"It is almost like having an unexploded bomb in your house": New figures reveal 11 deaths from e-bike fires in UK last year, as MPs call for tighter regulations

I struggle to understand the point of comments like that. The baselines are orders of magnitude different, but you blithely juxtapose the numbers regardless.

It's a comment [very clearly stated as being sarcasm] which is pointing out how we stupidly ignore and outright deny [particularly with car deaths] much, much bigger problems if they have been around for a long time. Whilst making a huge fuss about new far less dangerous issues. The baselines being so different is the point.
 

Great comment. The neo-libs within the the Tory Party have been promoting the idea of less regulation for decades. As a result we don't enforce many of the regulations that we already have. We have massively cut budgets for the organisations that should be enforcing regulations inc Trading Standards, HSE and EA. The staff become demotivated and actually they've lost a lot of very specific technical expertise to do the work.

Absolutely.  There is always a tension between "let's just / change" and "did you think it through?"  There is a strain of politics - notably in the US (Trump the tip of the iceberg) but also here - which sees in most "governing bodies" or "regulators" nothing but the dead hand of bureacracy, with no benefits except to themselves.

I assume the idea is that "the market" will take the place of regulation, because consumers won't buy stuff that doesn't work / is harmful; further they can directly "vote" on e.g. companies whose policies / side effects they disapprove of by not buying stuff.  This will presumably be aided by the ever faster information sharing we have.

Of course we can see there may be ... some problems with that idea.  Meanwhile the "bureaucracy" is dispensed with.  Unfortunately one of the jobs that does is maintain continuity and some basic standards.  So when we discover a new problem (well - same old problem - people selling defective and/or dangerous stuff, or things with deleterious side-effects) there is no-one experienced who can address that.

That's it, enforcement is hard when budgets are cut right back. And what suprises me is that this EN testing already existing is rarely discussed in these articles. What we have are MPs talking about needing a solution and the families of those affected by battery fires demanding action, all the while not seeming to understand that a solution is already available - or if that solution is insufficient in any area then let's talk about why and how to resolve it, rather than 'UK kitemarks' or similar which would take a long time to be any more rigourous and effective than the current EN standards.
On that note we also have the media overall not giving (from what I've seen) enough of a voice to the UK Bicycle Association who know more about all this than almost anyone. It's almost as if creating a media problem for the e-bike industry had appeal to some, but that's me getting cynical. 

james-o wrote:

That's it, enforcement is hard when budgets are cut right back. And what suprises me is that this EN testing already existing is rarely discussed in these articles. What we have are MPs talking about needing a solution and the families of those affected by battery fires demanding action, all the while not seeming to understand that a solution is already available - or if that solution is insufficient in any area then let's talk about why and how to resolve it, rather than 'UK kitemarks' or similar which would take a long time to be any more rigourous and effective than the current EN standards.
On that note we also have the media overall not giving (from what I've seen) enough of a voice to the UK Bicycle Association who know more about all this than almost anyone. It's almost as if creating a media problem for the e-bike industry had appeal to some, but that's me getting cynical. 

Excellent points you make there.

I don't know if the media covers e-car fires more or less than e-bike fires, but it's fundamentally the same problem of quality control. At least e-cars are generally charged outside of the residence (excepting certain instances of https://road.cc/content/forum/car-crashes-building-please-post-your-local-news-stories-276441) but then the fires tend to be a lot fiercer due to the large number of batteries.

I think the ultimate solution would be to standardise on a good battery format for e-bikes and e-scooters and then provide free/subsidised charging facilities. Ideally you could rock up to a charging facility and swap your discharged battery for a newly charged one. By centralising the equipment, it would be easy to ensure that all out-going batteries have been checked for soundness and capacity. For consumers, it should be convenient to just turn up and get your battery swapped within a minute or so and it would also provide an incentive for people to use e-bikes and e-scooters rather than big heavy e-cars.

hawkinspeter wrote:

Excellent points you make there.

I don't know if the media covers e-car fires more or less than e-bike fires, but it's fundamentally the same problem of quality control. At least e-cars are generally charged outside of the residence (excepting certain instances of https://road.cc/content/forum/car-crashes-building-please-post-your-local-news-stories-276441) but then the fires tend to be a lot fiercer due to the large number of batteries.

Electric car fires get way more coverage than they should, they are incredibly rare when compared to ICE vehicle fires.

I suspect more Ferraris catch fire per year than electric cars.

The HSE still have some teeth, but they are predominantly concerned with employer/employee duty of care relationships.
Everything else I wholeheartedly agree with.

You only need to look at the failings of Boeing and the simultaneous decline in the US FAA to see what real world impact the tightening of budgets for regulatory bodies can do

"MPs and safety groups have made the case for third-party certification to ensure e-bikes and their batteries are approved by an independent body before going on the market,..." 
Classic distraction tactic, from those needing to deflect attention from the facts:

How many of these fires were caused by ebikes from reputable manufacturers? I suspect, none. How many were caused by goods (universal chargers - for stolen ebikes, aftermarket battery packs, conversion kits, etc) from sellers who pay no heed to product safety regulations or certification, yet are allowed - by those whose duty it is to govern - to proliferate in our markets?

This is not about more product safety standards. It's about those who have been in power for 13 years actually running (not ruining) the country.

Yes agreed, I said similar in a reply to another post below. I believe fully tested and unmodified e-bikes from reputable suppliers are not what's causing these fires yet the whole category is tarred, it's similar with Surron use where e-motorbikes are just described as e-bikes in the press. Overall I don't see what enforcement of the current regs wouldn't do to remove the risks of poor quality products or incompatible items being used for repair, charging, etc.  

I believe most issues occur while charging, but most modern e-bikes have a detatchable battery so you can bring that inside, if not the whole bike.

I'd like to think that charging a detatched battery is safer if only because you are less tempted to charge it in the hallway, thus blocking your only means of escape, and if charging it on the kitchet worktop you are more likely to notice it is there and switch off the charger before going to bed. 

None of those measures should absolve the industry from making batteries ot a high standard that has been demonstrated to be of sufficient standard via third party verification.  Yes, that will push prices up a bit and should also involve allocating public money to enforcement, but those costs are negligible compared with the harm caused to some individuals, and to society as a whole when we can't be certain of their safety.

FionaJJ wrote:

I believe most issues occur while charging, but most modern e-bikes have a detatchable battery so you can bring that inside, if not the whole bike.

I'd like to think that charging a detatched battery is safer if only because you are less tempted to charge it in the hallway, thus blocking your only means of escape, and if charging it on the kitchet worktop you are more likely to notice it is there and switch off the charger before going to bed. 

Many don't actually have detachable batteries, particularly e-road bikes which have the battery in the downtube and the charging port fixed to the bike, but these are generally made by reputable manufacturers and I've never heard of one catching fire. For people who are concerned about safety when charging their detachable batteries a variety of specially designed bags and boxes are available designed to contain fires and explosions, or I know that many people who use lipo batteries for other applications such as radio-controlled aircraft swear by old steel ammunition boxes as safety containers for charging.

I'm not sure of the spread, but almost everyone I know with an e-bike has one with a detatchable battery. And everyone who lives in a flat, but stores their bike outside/in a garage/dedicated bike parking has a detachable battery. Because otherwise they'd have to run a long cable out of a window etc.

I'm very keen for more dedicated cycle storage space in front gardens or hangers, but not because batteries might catch fire. Who wants to share a hanger with an e-bike that's going to catch fire?

There needs to be proper, enforced regulation of batteries, along with an education programme for how to charge safely and when to discard.

People have talked about the risks of explosion from gas boilers, which are very real, if rarely considered beyond noticing an occasional news headline. Gas is inherently dangerous, but it was more dangerous when we started using it, and what we used before was even more dangerous. Over time we've found ways to minimise that danger. Getting your boiler serviced annualy is normal, and a legal requirement for landlords. When you move home one of the first things you are recommended to do is get your boiler checked. Only Gas Safe approved specialists are allowed to work on them. We have carbon monoxide monitors. 

Smoke alarms won't save us from a boiler explosion, but might give us a few extra seconds to save us from a battery fire - if our battery isn't attached to a bike blocking our only means of escape.

It's got very little to do with the batteries fitted by the manufacturer to retail ebikes, detatachable or not. Much more to do with the batteries bought after-market and strapped onto whatever machine came to hand. That, and using after-market chargers because - well, just why did your expensive ebike come without the original supplied charger... hmm?

I'm after a ranger expander battery for my bike.
My local bike shop - who is a dealer for this brand of bike - can't get them.
I ordered directly from the system manufacturer and it took a week for them to tell me that they can't ship the battery unit to the UK *from Italy*.
I went to the UK main dealer and have a feeling that the result will be the same.

This unit isn't cheap (600 quid), but due to the frustration I'm experiencing of having the cash but can't buy the product, I can see why people *might* be tempted to buy an unbranded, unapproved and potentially unsafe 3rd party battery pack.
Not something I would do, but thankfully, not everyone is me.

My specialized gravel/road is like that. I imagine it will be expensive when I need the battery changed as it's not a user task.

The manufacturer of my ebikes system specifically warns about charging outside or in damp environments such as an unheated shed.

The charger pack is not rated for use in damp environments and there is a risk of water droplets forming inside the charger or the terminals and creating a short circuit.

Most washing machines, fridges and freezers carry the same warning, unless they have been manufactured specifically for use in damp environments.

True, and a short can happen, but that's predictable and testing will show up whether the safety systems are sufficient to stop a predictable short becoming a battery fire. A few things need to go wrong before a battery gets to that stage. Normally a short would just stop the system working and need diagnostics to fix it or replace the right part. 

Yes it would - see my comment above about EN testing, I'd have a tenner on the % of bikes having 'self certified' (by manufacturer or brand) batteries being high, like >95%. Or, it's mismatching batteries and chargers where that's possible.

EN tests are acceptable for the safety of phones, laptops and other household items that have rechargeable batteries (there was a brand of phones that were barred from planes at one point but otherwise they're not seeing the same cover-all discussion that e-bikes are currently). My impression of what's going on is that cheap untested or insufficiently tested imports are causing the problem, not the product that meet the tests available already. 

Doesn't even need to have the "e" - is not uncommon to see "no bikes may be taken in to the property" for flats. Understandable - this can bring in muck and doors / hallways get chewed up. OTOH people will do that anyway. Just having the usual "you pay to make good" clause should cover it but of course there's the concern people will just up sticks and deposit won't cover it.

chrisonabike wrote:

Just having the usual "you pay to make good" clause should cover it but of course there's the concern people will just up sticks and deposit won't cover it.

With the eye-watering deposits I've had to pay when I was renting in London (and always had to struggle, in one case taking court action, to get back, most landlords seem to regard the deposit as "key money") it's hard to imagine how one could use up the deposit just on damage done by bringing one's bicycle indoors, unless one used it to smash the windows before leaving.

You probably wouldn't be surprised - no doubt there would be "cleaning", then scratches / dings on plaster could mean "charge for re-plastering wall" and the same for laminate floor / door surrounds would probably be "needs replaced".  And there's the "once you've given us money it ... feels wrong to give it back" as you say.

(Not from bad personal experience - but bikes are basically long levers with wobbly sticking out metal bits on them, they fall over, manouvering them in and out will cause wear even if you're careful.  Don't forget your heavy shopping in the panniers at one end, or that the lift will go out of commission for a few months and you'll be carrying your bike up and down stairs - if you want to keep it.  Sadly for me it turned out that "secure bike storage" outside only provided security for the thieves to work undisturbed.)

ubercurmudgeon wrote:

I can hear the sound of lettings agents typing the words "No e-bikes allowed" into their standard tenancy contracts every time headlines like these appear. They could become yet another thing that most renters don't get to enjoy, such as the companionship of pets...

Good news on that...

"Landlords will no longer be able to issue a blanket ban on tenants living with animals. Under the new rules, tenants will have the right to ask the landlord for permission to live with pets at the property. The landlord must consider your request to live with pets and cannot “unreasonably” refuse.5 Jan 2024"