" It may be that the authorities that be decided that they wanted a step-by-step guide on how to make these scooters safer and a standard specific to the scooters accomplishes this task better than proposing an existing standard."
Sounds reasonable, and would be willing to accept that rationale, but UL2272 does not address safety for some of the product category's principle defining features. Half-baked for the sake of getting to put 'UL' prefix on standard designation for new stuff? My comments do not represent the opinions or policies of my employer, or of the Grand Poobah of the Loyal order of Water Buffaloes, Lodge No. 26, Sam Slagheap. Brian -----Original Message----- From: Ted Eckert [mailto:000007cf6ebeab9d-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org] Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2016 3:38 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Applicable standards for hoverboard in EU I can see one advantage of product-specific standards. They are generally, but not always, easier for a novice to apply them correctly. The product-specific standards cover the hazards of that product in detail and typically require less engineering judgement or analysis. This may be helpful on a product such as two-wheel self-balancing scooters where many manufacturers appear to have little experience with safety certification. (I refuse to call anything that doesn't hover a "hoverboard".) There are clearly many disadvantages of a product-based standard in comparison to a hazard-based standard. New design methodologies or technologies may already be adequately covered by a hazard-based standard but need to be incorporated into an existing product-based standard. Hazard-based standards give designers more flexibility and can make innovation easier. A hazard-based standard covering a wider range of products reduces the risk of having differing requirements for similar product types. This is only a short list. It may be that the authorities that be decided that they wanted a step-by-step guide on how to make these scooters safer and a standard specific to the scooters accomplishes this task better than proposing an existing standard. Ted Eckert Microsoft Corporation The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my employer, Marty McFly, Biff, Doc Brown or the producers of Back to the Future part 2 where we were suppose to have real hoverboards in October 2015. - ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <emc-p...@ieee.org> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas <sdoug...@ieee.org> Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org> For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: <j.bac...@ieee.org> David Heald: <dhe...@gmail.com>
