Mojo
Mostly harmless
And if it turns out that the official report says the initial vehicle was a diesel (non hybrid), will you accept that conclusion?
Have you seen the "Estonia" threads?
And if it turns out that the official report says the initial vehicle was a diesel (non hybrid), will you accept that conclusion?
I've been busy, but I wanted to come back to this.
I have clearly read it with far more care than you have. The quote which you have plainly stated was his "one and only press statement as of today" came from an article dated Oct. 12. The other statement, linked to by zooterkin, in which he definitively states that the vehicle which started the fire was not an EV, was dated Oct. 16.
1. What proof do you have that the earlier dated statement was Andrew Hopkinson's one and only press statement as of Oct. 18?
2. What proof do you have that the statement dated Oct. 16 was distorted in reporting or was a false attribution?
Is this really what you mean by "six steps ahead"?
Again, stop making things up. Andrew Hopkinson is not the only person at Bedfordshire Fire & Rescue Service in a position to comment on the fire. Full Fact spoke to an unnamed person at Bedfordshire Fire & Rescue Service and got a clear confirmation that the vehicle was a diesel.
I've been busy, but I wanted to come back to this.
I have clearly read it with far more care than you have. The quote which you have plainly stated was his "one and only press statement as of today" came from an article dated Oct. 12. The other statement, linked to by zooterkin, in which he definitively states that the vehicle which started the fire was not an EV, was dated Oct. 16.
1. What proof do you have that the earlier dated statement was Andrew Hopkinson's one and only press statement as of Oct. 18?
2. What proof do you have that the statement dated Oct. 16 was distorted in reporting or was a false attribution?
Is this really what you mean by "six steps ahead"?
First, I'm not claiming any expertise in the area of automotive fires. But I don't need to be an expert to see when someone else's "expert" opinion is contradicted by facts. People can claim to be knowledgeable. But if they make statements that are contradicted by evidence then they're just idiots trying to seem smart, which sadly, is the second most common entity present on the internet after cats.
I'll ask you again: what makes you think that working at a garage or a car dealership makes someone an expert on how various vehicles succumb to fire? How many car fires of each type does someone have to witness before he or she gains a reasonable measure of expertise?
What if someone said, "in my experience as an airport baggage handler, I think there's something fishy about the official report on the cause of that airplane crash"?
A lot of these people have attended courses relating to the mechanics of a car. My last car dealer was some kind of graduate in the subject; he knew everything; all the latest gadgets and safety features, etcetera. I am into my second hybrid car. I wasn't aware in particular that this type of car is likely to burn more fiercely if it did catch fire. Far from going into hysterical potty-mouthed emotional meltdown, I am glad that this issue has now come to my attention via the Luton fire because IMV it is better to know than not know. Should my car start burning, I know to park it particularly safely and to treat it seriously.
What exactly was your plan before?
You've seen the "This is all fine" meme?
You do know there's a difference between knowing the cause of the fire, and knowing where it started?The bod Full Fact spoke to can't have been in possession of the full facts, given that it was several days before the Fire Brigade could even enter the building safely.
If the Cork car park fire took ten weeks to ascertain, it certainly can't be known what caused the Luton Airport one as of yet.
Or Crowley in Good Omens?
For the last thirty miles he had been imagining that a ton of burning metal, rubber & leather was a fully functioning automobile and the Bentley had been resisting him fiercely
You do know there's a difference between knowing the cause of the fire, and knowing where it started?
Good comparison, the book makes it clear that it keeps going because of the power of Crowley's imagination overcoming the facts of objective reality.
What exactly was your plan before?
From what I have seen of roadside fires, probably lift up the bonnet to let the thick black fumes escape and await the road side assistance.
In the case of an EV or HEV fire it might be wise to call the fire brigade immediately.
Or Crowley in Good Omens?
All they have so far is s CCTV camera and the word of the car owner and possibly another witness ...
You do know there's a difference between knowing the cause of the fire, and knowing where it started?
I think you have it here.
Not knowing the cause of the fire exactly, means we shouldn't be able to know where it started or even what car it exactly is.
It all hinges on the precise cause of the fire. Not knowing that means the rest is also unknowable.
Or something.
I'm certain Vixen will be along very soon and explain to us, why that is so.