Car Park discrimination - no EV's allowed
Discussion
GT9 said:
FFS, its been reported widely it was a plain old diesel.
At the time I checked howmanyleft and recall the probability of a 2016 Sport being mild hybrid was less than 1%.
But yeah, EV bad!
Everyone likes a good conspiracy, there was a lot of lies and misinformation around the EV Car Fire on a ship carrier recently, attempts to down play it was an EV problem when it clearly was 4 weeks later they were still cooking, when I saw them unloaded into containers of water. There was a lot more than originally reported of EVS.At the time I checked howmanyleft and recall the probability of a 2016 Sport being mild hybrid was less than 1%.
But yeah, EV bad!
Edited by GT9 on Monday 6th May 15:43
Appears on this occasion it was a diesel vehicle, seems a very hot orange intense fire, there was a lot of people around saying it was a battery fire.
Responder.First said:
Appears on this occasion it was a diesel vehicle, seems a very hot orange intense fire, there was a lot of people around saying it was a battery fire.
Here's another diesel Sport catching fire in Oz.Cars with lots of plastic and diesel love to burn, and burn hot.
I love the idea that flame colour tells us it simply can't be diesel!
The funniest bit is the car catches fire just in front on a huge sign saying No Diesel.
That's got to send the CTers into orbit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trseC1bCzBM
Responder.First said:
Appears on this occasion it was a diesel vehicle, seems a very hot orange intense fire, there was a lot of people around saying it was a battery fire.
Because it was. The reg is now on a different vehicle by the looks of it. It was clearly not a traditional diesel fire, you just have to look at the footage.But hey, don't let that stop you buying a hybrid, it was after all a Land Rover product so could have caught fire or broken down for a variety of reasons at any time. Lexus have been making very reliable and safe hybrids for years. I'm not anti hybrid or BEV, but lets be honest about the fire - all if does when the lies are told about BEV or hybrid vehicles, is to give voice to the cretins who hate anything EV. Be honest, cut them off at the pass and get it out there so they don't have anything to complain about.
FMOB said:
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
I checked a few RR hybrids at the time and they came back as diesel/electric.
SteveKTMer said:
Because it was. The reg is now on a different vehicle by the looks of it. It was clearly not a traditional diesel fire, you just have to look at the footage.
This is getting ridiculous.There are hundreds of car fires daily.
The fire looks to have started under the bonnet.
Some possibilities :
Hot exhaust touching something that’s come loose.
Electrical fault in the 12V system.
Oil leaking from the turbo onto the exhaust.
Maybe a fuel leaking onto hot exhaust even.
None of these things have anything to do with what fuel the car is carrying.
It’s a 2016 car.
Most 2016 Sports are diesels, an absolutely tiny % are hybrids.
In all probability it was a diesel, on stats alone.
We then have the Fire Brigade confirming in a later press release it was a diesel.
The MOT history says it’s a diesel.
What you are seeing burning is a combination of oil, paint, plastic, fabrics and probably some diesel in the fuel system at the front of the car.
The tank is at the back, obviously.
There is absolutely no way you can look at the flame colour to exclude any fuel type or confirm the presence of a hybrid battery.
Edited by GT9 on Tuesday 7th May 06:36
FMOB said:
Well.... statistically... I can see their point.Mr_Megalomaniac said:
FMOB said:
Well.... statistically... I can see their point.https://internationalfireandsafetyjournal.com/rese...
Hill92 said:
Mr_Megalomaniac said:
FMOB said:
Well.... statistically... I can see their point.https://internationalfireandsafetyjournal.com/rese...
I'm not sure how relevant that research is as it's not clear the age of the cars included. Some petrol and diesel cars from years ago were built to very much lower safety standards than modern cars and modern tech is so much safer than what was available in the past.
Also... "A Freedom of Information request submitted by Air Quality News revealed that in 2019, the Brigade tackled 54 EV fires compared to 1,898 fires involving petrol or diesel cars??." - is a brain dead statement as statistically it's complete garbage when used in relation to relative probability. This is the sort of statement that gives the right wing anti-everythings the ammunition they need to say there's a conspiracy and that spreads into other areas and propagates the anti-EV nonsense like this car park rubbish.
SteveKTMer said:
Hybrid statistically at higher risk of fire than BEV, diesel or petrol ? despite smaller batteries.
I'm not sure how relevant that research is as it's not clear the age of the cars included. Some petrol and diesel cars from years ago were built to very much lower safety standards than modern cars and modern tech is so much safer than what was available in the past.
Also... "A Freedom of Information request submitted by Air Quality News revealed that in 2019, the Brigade tackled 54 EV fires compared to 1,898 fires involving petrol or diesel cars??." - is a brain dead statement as statistically it's complete garbage when used in relation to relative probability. This is the sort of statement that gives the right wing anti-everythings the ammunition they need to say there's a conspiracy and that spreads into other areas and propagates the anti-EV nonsense like this car park rubbish.
According to Fleet News 1 in 32 cars registered are EV as of last month https://www.fleetnews.co.uk/news/latest-fleet-news...I'm not sure how relevant that research is as it's not clear the age of the cars included. Some petrol and diesel cars from years ago were built to very much lower safety standards than modern cars and modern tech is so much safer than what was available in the past.
Also... "A Freedom of Information request submitted by Air Quality News revealed that in 2019, the Brigade tackled 54 EV fires compared to 1,898 fires involving petrol or diesel cars??." - is a brain dead statement as statistically it's complete garbage when used in relation to relative probability. This is the sort of statement that gives the right wing anti-everythings the ammunition they need to say there's a conspiracy and that spreads into other areas and propagates the anti-EV nonsense like this car park rubbish.
So if we go back to 2019 less EV cars would have been registered, let's say 1 in 45.
In effect it means there was guaranteed to be less EV fires when based against the number of EV v the number of ICE vehicles on the road therefore the figures you've quoted mean the square root of FA.
When the day arises when the proportions of EV v ICE are 50:50 see how the statistics stack up then.
moktabe said:
SteveKTMer said:
Hybrid statistically at higher risk of fire than BEV, diesel or petrol ? despite smaller batteries.
I'm not sure how relevant that research is as it's not clear the age of the cars included. Some petrol and diesel cars from years ago were built to very much lower safety standards than modern cars and modern tech is so much safer than what was available in the past.
Also... "A Freedom of Information request submitted by Air Quality News revealed that in 2019, the Brigade tackled 54 EV fires compared to 1,898 fires involving petrol or diesel cars??." - is a brain dead statement as statistically it's complete garbage when used in relation to relative probability. This is the sort of statement that gives the right wing anti-everythings the ammunition they need to say there's a conspiracy and that spreads into other areas and propagates the anti-EV nonsense like this car park rubbish.
According to Fleet News 1 in 32 cars registered are EV as of last month https://www.fleetnews.co.uk/news/latest-fleet-news...I'm not sure how relevant that research is as it's not clear the age of the cars included. Some petrol and diesel cars from years ago were built to very much lower safety standards than modern cars and modern tech is so much safer than what was available in the past.
Also... "A Freedom of Information request submitted by Air Quality News revealed that in 2019, the Brigade tackled 54 EV fires compared to 1,898 fires involving petrol or diesel cars??." - is a brain dead statement as statistically it's complete garbage when used in relation to relative probability. This is the sort of statement that gives the right wing anti-everythings the ammunition they need to say there's a conspiracy and that spreads into other areas and propagates the anti-EV nonsense like this car park rubbish.
So if we go back to 2019 less EV cars would have been registered, let's say 1 in 45.
In effect it means there was guaranteed to be less EV fires when based against the number of EV v the number of ICE vehicles on the road therefore the figures you've quoted mean the square root of FA.
When the day arises when the proportions of EV v ICE are 50:50 see how the statistics stack up then.
https://www.fleetnews.co.uk/news/tusker-fleet-data...
article said:
A study by the Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency backs up Tusker’s findings. It concluded that EVs are 20 times less likely to catch fire than petrol and diesel cars.
With data corroborated from a US insurer, the study found that EVs suffer 25 fires per 100,000 sold.
Petrol or diesel vehicles were found to experience 1,530 fires per 100,000, with hybrid vehicles at a notably higher risk of 3,475 fires per 100,000.
With data corroborated from a US insurer, the study found that EVs suffer 25 fires per 100,000 sold.
Petrol or diesel vehicles were found to experience 1,530 fires per 100,000, with hybrid vehicles at a notably higher risk of 3,475 fires per 100,000.
Edited by 98elise on Tuesday 7th May 16:59
SteveKTMer said:
Hybrid statistically at higher risk of fire than BEV, diesel or petrol ? despite smaller batteries.
Hybrids have BOTH an engine and a battery, crammed into the same size car, so of course they will catch fire more often.Remove the engine and leave just the battery, regardless of how big it is, and the probability just went right down.
KAgantua said:
Who are Fair charge?
A group of completely self funded volunteers, or otherwise?
I think any of these lobby groups comments in the press should be legally obliged to disclose who their backers are...
I've often wondered this, but a cursory google doesn't throw any light on it.A group of completely self funded volunteers, or otherwise?
I think any of these lobby groups comments in the press should be legally obliged to disclose who their backers are...
- cough* Tesla *cough*
A Vehicle catches fire. What is the effect/consequences of that fire?
Let’s limit the location to a multi-storey beneath wards in a hospital to keep the scenario on track with the original post.
The danger is spread of the fire and the danger to patients in the wards above.
A fire breaks out so what can be done to put it out/contain it to remove and/or limit the effect to the wards above?
That is the basis for the decisions taken by the Fire Service and Hospital authorities. They therefore decided to...
Upgrade the sprinkler system to increase capability to deal with the fire. Put it out, limit spread, extend time to evacuate the wards if needed.
TEMPORARILY ban EV’s as a fire from one is much harder to deal with, especially in an enclosed location until the sprinklers are upgraded.
Makes sense to me.
Add in a review of parking proximity to critical areas.
As part of this the frequency of vehicle fires ( all types) and the effects/action needed would be used to assess risk. Properl6 produced stats not anecdotal internet chit chat. Fire Service experience and recommendations, they are the experts after all. This is the type of thing insurance companies do as a matter of course in deciding premiums or even not insuring at all.
Let’s limit the location to a multi-storey beneath wards in a hospital to keep the scenario on track with the original post.
The danger is spread of the fire and the danger to patients in the wards above.
A fire breaks out so what can be done to put it out/contain it to remove and/or limit the effect to the wards above?
That is the basis for the decisions taken by the Fire Service and Hospital authorities. They therefore decided to...
Upgrade the sprinkler system to increase capability to deal with the fire. Put it out, limit spread, extend time to evacuate the wards if needed.
TEMPORARILY ban EV’s as a fire from one is much harder to deal with, especially in an enclosed location until the sprinklers are upgraded.
Makes sense to me.
Add in a review of parking proximity to critical areas.
As part of this the frequency of vehicle fires ( all types) and the effects/action needed would be used to assess risk. Properl6 produced stats not anecdotal internet chit chat. Fire Service experience and recommendations, they are the experts after all. This is the type of thing insurance companies do as a matter of course in deciding premiums or even not insuring at all.
Even the Government has been working away in the background.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covered...
It isn't anything new. The paper 'reporting' on it just doesn't understand the issue.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covered...
It isn't anything new. The paper 'reporting' on it just doesn't understand the issue.
Temporary problem innit.
Everyone knows hydrogen is the future and fuel cell cars will be much safer when catching fire in an enclosed car park environment.
What with each one being a hybrid carrying the equivalent of 100 kg of TNT and all.
Stored at 10,000 psi.
Without any need for atomisation to ignite and a flame speed 10 times higher than natural gas.
Resulting in a pressure wave perfectly designed to destroy structures and human tissue.
Much safer.
Oh.
Everyone knows hydrogen is the future and fuel cell cars will be much safer when catching fire in an enclosed car park environment.
What with each one being a hybrid carrying the equivalent of 100 kg of TNT and all.
Stored at 10,000 psi.
Without any need for atomisation to ignite and a flame speed 10 times higher than natural gas.
Resulting in a pressure wave perfectly designed to destroy structures and human tissue.
Much safer.
Oh.
Edited by GT9 on Tuesday 7th May 21:49
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff