You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
I wonder if it was started by an electric car fire 😬
I’ll be surprised if it’s not
my mum was flying back from Glasgow last night
we had to track her on flightradar to figure out if she was diverting to Gatwick or Stansted, in the end it was Gatwick and she got the train straight through back to Luton where my dad could pick her up
no Idea of vehicle type, but i remember when my neighbours old Beetle went up on a hot day outside our house, pretty scary how quickly it went from a bit of smoke to a fireball
Someone has just lost their no claims bonus in style.
My money would be on a badly maintained car that had been making 'progress' as they were late.
Consequentially, hot.
BBC news is saying it was a diesel car that started it?
ahh okay - noting about that (that I’ve seen) on the BBC news website yet.
Diesel
We had the bosses old car torched in the multi-storey at work recently. Made a hell of a mess. Still hissed off as employers still haven't cleaned the bike parking area properly. Everything is black from four foot upwards. They have at least mopped the floor of black ash.
Vauxhall ?
Seriously though been a lot of car fires and significantly more broken down (not just aged) vehicles littering the road than I remember for a long time.
Cost of living impacting repair and maintenance of vehicles highly likely.
I am curious how this would work insurance wise.
Is the insurer of the car (assuming it wasnt a building fault that started it) going to be responsible for all the payout.
Asking for a friend honest.
Is the insurer of the car (assuming it wasnt a building fault that started it) going to be responsible for all the payout.
Yes.
Interesting how many people automatically assume that if there's a fire it's caused by an electric car.
Is the insurer of the car (assuming it wasnt a building fault that started it) going to be responsible for all the payout.
Interesting question (to which there is probably an obvious answer): let's assume this fire caused £10 million of damage to other cars, to the structure, to disruption to the airport etc. And let's assume the car owner is at fault. If the owner's third party policy only covers £5 million of liability, will they go after the driver personally for the balance?
We had the bosses old car torched
Christ where do you work and what had he done?
Luckily no one was hurt but my first thought was why was no sprinkler system installed?
If the owner’s third party policy only covers £5 million of liability, will they go after the driver personally for the balance?
Would they even bother?
You're never going to get £millions out of some regular Joe punter at Luton airport, all you'd achieve is bankrupting someone and probably claw back less than the costs of your legal fees. I guess we're talking insurance companies though, so anything's possible.
An electric car probably didn't start it but a few will be involved and bringing their own challenges to the situation.
Anyone know how insurance was handled after the similar incident in Liverpool a few years ago?
1000+ cars , and the structure destroyed. Estimated £20m+ of damage
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-46290095
If the owner’s third party policy only covers £5 million of liability, will they go after the driver personally for the balance?
If Luton is like any other airport car park there won't be working CCTV due to lack of investment, so they might struggle to identify the car that started it anyway.
Unlikely (but of course possible) to be an EV, for two reasons
1 - EVs are something like 10+ times less likely to catch fire than an ICE or an Hybrid
2 - There are photos of a LR Discovery Sport (not an ICE) on fire all on its own on Twitter - story is is caught fire before being parked hence the owner jumped out quick.
But it's all conjecture at this point. Lets wait and see.
In parallel with that though, the tabloids and general gutter press anti-EV campaign seems to be having an effect, evidenced the first two posts on this thread.
I know a guy who is rabidly anti-EV, his rants (and they are proper rants!) always come round to the subject of fires. I know they can be difficult if not impossible to extinguish - but they aren’t [i]that[/i] common are they? Certainly not compared to conventional car fires. I don’t think it would make much difference in a (sprinkler-less!) multi storey anyway would it, it’s going to be way too hot inside to deal with anyway once a few petrol/diesels are on fire in such a confined space, surely!In parallel with that though, the tabloids and general gutter press anti-EV campaign seems to be having an effect
if the owner hasn't been demonstratably negligent then they're only on the hook for their own car. everyone else claims off their own insurance. 3rd party coverage doesn't cover "everything caused by your car" it just covers "things you negligently did in your car", so if your car is burned by a "random" fire event in the car next door (which is possible, I've had a car do it), their insurance isn't covering jack.
In parallel with that though, the tabloids and general gutter press anti-EV campaign seems to be having an effect, evidenced the first two posts on this thread.
The structural damage bit is interesting - whether it was before the fire or caused by the fire - because a major concern now for a lot of multi-storey car parks is the extra weight of modern vehicles. Not all to do with EV of course, much of it just because of auto-bloat over the last 10 years but EVs are heavier again and the buildings simply weren't designed for that amount of weight; they were built in the days when a car weighed 1500kg. Plenty of modern cars are up around the 2000+kg mark now.
At the Liverpool car park fire one factor was the type of petrol tank in modern cars. Rather than being metal which can split on impact they tend to be 'plastic' which bend on impact, hence safer in crashes, but can melt. Hence, one car catches fire, petrol tank melts spreading burning fuel under other cars, whose petrol tanks melt, spreading more burning fuel.............................
but they aren’t that common are they?
Significantly less common than ICEs. Most ICE fires are due to the sheer complexity of the design - EVs are considerably less complex.
Do bear in mind that there are some pretty significant press campaigns against EVs - just look at the Sun - they run story after story on the topic. It appears to be partially sponsored by parties with an interest in keeping ICEs alive, and partially because their target audience engage and it drives conflict hence "clicks" - quite some parallel with the anti-cycling narrative.
In fact, being an EV driver, working broadly in the car / powertrain development industry and a cyclist I see a lot of similarities between the narratives. People have swallowed the stories they've been fed re why EVs don't work etc and repeat those as facts. Same with facts as to why cyclists are terrible etc. As an EV drive - they're absolutely fine - no worries at all, even charging on a road trip isn't the issue that is reported. I have 750 miles to drive next week without a home charger and have not a single worry about it.
What makes this really interesting is for those of us who have been convinced by the anti-EV argument (I include myself in that one before I had one) - it's a bit of an insight into the mindset of those who have bought into the anti-cyclist argument. Us humans are very suggestible !
Hence, one car catches fire, petrol tank melts spreading burning fuel under other cars, whose petrol tanks melt, spreading more burning fuel………………………..
TBH I'd prefer a plastic tank that melts and dumps fuel at a reasonable temperature all over the (flaming) floor. Rather than a steel tank that allows it to boil and then spray a mixture of boiling petrol and vapour out of all the holes once it hits the pressure limit or the plastic fittings/lines melt... Unless of course there is a sprinkler that can bring it under control before then.
(BTW it takes a good long while to melt a plastic tank)
Bullet
Full MemberBBC news is saying it was a diesel car that started it?
Indeed, confirmed as diesel car
https://twitter.com/Gill_Nowell/status/1712027823114772709
And a video, looks like an RR Evoque to me
https://twitter.com/LordCxsh/status/1712007637112344967
It is interesting everyone leaps to it must have been an EV. As above, shows how susceptible we are to propaganda.
There's already a video on YouTube showing the fire and proclaiming it to be the deathknell for the EV. Any comment that states it was caused by a diesel SUV (Evoque) are being deleted.
there isn't sufficient data to suggest one way or the other what propolsion system is more likely to catch fire, there are too many variables, one of which is that ~50% of vehicle fires are arson!
depending on what way you want to swing the argument around car fires and the accelerant that causes it , you can claim that either is worse or better.
Interesting how many people automatically assume that if there’s a fire it’s caused by an electric car.
Cars never caught fire before EVs.
There is a crazy amount of misinformation on this. I mean the only reason we have "third party FIRE and theft" insurance is because ICE cars used to regularly catch fire. ICE cars have got gallons of flammable (potentially explosive) liquid in ffs. And it's under where your children sit!
It is interesting everyone leaps to it must have been an EV. As above, shows how susceptible we are to propaganda.
I don't think anyone 'leaped' at the assumption – I posted the original thread wondering if it was (with a gritted teeth emoji) as I knew just what the fall-out would be if it turned out to be.
If that makes sense?
"Cars never caught fire before EVs."
You're either a Joker or an Idiot, which is it?
Cars never caught fire before EVs.”
You’re either a Joker or an Idiot, which is it?
I think you might be missing the irony
It should have been an EV
How about that? - then that keeps everyone happy! /s
nice back-pedalling 😉I don’t think anyone ‘leaped’ at the assumption – I posted the original thread wondering if it was (with a gritted teeth emoji) as I knew just what the fall-out would be if it turned out to be.
You’re either a Joker or an Idiot, which is it?
That's not an either or question, though in this case it's very very clearly the former.
nice back-pedalling
Not back-pedalling at all - that is exactly why I put the gritted teeth emoji there in the first place.
It is interesting that the point even comes up, I wonder if before ICE you'd have petrol drivers suggesting it was diesel? (too young to know if there was that divide, honest).
On subject of propaganda, it's similar to the "EV is so heavy they cause way more damage to roads"
For those asking who is liable, a similar case happened here a few years ago and it seems they went after the car manufacturer and the garage that sold it.
https://www.rte.ie/news/2020/0713/1153085-shopping-centre-fire/
It's really easy to be mis-understood.
Statement like "I wonder whether" also read in a quite accusatory manner.
For example....
"
I wonder whether @johndoh reads the Daily Mail 😬
"
Note - this is not a personal attack - I'm not actually suggesting he does, just illustrating how this type of sentance can come across.
5labFull Member
if the owner hasn’t been demonstratably negligent then they’re only on the hook for their own car. everyone else claims off their own insurance. 3rd party coverage doesn’t cover “everything caused by your car” it just covers “things you negligently did in your car”, so if your car is burned by a “random” fire event in the car next door (which is possible, I’ve had a car do it), their insurance isn’t covering jack.
This is correct, every man for themselves insurance wise, unless they can prove that the owner of the vehicle that caught fire was negligent, which is very unlikely, on account of everything having been on fire. This is a common misunderstanding even within the insurance industry, just because the fire started somewhere else, doesn't mean that someone else will pay your claim.
TBH its way more likely to be a petrol or diesel fire : A week back I drove past the remnants of a new-ishdiesel Merc that went bang and was still being dampened down by the fire brigade. Such things tend to be caused by either oil or fuel leaking onto a hot Turbo or catalytic converter from a worn linkage or broken pipe. A lot of the FUD (Fear, Uncertanty and Doubt) regarding EV catching fire is from people who ignore all of the "normal" car fires that dont make the news.
Anyway, lots of cars in a semi-enclosed space such as a multi storey car park will make for a very big fire. Consider the amount of Diesel, Petrol, Oil, Brake fluid, plastics,Rubber and Aluminium that are present in several hundred vehicles that will burn very intensively. Open sides on the car park means there is a lot of airflow too. Its no wonder the structure colapsed the heat from all of the fuel/oil/platics fire would start to melt the steelwork in the carpark (so nothing to do with the weight of all of the vehicles)
Not back-pedalling at all – that is exactly why I put the gritted teeth emoji there in the first place.
Ah! Maybe you needed an Edinburgh castle emoji instead.
Its no wonder the structure colapsed the heat from all of the fuel/oil/platics fire would start to melt the steelwork in the carpark (so nothing to do with the weight of all of the vehicles)
But according to the 9/11 truthers out there, fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel.
Makes you think.
Now it's come out it was a Diesel I've seen quite a lot of conspiracy theory type posts over on facebook / twitter. Anything to fit their pre-existing belief it was an EV. However, the lack of trust in "the establishment" not to cover this up is quite worrying.
However, the lack of trust in “the establishment” not to cover this up is quite worrying.
It's nothing to do with trust. It's a conscious decision not to belive any narrative that doesn't agree with their own.
Yippee, another excuse for why the building works are not completed by 2030!!
EV Insurance will sky rocket after this....
My thinking, so totally unsubstantiated.
It's an airport. You have both airport fire appliances and civilian. Both are equipped to deal with fuel fires, especially the former.
Yet the fire engulfed the whole building. Something must have prevented the fire being extinguished.
I’d guess that the several hundred cars complete with their fuel tanks, bodywork and tyres etc combined with the air coming in from the open sides would make for a difficult fire to extinguish, with or without EV’s in there.
https://twitter.com/joerichlaw/status/1712075303428751832?s=20
Yet the fire engulfed the whole building. Something must have prevented the fire being extinguished.
-Access
-The speed at which the fire spreads
-The amount of water you can flood in there
-No sprinklers
-Diesel and oil will burn with the temperatures seen
It’s an airport. You have both airport fire appliances and civilian. Both are equipped to deal with fuel fires, especially the former.
Presumably if the airport fire engines are busy in the car park it can’t remain open anyway, but initially they can’t be redirected immediately if aircraft are landing or taking off.
The cars aren't all stacked 700 ontop of each other 😅
Airport fire appliances are designed to extinguish giant aluminium frames with wings full of fuel in literally minutes. Roughly the same materials as ICE cars.
I guess they are big though, so maybe they couldn't get close enough to lay the foam blanket over the fire.
It’s an airport. You have both airport fire appliances and civilian. Both are equipped to deal with fuel fires, especially the former.
The report and video indicate it was a couple of floors up and tucked away inside. So doubt the appliances would have been able to get close enough to be useful initially before it spread enough to be difficult to put out.
Airport fire appliances are designed to extinguish giant aluminium frames with wings full of fuel in literally minutes. Roughly the same materials as ICE cars.
On a runway. Not buried inside a carpark.
On their own. Not surrounded by other giant aluminium frames full of fuel
You may as well ask why they don't use those same appliances to fight fires on a submarine given they're so good at fighting fires or why not use halon on the fire engines given it is good enough to use on a plane in flight.
Even the best tech has limitations.
[edit: u also imagine all the security infrastructure designed to stop you driving a truck onto the runway is also a pita for rapidly deploying airside assets to a publicly accessible carpark. Response time is at least as important as the quality of your equipment for stopping "just another RR with a heater problem" taking hold and becoming towering inferno in that situation.]
the daily mail comments are quite the thing
- it was an EV
- ok it wasn't an EV that started it, but it was only this bad because of EVs
- it was EV's that caused it to collapse
- it was an EV but its being covered up because conspiracy
it’s going to be way too hot inside to deal with anyway once a few petrol/diesels are on fire in such a confined space, surely!
Sprinklers aren't just for cooling, the steam released snuffs out the fire by starving it of oxygen.
I wouldn't have thought most car parks had sprinklers unless they're part of another building like underground car parks, they wouldn't have high enough occupancy rates to justify them.
Range Rover that started it - that explains it ! Dodgy electrics as fitted standard at factory. LOL
BTW it takes a good long while to melt a plastic tank
To comply with the regulations (see below) a plastic fuel tank has to last for TWO MINUTES subjected to a flame without losing fuel. Not what I'd call a good long while...............
<h1 class="main-publication-title">Regulation No 34 of the Economic Commission for Europe of the United Nations (UNECE) — Uniform provisions concerning the approval of vehicles with regard to the prevention of fire risks [2016/1428]</h1>
To comply with the regulations (see below) a plastic fuel tank has to last for TWO MINUTES subjected to a flame without losing fuel. Not what I’d call a good long while……………
How does it compare with a metal one?
Also the hoses and so on. No point the fuel tank outlasting the rest of the vehicle - or indeed just developing a lovely hole at either end that allows burning vapour to escape right down to the point it has a good mix of air and fuel.
Airport fire appliances are designed to extinguish giant aluminium frames with wings full of fuel in literally minutes. Roughly the same materials as ICE cars.
They also are used on the runway and don’t respond to the car parks.
I hope the driver is insured, as so many Range Rovers are getting stolen now, the insurers either won't insure or they have put their prices right up.
How does it compare with a metal one?
I don't have the time to search for the Standard for metal tanks but here's a firefighters view from https://www.fireengineering.com/firefighter-training/vehicle-fires-plastic-fuel-tanks/#gref
Metal fuel tanks can be exposed to and resist the high temperatures brought on by fires for much greater times. When fires occur, metal tanks are far less likely to break down when compared to the newer style plastic tanks. When I first began my firefighting career, it seemed as though most of the vehicle fires to which we responded simply involved vehicle components. Fast forward 15-plus years, and it’s not uncommon to roll up to a car fire with a stream of gasoline on fire and flowing down a graded slope on Interstate 95.
A Land Rover diesel tank was responsible for the most disappointing day in my time at the MOD. Sat in front of 4 jets of mixed propane, aluminium powder and liquid oxygen it failed to do anything interesting at all. A dreadful waste of hundreds of feet of 16mm film 🙂
The anti-ev lobby are out in force over the Luton fire. Desperate to prove it was an EV and not a diesel Range Rover that started it, despite video evidence to the contrary.
A Land Rover...
...failed to do anything interesting at all
No surprise there.
In all likelihood it failed because being a LR it has fallen off and rusted through about two days before leaving solihull and was consequently bone dry
The anti-ev lobby are out in force over the Luton fire. Desperate to prove it was an EV and not a diesel Range Rover that started it, despite video evidence to the contrary.
*Gets popcorn and sits back to watch*
Desperate to prove it was an EV and not a diesel Range Rover that started it, despite video evidence to the contrary.
Wasnt the Liverpool carpark fire also caused by a Range Rover?
Sounds like they need banning.
To comply with the regulations (see below) a plastic fuel tank has to last for TWO MINUTES subjected to a flame without losing fuel. Not what I’d call a good long while……………
Current tanks will go *slightly* over 2 minutes before failure.
Fire in car park at Stavanger airport that trashed my neighbours car. Started by a diesel
https://www.aftenbladet.no/lokalt/i/EaEnmG/kort-oppsummert-brannen-i-p-huset-paa-flyplassen
Fire in car park at Stavanger
Ooo, off topic but I do like Stavanger, you're very fortunate to live in such a part of the world
Going back to the "EV being too heavy, damages carpark strucutrally" argument, seems a Range Rover can be up to 2.8 tonnes, compared to 1.9 for a tesla model Y.
Edit - an Evoque, which it appears this is, can be up to 2.1.
Range Rover can be up to 2.8 tonnes
Can't be true. I often see them towing 3.5t trailers.