Hover boards banned on Amtrak Trains

[TylerP42]

Saw this on FB today (Rob Sartain, Amtrak Northeast Corridor Railfans) -

Thoughts?

 

[AmtrakBlue]

They're a known fire hazard, so I'm all for banning them.

 

[haolerider]

Seems to make sense.

 

[jis]

Many college campuses have restricted or banned them too....

http://www.engadget.com/2016/01/10/us-college-campuses-ban-hoverboards/

Here is an article from Wired on what the core problem is with them...

http://www.wired.com/2015/12/why-hoverboards-keep-exploding/

All in all banning it for now seems like the prudent thing to do. No point in having a train burn down just so someone can carry their Hoverboard.

 

[fairviewroad]

With so many places banning them, it's amazing they are still even being sold, if they're that dangerous.

OTOH you pretty much can't smoke a cigarette anywhere in public,they're a known carcinogen, yet every convenience store on the planet sells them. Maybe it's time for a Surgeon General's warning on hoverboards.

 

[TinCan782]

Southern California's Metrolink banned them beginning Jan 4

 

[jis]

With so many places banning them, it's amazing they are still even being sold, if they're that dangerous.

OTOH you pretty much can't smoke a cigarette anywhere in public,they're a known carcinogen, yet every convenience store on the planet sells them. Maybe it's time for a Surgeon General's warning on hoverboards.

I suppose there are many people who don't worry too much about their house burning down until after it has burned down?

 

[Caesar La Rock]

Those aren't hover boards is all I have to say. If it rolls on wheels, it's not hovering.

 

[Bob Dylan]

I'm all for it, but here in the Peoples Republic of Texas the rulers in Austin are more concerned with allowing everyone to carry a gun wherever they want and cutting taxes on Corporations and Rich people so this probably won't be happening here! ( individual freedom outweighs public safety!)

 

[BCL]

There's nothing inherent about the technology where they should be catching on fire. However, in the quest for lower prices, they're using bottom of the barrel batteries and charging systems. They also happen to have very large batteries, so a fire gets big. Cell phone batteries catch on fire too, but it's not like it's a couple of pounds of battery. And the big cell phone makers have higher standards for their suppliers.

They're also having issues with the batteries in vaping equipment. When those batteries blow up its in someone's face.

 

[jis]

And you can't just put a stainless steel explosion proof case around it to vent the product of a burn safely out of the way, which essentially was the solution applied to the massive batteries in the Boeing 787s.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

Seems to make sense.

Actually this sort of arbitrary banning makes no sense to me whatsoever. If these devices are really this dangerous then why are they legal to buy/sell/own in the first place?

With so many places banning them, it's amazing they are still even being sold, if they're that dangerous. OTOH you pretty much can't smoke a cigarette anywhere in public,they're a known carcinogen, yet every convenience store on the planet sells them. Maybe it's time for a Surgeon General's warning on hoverboards.

I suppose there are many people who don't worry too much about their house burning down until after it has burned down?

I suppose this is what happens in a society that blindly prefers impractical patchwork rules over anything resembling an enforceable federal regulation. Maybe it's time for UL listing and similar safety underwriting to be a requirement instead of a largely forgotten afterthought. We've been through this sort of thing before; we're just a bit too forgetful to remember it.

 

[west point]

As far a banning it takes time for regulators and pols to catch up to new products.

An imperfect solution for any device using lithium ion batteries. This means all !!! If its hot after use don't charge wait till it cools. If its hot after charging do not use until it has cooled. will not completely prevent fires but is a much better solution. So buy extra batteries.

 

[fairviewroad]

My hoverboard doesn't use batteries...it's a plug-in model. Is it still banned?

 

[jis]

Seems to make sense.

Actually this sort of arbitrary banning makes no sense to me whatsoever. If these devices are really this dangerous then why are they legal to buy/sell/own in the first place?

For an outfit like Amtrak to ban something to protect itself from something it considers dangerous? Of course it makes a helluva lot of sense, at least to me and a few others I bet. You control what you can control. You cannot control the legality of buying/selling/owning. Controlling that is a much more convoluted and time consuming process, and there is absolutely no reason for an individual outfit not to act on mitigating its own risks in the meantime.

Now is this the best way to run a society, maybe not. But that is a separate issue from immediate risk mitigation.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

As far a banning it takes time for regulators and pols to catch up to new products.

That's only true in a system where the burden of proof lies with the consumer because everything is presumed safe until proven otherwise. Unfortunately consumers don't generally have the time, money, or expertise to reliably make such determinations. Other cultures have seen the folly of such systems and have instead implemented regulatory structures where new products are presumed unsafe until proven otherwise. This increases the cost of selling unsafe products in those countries but also has the benefit of reducing human harm, loss of life, healthcare costs, legal costs and insurance claims.

Seems to make sense.

Actually this sort of arbitrary banning makes no sense to me whatsoever. If these devices are really this dangerous then why are they legal to buy/sell/own in the first place?

For an outfit like Amtrak to ban something to protect itself from something it considers dangerous? Of course it makes a helluva lot of sense, at least to me and a few others I bet. You control what you can control. You cannot control the legality of buying/selling/owning. Controlling that is a much more convoluted and time consuming process, and there is absolutely no reason for an individual outfit not to act on mitigating its own risks in the meantime. Now is this the best way to run a society, maybe not. But that is a separate issue from immediate risk mitigation.

How is Amtrak going to enforce this ban? So far as I can tell Amtrak has no practical method for preventing these devices from being brought on board and they still don't list these as being banned from commercial express shipments. Even if we ignore the root cause and focus exclusively on Amtrak this change looks more like feel good safety bluster than actual safety.

 

[BCL]

And you can't just put a stainless steel explosion proof case around it to vent the product of a burn safely out of the way, which essentially was the solution applied to the massive batteries in the Boeing 78s.

Sure that could be done. How much is it going to cost and how does the added weight affect the performance? I mean - it's no like a Pentagon standard for a toilet seat.

There are already restrictions on lithium batteries for air travel. Apparently rechargeable that aren't in devices should be at a 30% state of charge. I heard loose lithium primary batteries weren't supposed to be allowed, including coin cells.

 

[tonys96]

My hoverboard doesn't use batteries...it's a plug-in model. Is it still banned?

Must have a pretty long cord on it......

 

[TylerP42]

There are already restrictions on lithium batteries for air travel. Apparently rechargeable that aren't in devices should be at a 30% state of charge. I heard loose lithium primary batteries weren't supposed to be allowed, including coin cells.

I'm guessing that's probably why whenever I get a camera battery it's at 20% or lower

 

[jis]

How is Amtrak going to enforce this ban? So far as I can tell Amtrak has no practical method for preventing these devices from being brought on board and they still don't list these as being banned from commercial express shipments. Even if we ignore the root cause and focus exclusively on Amtrak this change looks more like feel good safety bluster than actual safety.

Assuming that you are not being pointlessly argumentative to live upto your handle and are having a serious discussion....

Clearly Amtrak will not be able to catch someone who is hell bent on bringing one on board, and indeed it will be difficult to enforce in checked baggage or even packed in hand baggage since Amtrak does not have the luxury of an X-Ray scan of such. However, that does not mean that it should not arm itself with a rule to help it mitigate the risk to the best extent possible.

Two of the more common modes in which these burns happen is when they are being charged or being discharged. Both of those requires the device to be quite visible. The rule arms an Amtrak staff to do something about it when it is seen by them or someone who reports it to them. So it is more than just a feel good rule.

In balance therefore, it is better to have this rule than to not have it.

And you can't just put a stainless steel explosion proof case around it to vent the product of a burn safely out of the way, which essentially was the solution applied to the massive batteries in the Boeing 78s.

Sure that could be done. How much is it going to cost and how does the added weight affect the performance? I mean - it's no like a Pentagon standard for a toilet seat.

The problem would be with safely venting in an enclosed environment. The 787 solution works because the venting is being done out of the body of the aircraft to be dissipated in the free air outside. Even if there were a way to enclose the battery in an enclosure, the vent from it would be venting the fireworks into the car or house or whatever, which does not really make it a heck of a lot safer, without placing further constraints on the environment within the house where it must be operated or kept.

There are already restrictions on lithium batteries for air travel. Apparently rechargeable that aren't in devices should be at a 30% state of charge. I heard loose lithium primary batteries weren't supposed to be allowed, including coin cells.

The only instructions given at checkin and boarding point that I have come across is that no Li Ion battery should be placed in the baggage that is going into the belly of the plane. I have not heard of any restrictions on regular batteries used in consumer goods that are taken on board. I have specifically asked about charged camera batteries in their own plastic safety case, and have been told it is OK to take them on board in hand baggage.

 

[TylerP42]

Jis, real quick digression: could you explain why camera batteries are barely charged when bought?

 

[jis]

Jis, real quick digression: could you explain why camera batteries are barely charged when bought?

Safety of bulk shipment is the issue there. When you are taking a battery or two in your baggage even if one decides to go off it can be easily put out with standard fire equipment. It is a completely different matter when there is a hundred of them setting each other off.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

There are already restrictions on lithium batteries for air travel. Apparently rechargeable that aren't in devices should be at a 30% state of charge. I heard loose lithium primary batteries weren't supposed to be allowed, including coin cells.

One of the primary characteristics of the coin cell is a large but puncture resistant and thermally conductive surface area acting as a built-in heatsink. Their physical design, lack of complicated recharging circuitry, and long history of use contribute to coin cells being some of the safest lithium batteries around.

Clearly Amtrak will not be able to catch someone who is hell bent on bringing one on board, and indeed it will be difficult to enforce in checked baggage or even packed in hand baggage since Amtrak does not have the luxury of an X-Ray scan of such. However, that does not mean that it should not arm itself with a rule to help it mitigate the risk to the best extent possible. Two of the more common modes in which these burns happen is when they are being charged or being discharged. Both of those requires the device to be quite visible. The rule arms an Amtrak staff to do something about it when it is seen by them or someone who reports it to them. So it is more than just a feel good rule. In balance therefore, it is better to have this rule than to not have it.

As currently written I can't transport or even possess a hollow hover board toy with batteries removed anywhere on Amtrak property, including open air pavement. Nevertheless it would appear that I can transport the batteries themselves and even some charger circuitry if I so chose, just so long as it wasn't attached to a hover board. Looking back over events that have actually harmed and even killed people on Amtrak trains, and/or are at least somewhat likely to do so in the future, hover boards are so far down the list that it’s hard to see this as any sort of critical safety issue. Meanwhile the primary areas that are statistically at greatest risk of hover board disasters and would benefit from some enforceable regulation (consumer homes and wallets) remain completely unprotected. Amtrak's luggage rules already state "Amtrak personnel may determine if an item not mentioned in this list is prohibited." so it's not like they needed a brand new rule with its own special category for a single fleeting toy fad. In my view this new rule is every bit as absurd and gimmicky as the device which spawned it.

Jis, real quick digression: could you explain why camera batteries are barely charged when bought?

Safety of bulk shipment is the issue there. When you are taking a battery or two in your baggage even if one decides to go off it can be easily put out with standard fire equipment. It is a completely different matter when there is a hundred of them setting each other off.

Modern lithium ion batteries are most resilient to physical deterioration and permanent capacity loss when charged between 40% and 50% before being stored or shipped. This is to avoid increased chemical stress experienced at nearly full and nearly empty charge states. That being said, lithium batteries remain chemically volatile regardless of their charge level and there's no given percentage that renders them completely safe and inert.

 

[BCL]

How is Amtrak going to enforce this ban? So far as I can tell Amtrak has no practical method for preventing these devices from being brought on board and they still don't list these as being banned from commercial express shipments. Even if we ignore the root cause and focus exclusively on Amtrak this change looks more like feel good safety bluster than actual safety.

Assuming that you are not being pointlessly argumentative to live upto your handle and are having a serious discussion....

Clearly Amtrak will not be able to catch someone who is hell bent on bringing one on board, and indeed it will be difficult to enforce in checked baggage or even packed in hand baggage since Amtrak does not have the luxury of an X-Ray scan of such. However, that does not mean that it should not arm itself with a rule to help it mitigate the risk to the best extent possible.

Two of the more common modes in which these burns happen is when they are being charged or being discharged. Both of those requires the device to be quite visible. The rule arms an Amtrak staff to do something about it when it is seen by them or someone who reports it to them. So it is more than just a feel good rule.

In balance therefore, it is better to have this rule than to not have it.

And you can't just put a stainless steel explosion proof case around it to vent the product of a burn safely out of the way, which essentially was the solution applied to the massive batteries in the Boeing 78s.

Sure that could be done. How much is it going to cost and how does the added weight affect the performance? I mean - it's no like a Pentagon standard for a toilet seat.

The problem would be with safely venting in an enclosed environment. The 787 solution works because the venting is being done out of the body of the aircraft to be dissipated in the free air outside. Even if there were a way to enclose the battery in an enclosure, the vent from it would be venting the fireworks into the car or house or whatever, which does not really make it a heck of a lot safer, without placing further constraints on the environment within the house where it must be operated or kept.

There are already restrictions on lithium batteries for air travel. Apparently rechargeable that aren't in devices should be at a 30% state of charge. I heard loose lithium primary batteries weren't supposed to be allowed, including coin cells.

The only instructions given at checkin and boarding point that I have come across is that no Li Ion battery should be placed in the baggage that is going into the belly of the plane. I have not heard of any restrictions on regular batteries used in consumer goods that are taken on board. I have specifically asked about charged camera batteries in their own plastic safety case, and have been told it is OK to take them on board in hand baggage.

I've seen stuff like this:

http://www.kodak.com/eknec/documents/6e/0900688a8088d86e/us_dot_ban.pdf

On August 9, 2007, the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) issued a final rule banning or restricting the transport of non-rechargeable lithium batteries and devices shipped with these batteries aboard passenger aircraft. These new rules become effective on January 1, 2008 and can be found in their entirety in the August 9, 2007 edition of the Federal Register, which is accessible via the internet through http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html. These new rules supplant emergency interim rules issued in December 2004. This summary applies to non-rechargeable lithium batteries shipped from, into or within the United States.

NON-RECHARGEABLE LITHIUM BATTERIES

The transport of any amount of non-rechargeable lithium batteries is prohibited aboard passenger aircraft except for personal use as noted in the DOT Safe Travel website. In addition, the outer shipping container of all packages containing non-rechargeable lithium batteries must be marked as stated below.

I don't have the time to read all of this:

http://data.energizer.com/PDFs/lishipmentpolicy.PDF

They have labels for boxes.

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTg-j89yEjJFja87uPm2_C6g9oO3f37g4hMcQC8aZwTmdE374Il

 

[Devil's Advocate]

How is Amtrak going to enforce this ban? So far as I can tell Amtrak has no practical method for preventing these devices from being brought on board and they still don't list these as being banned from commercial express shipments. Even if we ignore the root cause and focus exclusively on Amtrak this change looks more like feel good safety bluster than actual safety.

Assuming that you are not being pointlessly argumentative to live upto your handle and are having a serious discussion....

Clearly Amtrak will not be able to catch someone who is hell bent on bringing one on board, and indeed it will be difficult to enforce in checked baggage or even packed in hand baggage since Amtrak does not have the luxury of an X-Ray scan of such. However, that does not mean that it should not arm itself with a rule to help it mitigate the risk to the best extent possible.

Two of the more common modes in which these burns happen is when they are being charged or being discharged. Both of those requires the device to be quite visible. The rule arms an Amtrak staff to do something about it when it is seen by them or someone who reports it to them. So it is more than just a feel good rule.

In balance therefore, it is better to have this rule than to not have it.

And you can't just put a stainless steel explosion proof case around it to vent the product of a burn safely out of the way, which essentially was the solution applied to the massive batteries in the Boeing 78s.

Sure that could be done. How much is it going to cost and how does the added weight affect the performance? I mean - it's no like a Pentagon standard for a toilet seat.

The problem would be with safely venting in an enclosed environment. The 787 solution works because the venting is being done out of the body of the aircraft to be dissipated in the free air outside. Even if there were a way to enclose the battery in an enclosure, the vent from it would be venting the fireworks into the car or house or whatever, which does not really make it a heck of a lot safer, without placing further constraints on the environment within the house where it must be operated or kept.

There are already restrictions on lithium batteries for air travel. Apparently rechargeable that aren't in devices should be at a 30% state of charge. I heard loose lithium primary batteries weren't supposed to be allowed, including coin cells.

The only instructions given at checkin and boarding point that I have come across is that no Li Ion battery should be placed in the baggage that is going into the belly of the plane. I have not heard of any restrictions on regular batteries used in consumer goods that are taken on board. I have specifically asked about charged camera batteries in their own plastic safety case, and have been told it is OK to take them on board in hand baggage.

I've seen stuff like this:

http://www.kodak.com/eknec/documents/6e/0900688a8088d86e/us_dot_ban.pdf

On August 9, 2007, the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) issued a final rule banning or restricting the transport of non-rechargeable lithium batteries and devices shipped with these batteries aboard passenger aircraft. These new rules become effective on January 1, 2008 and can be found in their entirety in the August 9, 2007 edition of the Federal Register, which is accessible via the internet through http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html. These new rules supplant emergency interim rules issued in December 2004. This summary applies to non-rechargeable lithium batteries shipped from, into or within the United States.

NON-RECHARGEABLE LITHIUM BATTERIES

The transport of any amount of non-rechargeable lithium batteries is prohibited aboard passenger aircraft except for personal use as noted in the DOT Safe Travel website. In addition, the outer shipping container of all packages containing non-rechargeable lithium batteries must be marked as stated below.

I don't have the time to read all of this:

http://data.energizer.com/PDFs/lishipmentpolicy.PDF

They have labels for boxes.

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTg-j89yEjJFja87uPm2_C6g9oO3f37g4hMcQC8aZwTmdE374Il

Your links refer to shipping rules for air cargo while Jis is discussing carry-on luggage, which has a different set of rules. I don't fly as much as Jis does but my personal experience is that carrying large lithium ion batteries with you into the passenger cabin is of no particular problem so long as you are also carrying portable equipment that would explain their purpose and use. This includes lithium batteries that are both physically large and energy dense.