Luton Airport Fire - Speculation pool

[Linas.P]

So the information we have so far:

Fire started as Range Rover (likely older Evoque or older Sport).

Now speculation is that it was hybrid, so that would point to Sport, because older Evoque didn't have hybrids, only the new one which looks different. So my bets would go at it being diesel-mild hybrid Sport.

So although it was not BEV, it was likely still caused by lithium Battery fire - that is my take. As well look at where the fire is under the car an where the mild-hybrid Battery sits in Landrovers (coincidence?):

What sort of surprises me - I always thought there were sprinklers in Luton car park, I certainly seem to remember red pipes on the celling and sprinklers, or am I just imagining it? And if there were none in relatively new car park then perhaps something needs to be done about that going forward.

As well what is for sure - diesels do not explode like this:

Actually don't want to dot together too many dots, but wasn't Liverpool arena fire as well started by Range Rover of some shape?

[Spock66]

Also who picks up the £m bill, insurance policy of the car that caught fire, individuals car insurance policies, any liability from the airport / car park operator?

[Linas.P]

That is one of the first discussion I had with my girlfriend - my view is that the correct way would be for car owners to claim damage from airport insurance and then for airport insurance to reclaim from the car insurance that started the fire. However, if we look at similar fire in Liverpool then the owners "were advised to contact their insurance".

In case my car would be destroyed in such fire I would refuse to claim it on my insurance as that would be ridiculous, it would mean I would end-up paying far greater premium next year, have claim on my policy and would have to pay excess. As well it is not necessarily the case that all cars have Comprehensive or Theft + Fire cover, so their insurance may not even cover the damages, therefore reasonable thing to do would be for Airport insurance to cover the damage at first.

But as we know insurance is not about doing right thing, more often than not they just going to try to shift the blame to somebody else. I guess there is possibility of making non-fault claim and for individual insurers to then reclaim the money from Airport or from car that started it. I am quite certain airport car park will say that it is not their liability, because car park was built in line with legal code and for example sprinklers are not a requirement, so there is no negligence on their side. That said I still see liability of Airport here, as there were no sprinklers and I think it is possible that some sort of agreement will be reached where Airport and car at fault insurance would reach the deal to cover parts of overall damage. It seems hard to argue that design was sufficient, when it turns out single car can burn entire car park, so it may not be in breach of regulations, but clearly not good enough. Although not really relevant for insurance, I think it is right to say that building code in UK is just horribly lacking. We had two major fires in 2017, one residential and one in car park, particularly Grenfell tower triggered building regulation review and yet we don't have sprinklers as an requirement despite in both cases it was concluded that they would have saved the day?! Luton Car park was only built in 2019, so after the pervious events, so again even without regulation it seems negligent that whom ever was responsible for fire safety did not think it would be good idea to install sprinklers?!

What is for sure - I would not be the person whose car was destroyed in this fire as it may take years to process claims in such complicated case. Seem like lack of legal protections as well in our law, I would like to see the clause which would force car park operators to cover damages for vehicles parked there i.e. treat it as if the cars are in their "possession" rather than merely renting plot of land from them, yet as we all know car parks always says they "are not liable for the damages", which I always hated as in my mind that should always be responsibility of car park.

P.S. - recently Airport Spokesperson said "We are working with APCOA Parking and the Motor Insurers' Bureau (MIB) who will co-ordinate with the various vehicle insurance companies."... so that makes me hopeful it will be as I said - claim off Airport/Car Park and then they reclaim from whomever is found ultimately responsible.

[Boomer54]

1 hour ago, Linas.P said:

That is one of the first discussion I had with my girlfriend - my view is that the correct way would be for car owners to claim damage from airport insurance and then for airport insurance to reclaim from the car insurance that started the fire. However, if we look at similar fire in Liverpool then the owners "were advised to contact their insurance".

In case my car would be destroyed in such fire I would refuse to claim it on my insurance as that would be ridiculous, it would mean I would end-up paying far greater premium next year, have claim on my policy and would have to pay excess. As well it is not necessarily the case that all cars have Comprehensive or Theft + Fire cover, so their insurance may not even cover the damages, therefore reasonable thing to do would be for Airport insurance to cover the damage at first.

But as we know insurance is not about doing right thing, more often than not they just going to try to shift the blame to somebody else. I guess there is possibility of making non-fault claim and for individual insurers to then reclaim the money from Airport or from car that started it. I am quite certain airport car park will say that it is not their liability, because car park was built in line with legal code and for example sprinklers are not a requirement, so there is no negligence on their side. That said I still see liability of Airport here, as there were no sprinklers and I think it is possible that some sort of agreement will be reached where Airport and car at fault insurance would reach the deal to cover parts of overall damage. It seems hard to argue that design was sufficient, when it turns out single car can burn entire car park, so it may not be in breach of regulations, but clearly not good enough. Although not really relevant for insurance, I think it is right to say that building code in UK is just horribly lacking. We had two major fires in 2017, one residential and one in car park, particularly Grenfell tower triggered building regulation review and yet we don't have sprinklers as an requirement despite in both cases it was concluded that they would have saved the day?! Luton Car park was only built in 2019, so after the pervious events, so again even without regulation it seems negligent that whom ever was responsible for fire safety did not think it would be good idea to install sprinklers?!

What is for sure - I would not be the person whose car was destroyed in this fire as it may take years to process claims in such complicated case. Seem like lack of legal protections as well in our law, I would like to see the clause which would force car park operators to cover damages for vehicles parked there i.e. treat it as if the cars are in their "possession" rather than merely renting plot of land from them, yet as we all know car parks always says they "are not liable for the damages", which I always hated as in my mind that should always be responsibility of car park.

P.S. - recently Airport Spokesperson said "We are working with APCOA Parking and the Motor Insurers' Bureau (MIB) who will co-ordinate with the various vehicle insurance companies."... so that makes me hopeful it will be as I said - claim off Airport/Car Park and then they reclaim from whomever is found ultimately responsible.

Subject to no building laws having been broken I think you would have a tough time establishing liability against the airport/garage owner. Just about every garage I have been in display the signage that drivers park at theirown risk. Whilst there may be some argument about the legality of that as a form of defence I dare say you would find the cost of pursuing it to be prohibitive. I am not aware of any overarching judicial precedent that covers this issue that either party could rely upon consequently legal costs for arguing such murky 'waters' would likely be sky high. Multiparty actions and legal costs really you wouldn't go there. Your insurer wouldn't want to either ,because the probability of success wouldn't fulfill the criteria for them to get involved. Hence, I think in reality each owner will end up using theirown  policy for cover. I could think of a situation where the insurance company covering the the car that started the fire could be held accountable, but really with something this scale I doubt the policy limitations are going to cover that much. Just an outside chance of something happening on a counterparty claim against the manufacturer of the vehicle, but we don't have enough data to know if such a thing could be warranted.

[Linas.P]

38 minutes ago, Boomer54 said:

Subject to no building laws having been broken I think you would have a tough time establishing liability against the airport/garage owner. Just about every garage I have been in display the signage that drivers park at theirown risk. Whilst there may be some argument about the legality of that as a form of defence I dare say you would find the cost of pursuing it to be prohibitive. I am not aware of any overarching judicial precedent that covers this issue that either party could rely upon consequently legal costs for arguing such murky 'waters' would likely be sky high. Multiparty actions and legal costs really you wouldn't go there. Your insurer wouldn't want to either ,because the probability of success wouldn't fulfill the criteria for them to get involved. Hence, I think in reality each owner will end up using theirown  policy for cover. I could think of a situation where the insurance company covering the the car that started the fire could be held accountable, but really with something this scale I doubt the policy limitations are going to cover that much. Just an outside chance of something happening on a counterparty claim against the manufacturer of the vehicle, but we don't have enough data to know if such a thing could be warranted.

That is what I have said, that is why I would like to see law change in this case to make sure car part operators are accountable. 

Car insurance policy easily covers £20 millions+. I think my policy has £100 million third party liability, for exactly such occasions. I would sue if I would be forced to use my cover... As I said ultimately the insurance of the car which started the fire is likely to pick-up most if not all the bill, this is exact reason why cars are required to always have insurance on public land, even if not being driven. So the only way I can see this working out is either Carpark/Airport liaises with car at fault insurance and provides details from where it has to be claimed or they cover the damages and they claim themselves, it should not be each individual claiming on their insurances under any circumstances. Besides it is as well argument to have - where is the line from where your car gets destroyed by another car burning, or from the carpark collapsing... I think if you are driver of one of few unlucky cars that can be seen parked where car is burning, then it would be reasonable to say you can claim directly from the insurance of that car, but if you were on another floor of car park which ten collapsed, then it is kind of difficult to argue you should be claiming from your insurance. In the end of the day it does not matter why it collapsed, what matters is that your car was crushed by the collapse.

Whenever car park considers somebody else guilty for the collapse is their own issue. But I don't believe it could be reasonably expected that by saying you park "at your own risk" means our car park can collapse and crush your car. It is more like for occasions of somebody else bumping into you or somebody vandalising your car, not for the building itself collapsing.

Either way - that is speculation for time being, but initial statements from Airport sounds promising. 

[Boomer54]

55 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

That is what I have said, that is why I would like to see law change in this case to make sure car part operators are accountable. 

Car insurance policy easily covers £20 millions+. I think my policy has £100 million third party liability, for exactly such occasions. I would sue if I would be forced to use my cover... As I said ultimately the insurance of the car which started the fire is likely to pick-up most if not all the bill, this is exact reason why cars are required to always have insurance on public land, even if not being driven. So the only way I can see this working out is either Carpark/Airport liaises with car at fault insurance and provides details from where it has to be claimed or they cover the damages and they claim themselves, it should not be each individual claiming on their insurances under any circumstances. Besides it is as well argument to have - where is the line from where your car gets destroyed by another car burning, or from the carpark collapsing... I think if you are driver of one of few unlucky cars that can be seen parked where car is burning, then it would be reasonable to say you can claim directly from the insurance of that car, but if you were on another floor of car park which ten collapsed, then it is kind of difficult to argue you should be claiming from your insurance. In the end of the day it does not matter why it collapsed, what matters is that your car was crushed by the collapse.

Whenever car park considers somebody else guilty for the collapse is their own issue. But I don't believe it could be reasonably expected that by saying you park "at your own risk" means our car park can collapse and crush your car. It is more like for occasions of somebody else bumping into you or somebody vandalising your car, not for the building itself collapsing.

Either way - that is speculation for time being, but initial statements from Airport sounds promising. 

Ok, without respect talk is cheap. Exactly how many legal disputes have you been involved with that went to court? How many such involved multiple parties each with theirown legal representation? How many were disputes where no judicial precedent existed so legal outcomes were essentially difficult to quantify?

I would have gladly foregone building up unwanted experience in legal disputes. To say it's been costly is like saying a Tsunami is a bit windy and that is with winning more than I lost. Indeed, you will find somewhere in the small print of Insurers that they usually have a caveat regarding participation in legal disputes being subject to their estimation of a successful outcome. So ,whilst you may be happy to sue, the Insurer if they don't like the expected outcome will settle  and leave you bearing any further costs entirely on your own.

From your expressions above I sense you are in unknown territory. 

[Linas.P]

51 minutes ago, Boomer54 said:

Ok, without respect talk is cheap. Exactly how many legal disputes have you been involved with that went to court? How many such involved multiple parties each with theirown legal representation? How many were disputes where no judicial precedent existed so legal outcomes were essentially difficult to quantify?

I would have gladly foregone building up unwanted experience in legal disputes. To say it's been costly is like saying a Tsunami is a bit windy and that is with winning more than I lost. Indeed, you will find somewhere in the small print of Insurers that they usually have a caveat regarding participation in legal disputes being subject to their estimation of a successful outcome. So ,whilst you may be happy to sue, the Insurer if they don't like the expected outcome will settle  and leave you bearing any further costs entirely on your own.

From your expressions above I sense you are in unknown territory. 

Not sure how my experience would make any difference to what is right and what is wrong... but here you happened to picked on the wrong person, because I do lawsuits pretty much for fun, I enjoy them... in fact I am slightly afraid that I will be banished as vexatious litigant one day. Not that any of cases I bring are particularly vexations, but just the volume of them and sometimes absurdly low amounts. To be honest in majority of the cases I am defendant, so perhaps that is not going to happen, but basically anytime when I am given an option to accept the cost (no matter how tiny) or face/submit lawsuit I always choose lawsuit... even if the principal amount is £60, I have sued for £2 and won. It actually may be less than that, I have sued Asda for false advertisement, because they shown fuel price as £1.04, but actually charged £1.09, consumer protection decided not to do anything, so I had to take them to small claims myself, rookie mistake - I have not claimed the costs, so I basically lost like £50 for that claim. I defend/start such suits just on principle alone and in many cases it have costed me more to defend it than paying up the fine. I have another 8 hearings outstanding this year, 7 out of 8 I am 100% confident to win, the 1 is 50/50% maybe interesting for case law later. When it comes specifically to insurance I had 2 suits, once technically as a witness, once in similar liability case. I think your point regarding the costs is kind of irrelevant - in insurance lawsuits costs would usually be covered by insurance company that is covering the third party (assuming you win). The only  point where I believe your are correct - insurance companies are unlikely to want to sue each other and they always prefer to make it the issue for policy holder. 

If you asking specific number - I have long lost it, must be something between 75-100 cases. 16 this year alone, most Small Claims Court, but had few in Employment tribunal (which is technically not a court), not much luck in Crown Court sadly, lost both cases there, well CPS lost both on my behalf, but I was the victim so I count that on myself ... luckily haven't been taken into High Court yet as that does not pan out well in most instances. 

Which... luckily remind me the solution here - if I were to be involved in incident like here I would just go to my trusty claims management company and let them deal with it, I would not bother speaking with my insurance company at all, apart of maybe putting in "information only" note i.e. "my car just got destroyed". Only have used them 3 times so far, but compared to using insurance it is literally night an day. But they only work for non-fault claims. 

That said I am not qualified, nor practicing lawyer, even thought I have combined honours degree in business management and law. 

[NemesisUK]

What I find curious about this is the position of the car. It's not parked but seems to have been in the process of coming/going? Also people have obviously tried to extinguish the fire, spent extinguishers standing around the vehicle. Plus just how long did it take for the fire brigade to arrive? Timings from the video and the FB report suggests approx 1hr?

[Boomer54]

27 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

Not sure how my experience would make any difference to what is right and what is wrong... but here you happened to picked on the wrong person, because I do lawsuits pretty much for fun, I enjoy them... in fact I am slightly afraid that I will be banished as vexatious litigant one day. Not that any of cases I bring are particularly vexations, but just the volume of them and sometimes absurdly low amounts. To be honest in majority of the cases I am defendant, so perhaps that is not going to happen, but basically anytime when I am given an option to accept the cost (no matter how tiny) or face/submit lawsuit I always choose lawsuit... even if the principal amount is £60, I have sued for £2 and won. It actually may be less than that, I have sued Asda for false advertisement, because they shown fuel price as £1.04, but actually charged £1.09, consumer protection decided not to do anything, so I had to take them to small claims myself, rookie mistake - I have not claimed the costs, so I basically lost like £50 for that claim. I defend/start such suits just on principle alone and in many cases it have costed me more to defend it than paying up the fine. I have another 8 hearings outstanding this year, 7 out of 8 I am 100% confident to win, the 1 is 50/50% maybe interesting for case law later. When it comes specifically to insurance I had 2 suits, once technically as a witness, once in similar liability case. I think your point regarding the costs is kind of irrelevant - in insurance lawsuits costs would usually be covered by insurance company that is covering the third party (assuming you win). The only  point where I believe your are correct - insurance companies are unlikely to want to sue each other and they always prefer to make it the issue for policy holder. 

If you asking specific number - I have long lost it, must be something between 75-100 cases. 16 this year alone, most Small Claims Court, but had few in Employment tribunal (which is technically not a court), not much luck in Crown Court sadly, lost both cases there, well CPS lost both on my behalf, but I was the victim so I count that on myself ... luckily haven't been taken into High Court yet as that does not pan out well in most instances. 

Which... luckily remind me the solution here - if I were to be involved in incident like here I would just go to my trusty claims management company and let them deal with it, I would not bother speaking with my insurance company at all, apart of maybe putting in "information only" note i.e. "my car just got destroyed". Only have used them 3 times so far, but compared to using insurance it is literally night an day. But they only work for non-fault claims. 

That said I am not qualified, nor practicing lawyer, even thought I have combined honours degree in business management and law. 

No, you think you know how this would go, but you don't. There is a world of difference between diddling around in small claims/tribunals and a fullblown civil action case involving multiple litigants. Done both too many times. I saw above  the basis for your action would be to protect your insurance premiums. Hilarious, that wouldn't cover the legal reps travelling costs to court nevermind any individual exposure you might end up with if you make the mistake of allowing your pride to overrule your brain which yoi might if you really think 'right and wrong' have any place in court. These are different worlds and I hope you don't ever really get to experience them, because I am not picking on you at all as I harbor no ill will to you, or indeed nearly anyone ( the person whose dog craps in the entrance to my driveway is definitely excepted).

By the way we actually have a bit in common. Many years ago did the same degree plus some Quants, but here we are a long way from Salomon v Salomon.

[First_Lexus]

The official version of events so far - from the Bedfordshire Fire Brigade - is that the fire started in a diesel vehicle.

That doesn’t rule out that it could have been a diesel / hybrid (although they’re not that common) or that the information could change with further investigation, but for now they seem to be sticking with ‘diesel.’

My question is on the second order impact with any EVs that subsequently caught fire.  Could that be why it spread so fast and was seemingly so intense? Or was that simply because of lots of petrol/diesel cars and fuel (not to mention interior materials etc.)

[Linas.P]

27 minutes ago, Boomer54 said:

No, you think you know how this would go, but you don't. There is a world of difference between diddling around in small claims/tribunals and a fullblown civil action case involving multiple litigants. Done both too many times. I saw above  the basis for your action would be to protect your insurance premiums. Hilarious, that wouldn't cover the legal reps travelling costs to court nevermind any individual exposure you might end up with if you make the mistake of allowing your pride to overrule your brain which yoi might if you really think 'right and wrong' have any place in court. These are different worlds and I hope you don't ever really get to experience them, because I am not picking on you at all as I harbor no ill will to you, or indeed nearly anyone ( the person whose dog craps in the entrance to my driveway is definitely excepted).

Fine... you better lawyer than I am, on the basis that I am not even a lawyer... Still makes no difference... legal principles are the same small claims or "full blowing civil action with multiple litigants". The costs of legal reps travelling - again not my issue, they will be costs of defendant. That is why I said I would just use claims management company here. Truth to be told - it would be brave claims management company that takes on this case, but that would be marketing opportunity for them as well, so not impossible, in other hand more realistically they would look at the challenge ahead and would likely refuse to take on the case.. that is possible as well. In which case it wouldn't be large "civil case", it would be me suing them individually for damages, I wouldn't even bother with representation which I always do and often that is mistake, but it allows me to sue in cases where I would not be able to afford the cost. In civil suits where individual person is suing large corp. the cost usually are not attributed back to claimant, so I more than likely to be fine. My goal would be to settle out of court for compensation, as I agree with you - legally speaking it would be hard to prove any wrong doing in court.

Right or wrong - I specifically mentioned in perspective of "lacking law", I am not sure if you have problem reading what I have said. I said sadly there is no law which forces car parks to accept certain level of liability. It would be "right" for such law to exist, but because it does not, then it can't be used in court. So here you are kind of right - in courts there are no "right or wrong" it is simple, dry, plain laws, either it is illegal or it is not illegal.

Still - there is right and wrong from perspective of Carpark/Airport. Right thing for them to do (not necessarily legally required) would be to pick-up the bill for all cars destroyed in the fire and then recover the cost from insurance of the car that caused the fire. That is what any respectable business would do. This is legally possible, but I guess not legally necessary. The wrong thing for them to do would be to tell everyone to fff-off and use their own insurance, even if that is probably legal. They would still risk litigation and potentially damage to their image, as make no mistake - every single news article will pick on them for screwing over those drivers. As a matter of fact they haven't even screwed anyone over and news are already piling-up saying they are failing in their duty, not explaining owners what to do and leaving them in "limbo". This is where I have already took their spokespersons response... so they are under huge pressure to do the "right thing here".

33 minutes ago, NemesisUK said:

What I find curious about this is the position of the car. It's not parked but seems to have been in the process of coming/going? Also people have obviously tried to extinguish the fire, spent extinguishers standing around the vehicle. Plus just how long did it take for the fire brigade to arrive? Timings from the video and the FB report suggests approx 1hr?

What I was wondering as well... Even if they got there, how could they access the middle of third floor?!

Seems strange that it took so long for firefighters to arrive as well, when Airport itself has fire station... so perhaps the issue was more of lack of specialised equipment to access the place needed, not the time it took for firefighters to arrive. Note as well - many videos shows firefighters just watching how fire is spreading at first... pointing back to previous point, maybe airport own firefighters arrived, but could not do anything apart of standing and watching, until Luton FD arrived with cranes etc?

Which again just points me to absurdity of not having sprinklers - if the building is such that access for firefighters would be difficult, then it seems no brainer to at least have sprinklers. 

[Linas.P]

6 minutes ago, First_Lexus said:

The official version of events so far - from the Bedfordshire Fire Brigade - is that the fire started in a diesel vehicle.

That doesn’t rule out that it could have been a diesel / hybrid (although they’re not that common) or that the information could change with further investigation, but for now they seem to be sticking with ‘diesel.’

My question is on the second order impact with any EVs that subsequently caught fire.  Could that be why it spread so fast and was seemingly so intense? Or was that simply because of lots of petrol/diesel cars and fuel (not to mention interior materials etc.)

That is kind of my issue with reporting - as we know diesel does not burn by itself, so whatever is the fire in the video... it is NOT diesel fire. That the car was diesel - yes it is pretty likely, but that does not mean diesel caused the fire. Obviously, eventually when whole car started burning the diesel started burning as well, but diesel was not what started the fire. As well diesel was not what exploded so hard that it literally blown the floors. Just little note here - the explosion was so hard that it blown 3 floors, the camera angle is from ground floor (as you can see barriers) the car was burning on 3rd floor. Or was the explosion caused later by electric cars exploding in 2nd or 3rd floor maybe?! But it was NOT diesel that exposed. 

Hence my speculation that it was hybrid...

That said - why don't they release specific model and end this speculation... what are they hiding? 

Just found this - seems to agree with my speculation as well.

 

[NemesisUK]

From another forum... Seems the car was identified as a TDV6 (from the reg plate)

[Boomer54]

8 minutes ago, NemesisUK said:

From another forum... Seems the car was identified as a TDV6 (from the reg plate)

Forever to be known as  (T)he (D)riving (V)olcano

[ganzoom]

14 hours ago, First_Lexus said:

The official version of events so far - from the Bedfordshire Fire Brigade - is that the fire started in a diesel vehicle.

That doesn’t rule out that it could have been a diesel / hybrid (although they’re not that common) or that the information could change with further investigation, but for now they seem to be sticking with ‘diesel.’

My question is on the second order impact with any EVs that subsequently caught fire.  Could that be why it spread so fast and was seemingly so intense? Or was that simply because of lots of petrol/diesel cars and fuel (not to mention interior materials etc.)

I love the echo chamber on here, a fire that starts in a diesel car in a car park full of fossil fuel cars but some how let's bend the logic to EVs. If you replaced the diesel and EV bit with ethnicity of people, this thread would actually be illegal by UK law 🙂

[Boomer54]

1 hour ago, ganzoom said:

I love the echo chamber on here, a fire that starts in a diesel car in a car park full of fossil fuel cars but some how let's bend the logic to EVs. If you replaced the diesel and EV bit with ethnicity of people, this thread would actually be illegal by UK law 🙂

You  may have just created something new. Car Racism ! By god we need a new law to deal with that and I would hazard a guess the first two rules would be ; fossil fuel drivers must giveway to EV drivers at all times; Fossil fuel drivers must never overtake EV drivers. Car manufacturers are currently working to redesign EV cars so that all are painted the colours of a rainbow. It would have been that other colour ,but that's taken.

For clarity in moderation it is not known if colours of absolutely any sort known on this planet ,or throughout the galaxy, are determined to be associated with any issue whatsoever. 😃

[First_Lexus]

1 hour ago, ganzoom said:

I love the echo chamber on here, a fire that starts in a diesel car in a car park full of fossil fuel cars but some how let's bend the logic to EVs. If you replaced the diesel and EV bit with ethnicity of people, this thread would actually be illegal by UK law 🙂

I must remember to pop back later to see whether the 🔥 fire on this thread leads to a collapse as dramatic as the Luton Airport car park…

…either way, I’m fairly certain that just like the car park this isn’t going to end well!

[Boomer54]

6 minutes ago, First_Lexus said:

I must remember to pop back later to see whether the 🔥 fire on this thread leads to a collapse as dramatic as the Luton Airport car park…

…either way, I’m fairly certain that just like the car park this isn’t going to end well!

Personally, just going to starve the flames of 'oxygen'. And he's gone !

[Linas.P]

4 hours ago, Boomer54 said:

Personally, just going to starve the flames of 'oxygen'. And he's gone !

You can't on EV fires - they are self oxidising... so that will stay around sadly.

By the way I am not denying that fire was started by the car that runs on diesel, I am just correcting incorrect narrative that it was diesel itself that caused it. We can clearly see from video and pictures that what is initially burning is NOT diesel, diesel was not what exploded multiple floors either. This is basically a fact. That diesel and other fuels eventually caught fire that is as well fact, in the end if they would not burn then we could not power engines with them, but diesel was not what started this fire. 

[Boomer54]

4 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

You can't on EV fires - they are self oxidising... so that will stay around sadly.

By the way I am not denying that fire was started by the car that runs on diesel, I am just correcting incorrect narrative that it was diesel itself that caused it. We can clearly see from video and pictures that what is initially burning is NOT diesel, diesel was not what exploded multiple floors either. This is basically a fact. That diesel and other fuels eventually caught fire that is as well fact, in the end if they would not burn then we could not power engines with them, but diesel was not what started this fire. 

I was referring to the inflammatory potential of the derivative conversation regarding EV 'racism' which might burn down the forum if left uncontrolled. I forgot how 'literal' 😆 you can be.

[Linas.P]

6 minutes ago, Boomer54 said:

I was referring to the inflammatory potential of the derivative conversation regarding EV 'racism' which might burn down the forum if left uncontrolled. I forgot how 'literal' 😆 you can be.

I am not literal in this case - EVangelists are as well self-sustaining fire, even the plastic bag on the head does not help...

[Boomer54]

2 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

I am not literal in this case - EVangelists are as well self-sustaining fire, even the plastic bag on the head does not help...

Don't knock plastic bags they are a major step forward from Brown bags (no way you are going to get that joke unless ugly humour is cross cultural).

For clarity of moderation it is not known if Brown bags and a persons appearance ever correlated and did, or did not become a source of humour on this planet, or anywhere within this galaxy.

[Moleman]

8 hours ago, ganzoom said:

I love the echo chamber on here, a fire that starts in a diesel car in a car park full of fossil fuel cars but some how let's bend the logic to EVs. If you replaced the diesel and EV bit with ethnicity of people, this thread would actually be illegal by UK law 🙂

I think it was the cycle stored on the back of the car that caused the fire. 😳

[Boomer54]

1 hour ago, Moleman said:

I think it was the cycle stored on the back of the car that caused the fire. 😳

Haha eureka, but did the cycle have an electric Battery? 😉

[dutchie01]

The devil could be in the detail here. Who is the owner of this car? Is he "well known " with the police?  Could it be that the car was torched as a warning?