Car Park discrimination - no EV's allowed
Discussion
siremoon said:
Terminator X said:
"But industry figures have challenged the decision, pointing to research that indicates petrol cars are considerably more likely to catch fire than EVs."
Missing the point, once on fire you can't put them out.
TX.
That trope cop-out really boils my pee as it is blatant obfuscation. An EV battery fire is a low probability, high consequences risk. The decision to provide risk mitigation is not just about the likelihood of an occurrence, it is also about the consequences of an occurrence. A risk being low probability does not mean that no mitigation should be provided.Missing the point, once on fire you can't put them out.
TX.
Other factors the EV lobby pretend are not salient are that a fire in anything can cause a thermal runaway in an adjacent healthy EV just by raising the local ambient air temperature enough, the fires cannot be contained without specialist infrastructure, Li-ion battery fires release very toxic chemicals and they burn at very high temperatures which can compromise rebar in concrete structures. It was inevitable in my opinion that restrictions on parking them under buildings would be imposed at some point. My fear was it would take a tragedy first so full marks here for trying to prevent that rather than reacting to it afterwards.
The history of transport is littered with regulation changes which followed tragedies. I think it inevitable at some point that a building somewhere in the world will be compromised by an EV fire under it, or an EV fire in a confined space like an underground car park will cause significant casualties. Saying told you afterwards will be no comfort to those affected but if such an event does happen then I hope the EV lobby chokes on its sanctimony because it is a real and foreseeable risk.
Crashing a car is a low probability risk, but I bet Mr "it's discrimination!" in the article wouldn't be prepared to drive around with a metal spike where his airbag should be, or in front of his kid's face. And rightly so - the impact of that risk is severe (unwanted face holes) and easily mitigated (don't put a spike where it could cause problems) Yet when it's a low probability, high impact risk, yet easily mitigated by him parking his car a little further away, it's discrimination.
Here’s my take on the matter.
A fire risk inspection has been done. The outcome has highlighted some potential issues that need attention. A risk of probability versus outcome risk level has led to the temporary ban on EV’s until sprinklers are upgraded.
A better sprinkler system would be better able to mitigate a vehicle fire. Comparing an ICE versus Ev risk means ICE fire being less of a problem than EV.
ICE fire......sprinklers would be more effective in putting a fire out and/or helping to limit spread and effect.
EV fire.....sprinklers less able to put out ( if at all) but could limit spread by dowsing the area.
Couple this to the high danger to what is on the floors above and it makes sense to ban the higher danger of a fire that is harder to deal with in an EV.
I also guess that the existing sprinkler system may be outdated and needing upgrading. Hence the EV ban.
It makes sense to mitigate risk by moving EV parking to a location where the danger is reduced. Thinking of the Grenfell tower block spread of fire and difficulty in dealing with it is an analogy that comes to mind. The potential for serious danger should influence the thought process.
It’s not discrimination to ban EV’s. Just reducing potential major danger.
A fire risk inspection has been done. The outcome has highlighted some potential issues that need attention. A risk of probability versus outcome risk level has led to the temporary ban on EV’s until sprinklers are upgraded.
A better sprinkler system would be better able to mitigate a vehicle fire. Comparing an ICE versus Ev risk means ICE fire being less of a problem than EV.
ICE fire......sprinklers would be more effective in putting a fire out and/or helping to limit spread and effect.
EV fire.....sprinklers less able to put out ( if at all) but could limit spread by dowsing the area.
Couple this to the high danger to what is on the floors above and it makes sense to ban the higher danger of a fire that is harder to deal with in an EV.
I also guess that the existing sprinkler system may be outdated and needing upgrading. Hence the EV ban.
It makes sense to mitigate risk by moving EV parking to a location where the danger is reduced. Thinking of the Grenfell tower block spread of fire and difficulty in dealing with it is an analogy that comes to mind. The potential for serious danger should influence the thought process.
It’s not discrimination to ban EV’s. Just reducing potential major danger.
siremoon said:
That trope cop-out really boils my pee as it is blatant obfuscation. An EV battery fire is a low probability, high consequences risk. The decision to provide risk mitigation is not just about the likelihood of an occurrence, it is also about the consequences of an occurrence. A risk being low probability does not mean that no mitigation should be provided.
Other factors the EV lobby pretend are not salient are that a fire in anything can cause a thermal runaway in an adjacent healthy EV just by raising the local ambient air temperature enough, the fires cannot be contained without specialist infrastructure, Li-ion battery fires release very toxic chemicals and they burn at very high temperatures which can compromise rebar in concrete structures. It was inevitable in my opinion that restrictions on parking them under buildings would be imposed at some point. My fear was it would take a tragedy first so full marks here for trying to prevent that rather than reacting to it afterwards.
The history of transport is littered with regulation changes which followed tragedies. I think it inevitable at some point that a building somewhere in the world will be compromised by an EV fire under it, or an EV fire in a confined space like an underground car park will cause significant casualties. Saying told you afterwards will be no comfort to those affected but if such an event does happen then I hope the EV lobby chokes on its sanctimony because it is a real and foreseeable risk.
All of those factors apply to ICE vehicles as well as demonstrated by the large scale destruction caused by diesel vehicle fires in the Liverpool and Luton multi-storey car parks as well as several ferries around the world.Other factors the EV lobby pretend are not salient are that a fire in anything can cause a thermal runaway in an adjacent healthy EV just by raising the local ambient air temperature enough, the fires cannot be contained without specialist infrastructure, Li-ion battery fires release very toxic chemicals and they burn at very high temperatures which can compromise rebar in concrete structures. It was inevitable in my opinion that restrictions on parking them under buildings would be imposed at some point. My fear was it would take a tragedy first so full marks here for trying to prevent that rather than reacting to it afterwards.
The history of transport is littered with regulation changes which followed tragedies. I think it inevitable at some point that a building somewhere in the world will be compromised by an EV fire under it, or an EV fire in a confined space like an underground car park will cause significant casualties. Saying told you afterwards will be no comfort to those affected but if such an event does happen then I hope the EV lobby chokes on its sanctimony because it is a real and foreseeable risk.
Any car will be set alight within minutes by a neighbouring car on fire as demonstrated in this research video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bjMLFx4IQg
Plastics and other materials used on all modern calls give off even more toxic gases than lithium battery fires. ICE vehicles leaking burning fuel can cause the collapse of concrete rebar structures (Liverpool) and steel structures (Luton).
ICE vehicles have already caused the tragedies you fear including deaths of members of the public and firefighters.
If the car park is currently unsafe for electric vehicles then its currently unsafe for any vehicle.
Louis Balfour said:
"We have been forced to act mainly due to the levels of sanctimony we have been experiencing", said Malcolm Tucker, a spokesperson for Alder Hay Foundation Trust.
"When we had the occasional Prius or Leaf driver to contend with the situation was tolerable. But now we are inundated with Teslas, the drivers of which are convinced they are saving the planet whilst being completely incapable of actually driving, we have had no option but to ban all electric vehicles. Yes, regrettably, that includes milk floats."
"Our decision to ban all electric vehicles was made finally as a result of a Model 3 owner causing structural damage to a supporting pillar in the car park. The vehicle veered out of control into the pillar and CCTV footage revealed that it was due to the driver being preoccupied with looking down their nose at the driver of a Range Rover Sport, who was parking in an adjacent bay".
Angela Kirby, leader of the Foundation Trust commented, "We don't want them in our hospital, comparing notes about how far they managed to travel on a full charge, why the public charging network is definitely improving and tutting about how unhealthy it is to have vehicles powered by fossil fuels in a hospital car park. I wish they would all just f
k off."
The BBC approached Barry Wainwright, councillor for Outer Liverpool, for comment about proposals for a separate car park for the terminally self-righteous, but he was unavailable for comment.
"When we had the occasional Prius or Leaf driver to contend with the situation was tolerable. But now we are inundated with Teslas, the drivers of which are convinced they are saving the planet whilst being completely incapable of actually driving, we have had no option but to ban all electric vehicles. Yes, regrettably, that includes milk floats."
"Our decision to ban all electric vehicles was made finally as a result of a Model 3 owner causing structural damage to a supporting pillar in the car park. The vehicle veered out of control into the pillar and CCTV footage revealed that it was due to the driver being preoccupied with looking down their nose at the driver of a Range Rover Sport, who was parking in an adjacent bay".
Angela Kirby, leader of the Foundation Trust commented, "We don't want them in our hospital, comparing notes about how far they managed to travel on a full charge, why the public charging network is definitely improving and tutting about how unhealthy it is to have vehicles powered by fossil fuels in a hospital car park. I wish they would all just f
k off." The BBC approached Barry Wainwright, councillor for Outer Liverpool, for comment about proposals for a separate car park for the terminally self-righteous, but he was unavailable for comment.
Hill92 said:
.
If the car park is currently unsafe for electric vehicles then its currently unsafe for any vehicle.
What’s your qualifications to make this statement? I’d like to see if you are more qualified than the hospital estates team, insurance team and fire service before deciding on this. I suspect it is zero.If the car park is currently unsafe for electric vehicles then its currently unsafe for any vehicle.
Electro1980 said:
What’s your qualifications to make this statement? I’d like to see if you are more qualified than the hospital estates team, insurance team and fire service before deciding on this. I suspect it is zero.
Clearly on advice from a fire service that's not their view of the situation, following the airport fire many will be taking this view.I would argue that Plug in Hybrids should not be allowed as well. You can't take LPG/dual fuel vehicles on Euro Tunnel and that's not deemed discrimatory, its on safety grounds, due to explosion risk.
0ddball said:
Improves it's sprinkler system?
Maybe they are suggesting that water on an electric car fire is an issue and they are upgrading to foam? Is that a thing?
I actually asked a fireman about that having seen them use plain water on an electric moped fire. Its the burning metals that are the problem not further shorts, so they use water to cool it. The best method is apparently to submerge the whole thing in water.Maybe they are suggesting that water on an electric car fire is an issue and they are upgrading to foam? Is that a thing?
Responder.First said:
Electro1980 said:
What’s your qualifications to make this statement? I’d like to see if you are more qualified than the hospital estates team, insurance team and fire service before deciding on this. I suspect it is zero.
Clearly on advice from a fire service that's not their view of the situation, following the airport fire many will be taking this view.I would argue that Plug in Hybrids should not be allowed as well. You can't take LPG/dual fuel vehicles on Euro Tunnel and that's not deemed discrimatory, its on safety grounds, due to explosion risk.
Since you mention the Luton Airport fire here's a reminder that it was caused by a diesel Land Rover.
https://www.bedsfire.gov.uk/news/fire-airport-car-...
This shouldn't be surprising since the fire risk for diesel and petrol vehicles is 20-80 times higher than electric vehicles.
https://internationalfireandsafetyjournal.com/rese...
If we were correctly applying safety risks, we wouldn't have lives lost in tunnel fires and ferry fires started by ICE vehicles.
Acuity30 said:
Damage control after Luton airport car park was burnt to a crisp thanks to the hybrid battery on an Evoke catching fire
See the Bedfordshire Fire and Rescue Service link above. It was not a hybrid of any form. Just good old fashioned diesel. A lie can travel halfway around the world...
https://www.fsmatters.com/BAFSA-responds-to-Luton-...
Unsurprising advice from Liverpool fire service following their experience. Now with at least 2 big car parks written off by fire due to nature of modern car incidents, I would not want to be in hospital above a non fire suppressed parkade.
It is not just be fire risk. Dramatically increased mass of modern cars are also increasing structural failure risk in older multistory parking stock....designed and built in the day of 800kg cars and now coping with lardy 3mt.
Tesla drivers should be obliged to park and recharge in an old multistory reserved just for them.....poster of Elon's smug face super imposed on the Amazon forest adorning the entrance to entice them in.
Unsurprising advice from Liverpool fire service following their experience. Now with at least 2 big car parks written off by fire due to nature of modern car incidents, I would not want to be in hospital above a non fire suppressed parkade.
It is not just be fire risk. Dramatically increased mass of modern cars are also increasing structural failure risk in older multistory parking stock....designed and built in the day of 800kg cars and now coping with lardy 3mt.
Tesla drivers should be obliged to park and recharge in an old multistory reserved just for them.....poster of Elon's smug face super imposed on the Amazon forest adorning the entrance to entice them in.
Acuity30 said:
Damage control after Luton airport car park was burnt to a crisp thanks to the hybrid battery on an Evoke catching fire
I have heard that it was a range rover sport diesel hybrid, seen video footage as well.However there has been confirmation from the fire service it was a diesel vehicle with wiring fault.
Andrew Hopkinson, chief fire officer for Bedfordshire Fire and Rescue Service, said the fire at Luton Airport was thought to have started with a diesel vehicle.
“We don’t believe it was an electric vehicle,” he said.
“It’s believed to be diesel-powered, at this stage all subject to verification. And then that fire has quickly and rapidly spread.”
Edited by Responder.First on Monday 6th May 14:18
Responder.First said:
Acuity30 said:
Damage control after Luton airport car park was burnt to a crisp thanks to the hybrid battery on an Evoke catching fire
I have heard that it was a range rover sport diesel hybrid, seen video footage as well.However there has been confirmation from the fire service it was a diesel vehicle with wiring fault.
Andrew Hopkinson, chief fire officer for Bedfordshire Fire and Rescue Service, said the fire at Luton Airport was thought to have started with a diesel vehicle.
“We don’t believe it was an electric vehicle,” he said.
“It’s believed to be diesel-powered, at this stage all subject to verification. And then that fire has quickly and rapidly spread.”
Edited by Responder.First on Monday 6th May 14:18
Responder.First said:
Acuity30 said:
Damage control after Luton airport car park was burnt to a crisp thanks to the hybrid battery on an Evoke catching fire
I have heard that it was a range rover sport diesel hybrid, seen video footage as well.However there has been confirmation from the fire service it was a diesel vehicle with wiring fault.
Andrew Hopkinson, chief fire officer for Bedfordshire Fire and Rescue Service, said the fire at Luton Airport was thought to have started with a diesel vehicle.
“We don’t believe it was an electric vehicle,” he said.
“It’s believed to be diesel-powered, at this stage all subject to verification. And then that fire has quickly and rapidly spread.”
Edited by Responder.First on Monday 6th May 14:18
SteveKTMer said:
Responder.First said:
Acuity30 said:
Damage control after Luton airport car park was burnt to a crisp thanks to the hybrid battery on an Evoke catching fire
I have heard that it was a range rover sport diesel hybrid, seen video footage as well.However there has been confirmation from the fire service it was a diesel vehicle with wiring fault.
Andrew Hopkinson, chief fire officer for Bedfordshire Fire and Rescue Service, said the fire at Luton Airport was thought to have started with a diesel vehicle.
“We don’t believe it was an electric vehicle,” he said.
“It’s believed to be diesel-powered, at this stage all subject to verification. And then that fire has quickly and rapidly spread.”
Edited by Responder.First on Monday 6th May 14:18
The registration is E10 EFL if you want to check.
Edited by 98elise on Monday 6th May 14:51
https://www.bedsfire.gov.uk/news/fire-airport-car-...
Bedfordshire Fire and Rescue Service said:
The vehicle involved was diesel-powered – it was not a mild hybrid, plug-in hybrid or electric vehicle.
Edited by RizzoTheRat on Monday 6th May 14:52
98elise said:
SteveKTMer said:
Responder.First said:
Acuity30 said:
Damage control after Luton airport car park was burnt to a crisp thanks to the hybrid battery on an Evoke catching fire
I have heard that it was a range rover sport diesel hybrid, seen video footage as well.However there has been confirmation from the fire service it was a diesel vehicle with wiring fault.
Andrew Hopkinson, chief fire officer for Bedfordshire Fire and Rescue Service, said the fire at Luton Airport was thought to have started with a diesel vehicle.
“We don’t believe it was an electric vehicle,” he said.
“It’s believed to be diesel-powered, at this stage all subject to verification. And then that fire has quickly and rapidly spread.”
Edited by Responder.First on Monday 6th May 14:18
The registration is E10 EFL if you want to check.
Edited by 98elise on Monday 6th May 14:51
FMOB said:
Well my car is diesel, the MOT checker just says diesel but it is actually a mild hybrid, the 2016 Range Sport linked to above reg plate can be mild hybrid with a 1.8kWh lithium battery.
Quick check of parkers shows the diesel hybrid was SDV6 only.The plate for the allege RR from Luton shows its SDV8 4.4 (LAND ROVER
R ROVER SPORT ABIO DYN SDV8 A (2016)), which Parkers shows that was a stand alone no hybrid, 2012- 2021 MODELS.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff