte with no merit.
Here's UL's own blog post for more details.
http://www.ul-energy.com/start/the-new-ul-2272-standard-gets-a-handle-on-hoverboard-safety/
The feds say they must meet a standard. The summary says none are certified to a standard. Those are two different things. A manufacturer could certainly manufacture a product to meet the standard, but not spend the extra time, money and effort to have it certified by a private organization.
Not saying there are ones which comply, only that the summary makes invalid assumptions.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
More importantly, they don't actually hover.
They are lucky we live in a time with rule of law, because if we were living in Roman times, I would go burn down their factory and get away with it. Makes me mad every time I see those liars mentioned.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
In a word: bullshit. You're presenting the notion that companies would not cut corners without a watchdog. The IDEA that a company would make a product "too safe" for UL to approve is prima facie nonsense. Yeah, we WANTED to make it more expensive, but those bastards at UL wouldn't let us". LOL. This just in: given the opportunity, people will cheat. Full stop.
I would agree with you IF the hospitals didn't have to see them when they set themselves on fire or break their neck.
And capitalism is a poor choice for determining what is safe and what is not. The chase for the all mighty dollar would ensure nothing was safe if left to capitalism. You wouldn't have any of the safety features in cars for example that you have today if left to the manufacturers. They cost money after all.
This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
There are actually some cases where OP is correct; a certifiable product may be less safe than a non-certifiable product given different design priorities.
That said, the same OP's issue is true of every trade organization or "independent" third party. Good luck getting ASHRAE, IEEE, GSM, or any other standards body information freely. If you want a certification, you are stuck paying for it, be it LEED, Uptime Institute, NCEES, or whatever. It was only recently that municipalities had to make building codes available freely online.
NoNon is correct. I also design products that get listed with UL,CSA, & other listing agencies. I've not seen where getting a product certified ever made it "less safe". I suppose it's possible but I can't imagine how.
I can. Use of new materials that for every conceivable test are stronger or less brittle or less toxic or whatever other safety measure is considered may constitute a fail if that material hasn't yet been approved by the checklists UL use. Even if TUV and others have approved it, and even recommend it over the less safe alternatives.