Certainly not themselves.
But that's the only answer I know to be correct.
EDIT: The answer above was intended to apply to the general situation
EDIT: The warning shown does shift some portion of the burden to the consumer
Last edited:
And another one
- Thread starter Mazinny
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
But that's the only answer I know to be correct.
EDIT: The answer above was intended to apply to the general situation
EDIT: The warning shown does shift some portion of the burden to the consumer
But IF she were buying this battery and she saw the warning that "will release tremendous current" - don't you think she might find out what a 'short circuit' might be?
As I have been saying all along (wrt diketones and other things) - the consumer is ultimately responsible for their purchases. That doesn't mean that the vendor (or the gov't) shouldn't attempt to inform, but the consumer is the person using the product and should inform themselves. Thinking or assuming that is someone else's responsibility is the surest way to harm oneself.
AND incident like this, is 'part' of the information that is needed. It shows the reality of user errors, which no amount of vendor or gov't information can stop. This should be evident to anyone with a mind. Even animals learn quicker that some humans, and much of that is because animals don't 'believe' gov't "ensures" their safety, unlike human idiots who believe that, and other idiots who support gov't to do so.
I agree, it's definitely an issue, we can't just repeat " user error " over and over, and pretend it's not. And yes, i know there will be a bunch of posts after mine disagreeing if not flaming my post.oh oh......another one....in Alberta:
Alberta teen injured after he says e-cigarette exploded
again using combination of items that don't work safely together.
seems that he was driving when it blew apart, also caught his gym bag on fire.
Still hate seeing this, his face sure looks bad bad bad.
WHY are vape shops still selling hybrid mechanicals w/ subtanks to newbies? I understand that a newbie kid would walk into a vape shop, buy what was offered and assume it would work fine. I mean, we cannot expect every vaper to log onto the internet in order to vape, can we? I know I didn't do that when I bought my truck, my microwave, etc.
Did you see the video ? I couldn't get it to load. Do we know for a fact that it's a subtank mech combo ?
Here's an excerpt from his father from a different article btw :
Greer worries that vaping is becoming a trend with teens like his son who don’t smoke tobacco. “I don’t think it’s any safer than cigarettes, obviously.”
Glantz will be pleased obviously.
I tend to agree with Kent, if only for the fact that shifting the burden to anyone else would probably only result in larger warning labels, which may not be a bad thing, but from experience just leads to more warnings that are ultimately ignored.
Maybe we need a PSA campaign educating ALL consumers about the potential hazards of ALL batteries.
it's definitely one of the newer tanks, and it looks like a mech, though I couldn't say for sure which one. It's almost impossible to diagnose what went wrong. Should people be more informed about what they're using, yes, definitely. Is it the responsibility of the vendor to do the informing, personally, I don't think so. I applaud any vendor who does, but I don't see how it could be a requirement.
As for a situation like this meaning they're not safer than cigarettes, well, that depends on what you mean by safer. Personally I would trade a few teeth if it meant I didn't develop lung cancer, emphysema, etc. especially if I was the one out of three million people vaping to experience this.
So what is the proper course of action for this? What happens in other industries where things inadvertently harm people, even if it IS user error? Warning stickers? A user manual with 5 pages of warnings about li-ion batteries? I actually foresee those being required, I just don't think they will prevent these types of occurrences.
I don't know the answer tbh.
In this case, the sixteen year old apparently walked into a B&M and legally purchased his set-up. “I have talked with the owner of the store,” said Perry. “He’s very remorseful. He cried the whole time I talked to him.”
At least it was legal as of a year ago. Legality of E-Cigs in various provinces. • /r/Canadian_ecigarette
Should the store owner be responsible to inform the sixteen year old ( or any other customer ) of the following :
How do we prevent thermal runaway then? Never allow our batteries to be short circuited! Keep your battery wraps and top insulating rings in perfect condition, replacing them when necessary. Never use an atomizer with a press-fit or spring-loaded 510 pin on a hybrid top mechanical mod. Always make sure that the 510 pin sticks out past the threaded stem of the atomizer.
Last edited:
Would it be good if the store owner informed every customer, yes, should it be required, I don't think so.
This is somewhat of a simplification but it would be akin to requiring every clerk that sells a pack of cigarettes to explain to the customer that if you fall asleep in bed while smoking, you could burn your house down.
Saw it but the "EDIT: The warning shown does shift some portion of the burden to the consumer" misses the point (or my point anyway :- )
First, the burden is on the consumer - for reasons pointed out above. Secondly, the vendor and manufacturer have a responsibility to inform customers - mainly because of lawsuits - most have warnings on their sites, in stores or warning labels on products but the thing with warning labels as Lessifer infers - they're like stickies on a forum. Roly: "No one reads stickies."
The problem is when some 'caring individual' thinks that it is their business to save the idiots of this world who don't inform themselves OR purposely push the envelop, and in that process of 'consumer activism' get gov't to make regulations that not only doesn't help the idiot target, but puts others at risk by developing a mindset that because gov't is now involved that somehow products are "safer"; and as a result, they might not do the consumer research and inform themselves on the products they buy - therefore putting more people in danger than before the regulation.
With consumers being responsible - is that going to stop these incidents? No. But people learn much more from them than with any warning label or instructions from vendors. So there will be those "sacrifices" by those who don't inform themselves - collateral damage if you will - but that's not much different from someone saying that they would let 100 criminals go free than having one innocent person going to jail for something they didn't do - again collateral damage - criminals go free - by upholding a principle of rights. In that case a right to justice and in the former, a right to free exchange of goods.
There's downsides to both, but the upsides outweigh the downsides, imo. When there's no 'gov't assurances, then it behooves any rational being to get more informed on their purchases. If not, there will be consequences. It's the whole idea behind caveat emptor.
somewhat !?
What if the customer was 14, and not sixteen ? How about 12 ? At what point do we not assume the responsibility is solely that of the purchaser ?
Sad yes.
Only 2 cents I have to spend, he was 16 when he bought his vaporizer, the clerk allowed it and apparent so did his parents.
Let me guess, because of their "fuggit" mindset, the kid also dabbles in drugs but that's acceptable?
I feel like a minority, I had extremely strick parents that actually gave a fudge about what I was up to. I wasn't even allowed to get my drivers license till I was "an adult at 18" and "had my life on track."
It seams as we age into the future, no one HAS to take responsibility for anything. It's always "someone else's fault" bexcuse they are too lazy to take responsibility for their own actions.
Only 2 cents I have to spend, he was 16 when he bought his vaporizer, the clerk allowed it and apparent so did his parents.
Let me guess, because of their "fuggit" mindset, the kid also dabbles in drugs but that's acceptable?
I feel like a minority, I had extremely strick parents that actually gave a fudge about what I was up to. I wasn't even allowed to get my drivers license till I was "an adult at 18" and "had my life on track."
It seams as we age into the future, no one HAS to take responsibility for anything. It's always "someone else's fault" bexcuse they are too lazy to take responsibility for their own actions.
Under a certain age, the responsibility is the parents', whether or not they are present, as the minor is THEIR responsibility.
What about them? They're in business to sell products and make a profit, not to run social programs. Although, many do. Basically it's no business of anyone who isn't part of the transaction - unless the transaction itself harms or defrauds someone - then it is a matter of justice.
Last edited:
Yes in a theoretical ultra-libertarian society ( where everyone acts rationally ) perhaps, but in the real world where most of us live ?
The vendor selling the mech to the minor is not part of the transaction !?
Definitely too much of a simplification.
It is obvious that burning things can burn down other things.
It is not obvious to most people that batteries can be very dangerous.
Video says the mother was in the car while he was vaping. Father knew where he purchased it - although that may have been after the fact, but the father 'knew' it was a 'thing' for kids these days, so I'm guessing he knew and perhaps approved vs. cigarettes - again 'guessing' but a rational assumption from what the father said.
- Status
Similar threads
