Luton Airport Car Park Fire

Status
Not open for further replies.
Vixen said:
Statistics appear to show that fires in EV are correlated to whilst they are charging.
Click to expand...

Besides not being sourced, doesn't this shoot your whole theory about it being an EV fore out of the water? You've said that the vehicle was not in a spot, so it would not have been charging. Statistically speaking (in your world), this would not be an EV that caught fire then.
 
phiwum said:
Aside, of course, from the official website of the brigade, which states that the vehicle was a diesel without caveats.



Yes, that's probably it. Probably the prime minister put pressure on the fire brigade not to mention the make and model.

But again, what advantage would be gained? Unless the final report is filled with lies, then within some months, the truth will come out. Even if (and I doubt this is so) the credibility of the fire brigade isn't badly harmed by the misleading initial information, the fact is that everyone will know it was a hybrid Range Rover (or whatever). The exact same information will be common knowledge.



I have no comment, since none of this is relevant to my point.



Ah, so then the hypothetical gag order has had a seriously negative effect. Gosh, these lawyers are just stupid.



Yes, that's nice. It's not particularly relevant, but whatever.



I'm willing to wait and see what the arrest was for and who was arrested. I don't see any reason to speculate on this. While it seems probable that it was the driver arrested, it wouldn't be shocking if it was someone else.

You, of course, instead leap straight to the conclusion that the arrest was mere distraction, but you don't really know a damned thing about the arrest until the identity and charges are brought. If none are ever brought, then we'll likely never know the reason for the arrest.



I agree that it's too early to know the cause. As far as the origin goes, the experts sound pretty certain.

Honestly, if I were the conspiring lawyers issuing the gag order, I would have insisted that they not reveal the origin at all rather than deviously imply that the Range Rover was an internal combustion engine. We'd still have the issue that a final report must come out, so I'm not sure this is a better strategy than reporting what is known, but surely the fewer details provided makes any coverup an awful lot easier.

You still haven't given any clue what advantage is to be gained from postponing the truth that the initial vehicle was a hybrid (hypothetically speaking). The final report will of course take time and the actual cause of the fire in the first vehicle might never be known, but you've suggested repeatedly that this fire could only have involved a lithium battery in the initial vehicle. If this is so apparent to an amateur like you, then the fire brigade will necessarily come to the same conclusion and hence it will be reported (unless their dishonesty is boundless).

So what will be gained by not saying it was a hybrid until some time in 2024 or conceivably 2025? (Again, I don't know how long the investigation will take, but two years seems safe enough. It took five months for Liverpool, but I guess that coverups take longer than that.)
Click to expand...

My sixpence says the withholding of information is business reputation damage limitation for Jaguar Land Rover. What politicians and lawyers do isn't what they describe as 'lying'. They call it 'in the public interest'.
 
Mojo said:
You seem to imply that he has, on legal advice. Here's what you posted:


What did you mean when you said he was "legally-advised" and following the "party line"?

ETA: if the "party line" is true, why bother mentioning it?
Click to expand...

Of course his press release was looked over by legal bods.


Party line would be what employees have to follow.
 
phiwum said:
The very day that the arrest was announced, it was also announced that the cause of the fire was an "SUV fault". So, how precisely was an arrest supposed to take the heat off of Range Rover on the very day that the fire brigade blamed an SUV fault for the fire?

Each of the following stories is from October 23. Each says that at present, the fire seems to have been caused by a vehicle fault.

The Standard

The Telegraph (paywalled, didn't read)

Yahoo news

Daily Mail
Click to expand...

The SUV - a meaningless and arbitrary term - was not named.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
You appear to be saying EV fires are more common while charging. More common than while driving or more common than while parked? Which statistics are you basing this on?
Click to expand...

See here, for example re an Australian fire:

Lithium batteries can occasionally catch fire while charging, or after being damaged. They’re prone to a process called “thermal runaway”: a chain reaction that happens inside the battery that releases heat.

It starts with dendrites: small metal filaments that can form from the metals in the battery.

“During charging of your lithium battery, or extreme charging, or in some cases, extreme discharging, you can get localised dendrites that will form within your battery. Once you get that, you can get a localised heating event that occurs,” says Dr Ruth Knibbe, a researcher at the School of Mechanical and Mining Engineering in the University of Queensland.

The heating triggers more heat-generating (or exothermic) reactions in nearby cells, causing the whole unit to get hotter and hotter.
Click to expand...
https://cosmosmagazine.com/technology/materials/ev-fire-risks/
 
Disbelief said:
Besides not being sourced, doesn't this shoot your whole theory about it being an EV fore out of the water? You've said that the vehicle was not in a spot, so it would not have been charging. Statistically speaking (in your world), this would not be an EV that caught fire then.
Click to expand...

I didn't say it was an EV. My POV is that a lithium-ion fire cannot be ruled out.


Many hybrid cars are diesel powered. It could have been modified.

You can't know all of these facts on Day One whilst the fire is blazing. Maybe that is what it appears from a CCTV or car reg recognition but even then, fake number plates are a possibility. It simply is not possible to 'confirm' what caused the fire when the investigation had not even started yet.
 
Vixen said:
My sixpence says the withholding of information is business reputation damage limitation for Jaguar Land Rover. What politicians and lawyers do isn't what they describe as 'lying'. They call it 'in the public interest'.
Click to expand...

Right. So if you told the truth now, Range Rover or lithium battery sales would tank. But if you mislead the public for several months and then tell them, why, no issue at all! No harm to reputation in that case.

(And, no, no one says that failure to tell the public about actual safety hazards so that a private company doesn't suffer any sales loss is "in the public interest".)

Anyway, risking discovery of the subterfuge just to help Range Rover sales for several months seems pretty low expected payoff, don't you think?
 
Vixen said:
The SUV - a meaningless and arbitrary term - was not named.
Click to expand...

But, first, most folks seem to agree that it was a Range Rover because of the unofficial images. Second, again, the make and model will be public knowledge soon enough, perhaps prior to the final report, perhaps not. The arrest won't mean bupkis if the final report again states this was a vehicle fault. The "distraction" will be months old and perhaps settled one way or another by the time we hear what the actual cause of the fire was (to the extent that can be determined).

It's really an utterly silly conspiracy involving fire and police officials allegedly ordered to prop up the sales figures of an automobile brand. Frankly, it's unimaginative and dull, considering the fun we've had with kamikaze submarines and steel-eating nuclear waste.
 
Vixen said:
I didn't say it was an EV. My POV is that a lithium-ion fire cannot be ruled out.

Many hybrid cars are diesel powered. It could have been modified.
Click to expand...
Your POV is unreasonable. The authorities have identified the vehicle. According to the registration It wasn't a hybrid, and it wasn't legally modified. That leaves incorrect registration details or an illegal modification, both of which are extremely unlikely. The only other possible reason for not believing the official account is that they are deliberately covering up the real facts, which is even less likely.

So you are holding on to a POV that is completely contrary to all the evidence. What's next, "We can't rule out that the Moon is actually made of green cheese."?

Eventually the forensic report will be released. I'm betting it will specifically point out that the fire started in an unmodified diesel vehicle. I also predict that a major cause of the severity of the blaze will be identified as fuel from melted petrol tanks running between vehicles, just as it was in the 2017 King's Dock report. If EVs are mentioned at all I would not be surprised if they were found to have spread the fire less than petrol and diesel vehicles.

But of course even that would not be sufficient proof for you. The report could be faked. Someone could have hijacked the internet and TV stations to deliver it. Everyone in the whole world but you could be in on the deception. Or perhaps you are actually in the Matrix. At what point do you decide to rule out the improbable?
 
phiwum said:
It's really an utterly silly conspiracy involving fire and police officials allegedly ordered to prop up the sales figures of an automobile brand. Frankly, it's unimaginative and dull...
Click to expand...
Indeed, which I why I propose a more intriguing possibility:-

Big Oil is trying to pin all car fires on EVs because they are hurting sales of petrol and diesel. To help with this they are paying an army of internet trolls to parrot one or more of the following talking points:-

- 'Evidence' shows It was an EV or hybrid (including 'facts' like 'diesel is very hard to ignite and doesn't burn like that', and 'the fire started exactly where the lithium battery is in this vehicle')..

- Even if it wasn't, EVs caused the fire to spread faster and be impossible to put out.

- The authorities are covering it up because they are in the pockets of Big Electric and Big Renewables.

- The government is forcing us to buy EVs as part of some nefarious plan to take way our freedoms.

- Global warming is a hoax and CO2 is good for you.

As 'evidence' for this I present the current thread.
 
Vixen said:
I didn't say it was an EV. My POV is that a lithium-ion fire cannot be ruled out.


Many hybrid cars are diesel powered. It could have been modified.

You can't know all of these facts on Day One whilst the fire is blazing. Maybe that is what it appears from a CCTV or car reg recognition but even then, fake number plates are a possibility. It simply is not possible to 'confirm' what caused the fire when the investigation had not even started yet.
Click to expand...

A hybrid can be ruled out, since the fire brigade put out a statement that it was a diesel. Also, please don't try and tell me about cars, I have worked in the industry for 27+ years.
 
Vixen said:
Of course his press release was looked over by legal bods.
Click to expand...
Do you think the 'legal bods' would allow the official website of the Bedfordshire Fire and Rescue Service to publish an untruth for as long as they have?
Party line would be what employees have to follow.
Click to expand...
Who is setting this imaginary party line? Is it different from the truth?
 
Vixen said:
My sixpence says the withholding of information is business reputation damage limitation for Jaguar Land Rover. What politicians and lawyers do isn't what they describe as 'lying'. They call it 'in the public interest'.
Click to expand...
You're talking about a senior fire officer making a public statement which pertains to fire safety. Not a politician with an ulterior motive. Not a CYA business interest or their lawyer. The insinuation that the fire service would collude with a business to conceal the real cause of a fire is just the X-Files playing in a loop in your head.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom