E-bike fires happening 'every other day' in London
London Fire Brigade (LFB) chiefs believe the fire was caused by the failure of a lithium-ion battery.
Richard Field, dep ass commissioner for prevention and protection at LFB, said e-bikes and e-scooters were one of the capital's "fastest-growing fire risks".
"Since 2023, we have seen a fire, on average, every other day and these fires are ferocious, producing extremely toxic smoke," he said.
Many recent fires have involved second-hand e-bikes or e-scooters which have been modified using parts bought online which do not meet the correct safety standard, Mr Field added.
The Bethnal Green fire on 9 April saw 50 people evacuated after it spread through the block in Cornwall Avenue.
One man jumped from a second-floor window to escape the flames but was unhurt.
Mr Field said: "This would have been a terrifying ordeal for all those inside this building.
"Firefighters demonstrated great courage to bring multiple people, including one child, to safety.
"The condition of one of the 11 people taken to hospital is no longer life-threatening."
'Our home was destroyed by a lithium battery fire'
E-bike battery fire destroys family home
'We lost everything in a converted e-bike fire'
The fire chief urged people to store e-bikes and e-scooters outside or in a location such as a shed if possible, or to keep them in rooms where the door can be shut to contain a fire.
He also advised avoiding leaving e-bikes and e-scooters unattended when charging, to use correct chargers and to not overcharge the battery.
Tower Hamlets mayor Lutfur Rahman said: "We are finding and destroying unsafe batteries, and we've halved the number of e-bike battery-related fires in the borough, but we need all e-bike and e-scooter users to help protect our community."
Listen to the best of BBC Radio London on Sounds and follow BBC London on Facebook, X and Instagram. Send your story ideas to hello.bbclondon@bbc.co.uk
LFB
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Bloomberg
4 hours ago
- Bloomberg
Opendoor Rallies as Crypto Influencer Pompliano Buys Shares
Opendoor Technologies Inc. has resumed its surge after cryptocurrency investor and influential newsletter writer and podcaster Anthony Pompliano said he'd bought shares in the digital real estate firm. Shares rose as much as 16% Tuesday after Pompliano, chief executive officer of ProCap Acquisition Corp., said in a post on X he's an investor in the $1.8 billion company. Pompliano is a former employee of Facebook, now known as Meta Platforms Inc., who hosts podcasts on business and investing, writes a daily newsletter to 260,000 readers and has 1.7 million followers on X.
CNN
6 hours ago
- CNN
AI search firm Perplexity makes $34.5 billion surprise bid for Google Chrome
AI Tech giantsFacebookTweetLink Follow Artificial intelligence search company Perplexity has made an unsolicited, $34.5 billion offer to purchase Google's Chrome browser, a surprise move by a Google Search challenger that's looking to upend how people find information online. A Perplexity spokesperson confirmed to CNN the details of the offer, which The Wall Street Journal first reported. The bid comes as Google awaits a court's decision after a landmark ruling last year found that the internet giant had violated US antitrust law with its search business. The US Justice Department has proposed as a remedy that Google sell its Chrome browser. Google has promised to appeal the ruling and called the idea of spinning off Chrome an 'unprecedented proposal' that it says would harm consumers and security. Google did not immediately provide a comment to CNN. Perplexity's offer — while likely a long shot, given Google's resistance to a forced sale of Chrome — marks the latest example of how new firms are taking on tech's biggest players to reshape the internet in the AI era. Perplexity is a nearly three-year-old startup whose search tool uses AI models to parse web content and curate answers. Answers are usually posted as a summary, although Perplexity does provide links to its sources. It launched an AI search engine that competes with Google's dominant offering in December 2022. Perplexity launched its own AI-powered web browser called Comet in July. The company is pitching it as a more personalized browser that connects the dots between a user's calendars, browsing tabs, social channels and more. OpenAI is also said to be developing a web browser, according to Reuters, in yet another signal that AI companies are looking to play a bigger role in how people use the web. Perplexity was most recently valued at $18 billion following a $100 million funding round, Bloomberg said in a report last month, citing a person familiar with the matter. The company did not comment on the report. That makes Perplexity's offer for Chrome worth nearly double its own valuation. Google, meanwhile, is worth nearly $2.5 trillion; shares of the company (GOOGL) rose around 1% on Tuesday. Google Chrome isn't the only high profile acquisition target that Perplexity has pursued. The company said earlier this year it was making a bid to buy TikTok, after a law was passed last year requiring the social media app's parent company, ByteDance, to sell it to a non-China-based company or face a ban in the United States. Perplexity has also reportedly been eyeballed by bigger tech players — both Meta and Apple have had discussions about buying the AI search firm, according to reports from Bloomberg and The Information, although it's not clear the talks will go anywhere. This is a developing story and will be updated.
Forbes
11 hours ago
- Forbes
Copyright Is Dead In The AI Age. But Is It?
Chamath Palihapitiya, former Facebook executive, venture investor and co-host of the All-In podcast, says copyright may soon be unenforceable in an artificial intelligence-driven world and urges companies to build competitive advantages that do not depend on protections that could quickly lose all value. As for artists, he questions whether they need copyright to earn a living, suggesting they can earn income through other means, such as live performances. This is a convenient stance for someone running or investing in businesses that require a massive amount of data for training and develop advanced AI models. The AI Copyright Divide U.S. copyright law holds that only people can be authors. The Copyright Office and courts have said works created entirely by AI don't qualify because they lack human creativity, even if a person wrote the prompt. But when humans use AI tools and add meaningful creative choices, their work may still be protected. Fair use is decided on a case-by-case basis. Judges look at why the material was used, how much was taken, and whether it affects the original's market. AI training on copyrighted works may pass if it transforms the content and avoids undercutting sales. In other situations, courts could find it infringes. There is no blanket rule, and disputes are likely to be settled in court for years. Palihapitiya's perspective, while provocative, reflects a growing skepticism among some technologists about the durability of traditional intellectual property laws in the face of generative AI. The central thesis is that the power of AI to independently create or derive from existing works will render existing legal protections obsolete. Why would a copyright hold up when an AI could theoretically generate a functionally identical or even superior work without ever having copied the original? This line of thinking suggests that the traditional legal framework, built on the premise of human-to-human creative exchange, is ill-equipped to handle the age of machine learning. The idea is that AI models learn patterns and create new material rather than copy existing work. This distinction may be the undoing of copyright as we know it. The counterargument, however, is made by Jason Calacanis, another host of the podcast, and a defender of copyright holders. Calacanis argues that the rights of creators, such as journalists, musicians and filmmakers, must be protected. He believes that AI companies, which are becoming some of the most valuable corporate entities in history, should not be allowed to build their fortunes on the work of others without proper compensation. He envisions a future where licensing agreements become a foundation of the new AI economy. In this scenario, copyright does not die; instead, it evolves into a revenue stream, creating a golden era for content creation by funding more journalists, artists and fact-checkers. Training AI Data: Fair Use Of Copyrighted Material? The debate also centers on the legal and conceptual distinction between training data and output. David Friedberg and David Sacks, the other two podcast hosts, offer a more balanced perspective to bridge the divide. They both favor a fair use interpretation for AI training. Friedberg believes that if information is available on the open internet, an AI learning from it is no different from reading books to learn. Sacks agrees, drawing a clear line between the training process and the final output. They argue that the infringement occurs only if the AI's output is a direct copy or plagiarism of copyrighted material. This approach attempts to strike a balance, allowing AI to improve by learning from a broad pool of sources while still holding the AI and its developers accountable for plagiaristic outputs. This was the perspective defended by President Trump during the announcement of the AI Action Plan, highlighting Sacks' influence as the chair of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. A Case Study In AI's Copyright Clash A similar debate recently played out in a public dispute between internet infrastructure giant Cloudflare and AI search engine Perplexity. The conflict encapsulates the competing viewpoints. Cloudflare accused Perplexity of using stealth crawling to access websites that had blocked them. Web crawling is a practice where a computer program automatically browses websites to collect information, much like a super-fast, automated visitor. Stealth crawling is when a web crawler hides its identity to bypass restrictions and reach sites that have barred it. Cloudflare's CEO, Matthew Prince, warned that AI models pose an existential threat to publishers' business models, echoing Calacanis's view that creators' livelihoods are at risk. Perplexity, however, pushed back, denying the accusations and characterizing the incident as a misunderstanding of its technology. The company argued that its AI assistants operate on behalf of a user's request and are not systematically crawling the web for training data. This defense reflects Sacks and Friedberg's view that the key issue is the AI's purpose and how it's applied. Perplexity is fulfilling a specific, user-driven function, not stealing to build a new model, which they claim is a fundamentally different action. The dispute highlights the point that traditional rules are becoming fragile. Cloudflare claims its efforts to block certain automated programs, a bedrock of internet etiquette, were circumvented. This situation shows the difficulty of enforcing old rules when new technology can so easily bypass them. It also highlights the different philosophies: is an AI bot an uninvited guest or a helpful assistant working on a user's behalf? This is a clash between two visions of the future. One embraces a world where technology moves faster than the law, forcing us to abandon old notions of ownership in favor of new, more resilient business models. The other sees a future where copyright is not an outdated legal concept but a vital economic engine that can be adapted and monetized in the age of AI. The middle ground points us to a path forward that adapts current laws to fit AI's real-world usage. The future of copyright is unlikely to be a simple binary decision. Instead, it will be a negotiation between creators, tech companies, lawyers, and regulators. What's clear is that the conversation is no longer confined to legal journals but has entered the mainstream, sparking a necessary dialogue about the value of creativity, the nature of intelligence, and the future of the digital economy.
