• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Zohran Mamdani

if you look into what ul listing is, that will explain a lot of what the problem is with the electric bikes. basically, nyc is saying they don't want bikes that don't have ul listed electrical components on their roads and want to fine online stores shipping non ul listed bikes into the city because that's the minimum safety standard they want. ul listing isn't really that demanding either, it's just some minimum safety standards regarding wire sizes and design and things of that nature to make sure the electrical system is safe. places like amazon will sell all kinds of unsafe electrical gadgets from over seas that don't go through the ul process. it's kind of ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ that they do tbh but amazon is kind of a garbage company so that's how it goes

en.wikipedia.org

UL (safety organization) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
 
Donal said:
Maybe. But use case and other factors come into play. If the battery for my drill gun over heats, it burns my hand. It doesn't send a flaming ball down the street through pedestrians
Click to expand...
Umm... if you don't dump it in a bucket of water pretty quickly, it can burn your entire house down spot quick. And a battery fire in an EV will be a flaming ball rolling down the street. There's a reason all my spouse's RC batteries are stored and minimum safe charge levels in a fully enclosed steel chest on concrete and away from walls or anything flammable.

Anyway, I'm not disagreeing with the dangers involved. It just seems like making ebikes illegal because of batteries is a silly and poorly thought out way to address the risks of Li batteries.
 
dirtywick said:
if you look into what ul listing is, that will explain a lot of what the problem is with the electric bikes. basically, nyc is saying they don't want bikes that don't have ul listed electrical components on their roads and want to fine online stores shipping non ul listed bikes into the city because that's the minimum safety standard they want. ul listing isn't really that demanding either, it's just some minimum safety standards regarding wire sizes and design and things of that nature to make sure the electrical system is safe. places like amazon will sell all kinds of unsafe electrical gadgets from over seas that don't go through the ul process. it's kind of ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ that they do tbh but amazon is kind of a garbage company so that's how it goes

en.wikipedia.org

UL (safety organization) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
Click to expand...
That was helpful. Thank you.

And yes, Amazon is a garbage company.
 
Anyway, my original nitpick was about the term "cease and desist order".

I'm not a big fan of e-mobility devices taking over city streets and sidewalks. I think there's a huge regulation gap there, and I fully approve of city governments cracking down on that.

My complaint is that I'm pretty sure the mayor can't actually order online retailers not to ship to customers in New York. At best, he can take the issue to court, and if the court rules in his favor, then the court can order the retailers not to do that.

Since it turns out that it's illegal for brick and mortar stores to sell these devices in the city, the city may very well have a strong legal argument that online retailers should be bound by the same law. But that's for the court to decide and order, not the mayor. I think he probably meant that his office - or the office of the city attorney, or whatever - sent "cease and desist letters". Warnings, basically, that if the recipients don't stop on their own, the city will take them to court and seek a court order.

My hypothesis all along is that Mamdani meant cease and desist letters, but called them orders because he (a) never really stopped to think about what the process actually is, and (b) likes the sound of ordering businesses to do what he wants. Not a grave sin at all, in the grand scheme of things, but he is developing a track record of claiming or promising things that are outside of his remit.

Cracking down on e-bikes doesn't have to be weird. Just like making bus rides more accessible to city residents doesn't have to be weird. But for whatever reason Mamdani likes to make it just a little bit weird.
 
Last edited:
dirtywick said:
if you look into what ul listing is, that will explain a lot of what the problem is with the electric bikes. basically, nyc is saying they don't want bikes that don't have ul listed electrical components on their roads and want to fine online stores shipping non ul listed bikes into the city because that's the minimum safety standard they want. ul listing isn't really that demanding either, it's just some minimum safety standards regarding wire sizes and design and things of that nature to make sure the electrical system is safe. places like amazon will sell all kinds of unsafe electrical gadgets from over seas that don't go through the ul process. it's kind of ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ that they do tbh but amazon is kind of a garbage company so that's how it goes

en.wikipedia.org

UL (safety organization) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
Click to expand...
Yup in my first job (designing fire detectors and fire sensors) UL was one of the accreditation bodies we certified to. BS/EN was another and the Australian was the third main one.
 
personally i'm 100% behind new york on this one. amazon is a giant tech company that runs a 17% profit margin, there's no undue demand in new york or anyone else telling they need to take some responsibility and invest some of that money into making sure the products it lists on it's site are reasonably safe if it wants to continue to do business within the city. amazon won't do it on their own, but there's no reason that website should have so many fake and unsafe products on it. they just don't care
 
Why is it for a court though? There are examples in other areas - 49-state catalytic converters, high-capacity magazines, fireworks. Where those are illegal/not certified/whatever, out of state orders won't be fulfilled.
 
dirtywick said:
personally i'm 100% behind new york on this one. amazon is a giant tech company that runs a 17% profit margin, there's no undue demand in new york or anyone else telling they need to take some responsibility and invest some of that money into making sure the products it lists on it's site are reasonably safe if it wants to continue to do business within the city. amazon won't do it on their own, but there's no reason that website should have so many fake and unsafe products on it. they just don't care
Click to expand...
None of which means the mayor has the authority to order them to change how they do business.
 
Dread Pirate Roberts said:
Why is it for a court though? There are examples in other areas - 49-state catalytic converters, high-capacity magazines, fireworks. Where those are illegal/not certified/whatever, out of state orders won't be fulfilled.
Click to expand...
If the vendor asserts a right to fulfill those orders, then it is indeed for a court to decide whether that's true or not. I assume things like catalytic converters and fireworks have either already been litigated, or else the laws are already sufficiently clear, or both.

Typically the executive can't order people to change how they do business. That's for the judiciary. The executive can enforce court orders or laws passed by the legislature. Mamdani could litigate, or he could make arrests, but I don't think he can order Amazon to stop. At best he could tell Amazon what they're doing is against the law, threaten to enforce that law, and then make good on that threat.

I think the problem may be that the city regulations that prohibit brick and mortar sales were either written with too-limited a scope, or else the city actually lacks jurisdictional authority to prohibit shipments to New Yorkers from retailers based outside the city.

Not all laws are the same. Just because the state is really dialed in with its laws against importing high-capacity magazines, that doesn't mean the city is on that same level when it comes to e-bikes. And since Mamdani clearly didn't know that New York city busing is operated and funded by the state government, I find it likely he is similarly clueless about the city's e-bike regulatory jurisdiction.
 
theprestige said:
None of which means the mayor has the authority to order them to change how they do business.
Click to expand...

he's telling them if they won't comply with nyc law that they can't do business in new york, and that seems like a mayor's wheelhouse to me
 
dirtywick said:
he's telling them if they won't comply with nyc law that they can't do business in new york, and that seems like a mayor's wheelhouse to me
Click to expand...
He describes it as an order to stop doing that kind of business. I don't think the mayor has the authority to issue such an order. I think he has the authority to sue for a court to issue such an order. I think he has the authority to enforce such an order. I don't think he has the authority to issue the order.

It's also not clear to me that they're out of compliance with New York city code. I don't think that question has been decided yet. So an order would be premature anyway.
 
Donal said:
Mopeds aren't allowed in bike lanes. Also, as others have mentioned, there doesn't seem to be much in the way of quality standards, which becomes an issue with those batteries.
Click to expand...

Mopeds also require insurance, a license plate, and registration. Anything 50cc and over requires a motorcycle endorsement.

At least it does in North Dakota. I bought my wife a moped\scooter early this summer and the first thing we did was went and changed over the title, and got it insured since it's the law.

As far as I know there are no laws requiring insurance, registration or a license plate for ebikes.
 
www.nyc.gov

Mayor Mamdani Issues Cease-and-Desist Orders to Online Retailers Selling Dangerous, Illegal Motorized Devices to New Yorkers

www.nyc.gov www.nyc.gov

Retailers that continue selling prohibited devices after receiving a cease-and-desist order may face a civil penalty of up to $2,000 for each illegal sale. Illegal devices found operating on New York City streets may also be impounded.
Click to expand...

well i'm not really sure what to tell you and i'm not really sure why you think that, but we'll see how these companies respond soon enough.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom