Luton Airport Car Park Fire

[GraculusTheGreenBird]

It was a diesel car, the fire service confirmed it

Can we all please follow this example?

There is *nothing more* that needs to be said in any reply to Vixen other than this.

She isn't posting in sincerity.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Not Big Oil... the £4bn investment by Tata owners of JLR in the UK to build a million square foot car battery factory

Thanks for confirming my conspiracy theory. How much are they paying you?

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Update, Uncle Tony's Garage chickened out of doing the fire experiment.

 

[Mojo]

With your 27+ years of expertise in the motor industry, what in your view would cause a fire on one level of a car park to have spread to the next level within, let's say fifteen minutes? The initial car is a diesel-only.

Were all the other cars on the first level diesel-only?

 

[Vixen]

If a burning car goes bang the obvious assumption is the fuel tank exploded, but it's not necessarily the most likely. How can you be sure she was right that it was the fuel tank? What if it was a tyre? What if it was one of the car's several airbags?

A burning tyre gives off very thick black smoke; it doesn't 'explode' per se. The airbags are designed to activate in a collision. Perhaps the eye witness said it was a 'fuel tank explosion' because the fireball was towards the back of the car...?

 

[Vixen]

Again, there are numerous ways in which a car can catch fire, especially an older car, that don't involve culpability by the manufacturer.

Do you think if you're rear-ended at a traffic light because the decade old Focus behind you loses brake pressure when the master cylinder fails, that you can turn around and sue Ford?

It doesn't matter what 'other cars' do. This one was not involved in a collision (that we know of). The reason the car makers or even dealers (see Cork fire) might be deemed liable is if there was an inherent manufacturing fault that caused your car to catch fire and cause extensive damage to (a) 1,400 other cars and (b) a building.

 

[Vixen]

Take your pick. Where do you suppose it comes from in all the hundreds of other diesel car fires every year?

Here's that list again:
https://www.london-fire.gov.uk/media/8233/79621_response.pdf

Just as a reminder the Liverpool fire is not the only other car fire in history.

How many of the cars in your list caused an entire car park and 1,400 cars to burn down in less than one hour?

 

[Vixen]

I don't think I know all about it. I know a few things. Here are some things I know.

• The chief said it was a diesel vehicle, pending final confirmation.
• The official website said it was a diesel vehicle, with no caveats.
• The fire brigade confirmed the cause was vehicle fault.
• It is widely believed that the vehicle is a Range Rover, though I've seen no explicit confirmation from authorities.

Now, a driver fault is different than a vehicle fault, so when the authorities confirm it is a vehicle fault, it seems to me that they are saying the driver is not the cause of the fire. Rather, something wrong with the vehicle is to blame.

Given that most folks reckon the vehicle was a Range Rover, it follows that because of the fact that the authorities have said the fire was a result of vehicle fault, most folks will reckon that something was wrong with the Range Rover causing the fire. Hence, if the aim was to deflect blame from the manufacturer, the authorities did a really **** job and arresting some unknown person for criminal damage doesn't really deflect any attention from that fact.

Consequently, if the aim was to deflect attention from the manufacturer, then any competent person would not have disclosed that the fire resulted from a vehicle fault. Surely, the manufacturer wants to avoid blame, regardless of whether a Lithium battery was involved or not.

Furthermore, at present, the overwhelming evidence is that no lithium battery was involved. Now, I'm not positive on this, but I think that people have said the Range Rover make and year did not come in a hybrid model. It seems exceedingly unlikely that anyone would have spent such a large sum converting to a hybrid when it must be more cost effective to simply by a newer hybrid. So, although I am willing to revise my opinion if startling new information comes to light, I am more than willing to take the word of the authorities that this vehicle has a bog standard diesel internal combustion engine. The evidence seems quite sufficient for that conclusion at this point.

Your story about covering for the manufacturer, on the other hand, just doesn't make much bloody sense. Why call out a vehicle fault on Oct. 23? How does that help matters when one could have easily said that there is just not enough information at present to know how the fire started? I just can't see any reasonable explanation for this announcement, given that the authorities are trying to protect the manufacturer.

It is also worth stating that insofar as the fire officials keep mum about evidence of the actual cause in order to give a false sense of security regarding Range Rovers or lithium batteries, then they are neglecting their duties. Of course, they shouldn't report prematurely, but you seem to suggest that they know damned well it was a lithium battery fault. Were this the case, they'd be failing to warn the public of an apparent danger.

In saying 'it appears to be a vehicle fault' that is not in any way laying fault with the manufacturers. The 'vehicle fault' could still lie with the driver (and the driver is the person whom is presumed by the national press to have been arrested) as he has been arrested 'as a precaution' but not charged - so he is on bail - but it also shuts down discussing anything that could prejudice any future trial he might be subjected to were he to be charged; for now: 'on suspicion of criminal damage'. The fault could something as simple as filling up with petrol instead of diesel*.

It is clear there is a gag in place in (a) naming the brand officially and (b) interviewing the driver as to what happened.




*But a petrol fire can be extinguished by the fire brigade quite effectively within ten minutes.

 

[Vixen]

Why would I waste the time since you have been told repeatedly in this thread how the fire could spread, but you won't even acknowledge the possibility. You fake post by continuing to say things about diesel fires, but when called out that there is much more combustible material than just diesel, you backtrack and claim you never said it was just diesel. Your games get old and you're not very good at them since everyone sees through them.

So the answer's 'no', you cannot explain how a simple diesel fire, albeit with plastics, electrics and other combustibles thrown in, can spread incredibly rapidly to set the next car park level alight within ten minutes.

 

[Vixen]

FYI: Most things that catch fire are a fire hazard when they do catch fire.

By the way, it has been confirmed that the fire started in a diesel vehicle. (I'm mentioning this only because you appear to be unaware of that confirmation.)

That is not actually true. It is 'believed' to be a diesel vehicle 'subject the verification'.


Understand how to weigh up information and not be swayed by every headline with an agenda.


.

 

[Disbelief]

So the answer's 'no', you cannot explain how a simple diesel fire, albeit with plastics, electrics and other combustibles thrown in, can spread incredibly rapidly to set the next car park level alight within ten minutes.

It has been explained to you multiple times. Just because you cannot comprehend how this is possible, does not mean it is not true.

By the way, have you gone back and done the math that you requested of others?

 

[Vixen]

And any legal action would lose. Telling the truth is not an actual offence.

There is such a thing a criminal libel which means technically whilst the brand might be Range Rover it might technically not be liable for the fire caused by driver error or misdemeanour. Should its sales be impacted by such a libel then technically it could sue for business reputation damage.

Of course, realistically this is highly unlikely to happen as it is Jaguar Range Rover and their models have had large recalls in recent years, a notoriously poor reputation. From example plastic around the exhaust pipes leading to burning of combustibles and poor situation of the catalyst converter, etcetera, etcetera. Like BMW, it relies heavily on its brand being High Luxury Niche and IMV a company like Jaguar Land Rover would not hesitate to do anything to protect its brand name as that is what sells its cars.

 

[zooterkin]

A burning tyre gives off very thick black smoke; it doesn't 'explode' per se. The airbags are designed to activate in a collision. Perhaps the eye witness said it was a 'fuel tank explosion' because the fireball was towards the back of the car...?

Another proud display of ignorance.

 

[zooterkin]

It doesn't matter what 'other cars' do. This one was not involved in a collision (that we know of). The reason the car makers or even dealers (see Cork fire) might be deemed liable is if there was an inherent manufacturing fault that caused your car to catch fire and cause extensive damage to (a) 1,400 other cars and (b) a building.

It was a diesel, we do know that.

 

[zooterkin]

In saying 'it appears to be a vehicle fault' that is not in any way laying fault with the manufacturers. The 'vehicle fault' could still lie with the driver (and the driver is the person whom is presumed by the national press to have been arrested) as he has been arrested 'as a precaution' but not charged - so he is on bail - but it also shuts down discussing anything that could prejudice any future trial he might be subjected to were he to be charged; for now: 'on suspicion of criminal damage'. The fault could something as simple as filling up with petrol instead of diesel*.

It is clear there is a gag in place in (a) naming the brand officially and (b) interviewing the driver as to what happened.




*But a petrol fire can be extinguished by the fire brigade quite effectively within ten minutes.

It was a diesel car, and I'm glad you seem to have finally acknowledged that.

 

[zooterkin]

That is not actually true. It is 'believed' to be a diesel vehicle 'subject the verification'.

We have had the verification.

Understand how to weigh up information and not be swayed by every headline with an agenda.


.

Indeed. Understand that an official website contains official statements.

 

[zooterkin]

There is such a thing a criminal libel which means technically whilst the brand might be Range Rover it might technically not be liable for the fire caused by driver error or misdemeanour. Should its sales be impacted by such a libel then technically it could sue for business reputation damage.

Of course, realistically this is highly unlikely to happen as it is Jaguar Range Rover and their models have had large recalls in recent years, a notoriously poor reputation. From example plastic around the exhaust pipes leading to burning of combustibles and poor situation of the catalyst converter, etcetera, etcetera. Like BMW, it relies heavily on its brand being High Luxury Niche and IMV a company like Jaguar Land Rover would not hesitate to do anything to protect its brand name as that is what sells its cars.

More bollocks.

The car where the fire started was a diesel.

 

[Foster Zygote]

It doesn't matter what 'other cars' do. This one was not involved in a collision (that we know of). The reason the car makers or even dealers (see Cork fire) might be deemed liable is if there was an inherent manufacturing fault that caused your car to catch fire and cause extensive damage to (a) 1,400 other cars and (b) a building.

You still seem to struggle with the concept of analogy. Fine, since you can't seem to understand the issue unless we use exactly the same example, let me ask you this:

If your own vehicle is destroyed in a fire started by a seal failure on a high pressure fuel rail, or worn insulation on a 12V battery lead, on a decade old diesel Land Rover owned by someone else, do you think you can successfully sue JLR?

Are you aware of any manufacturing faults causing a high risk of fire in Land Rovers? If not, then you're left with the following facts:

1 - Gas and diesel vehicle fires are common
2 - The most common causes of car fires are fuel system faults and electrical faults
3 - Car fires are often severe, releasing a tremendous amount of energy
4 - Hundreds of cars parked close together are a huge fire risk

There's nothing "fishy" about the nature of the Luton garage fire. The only reason conspiracy theorists, like those clowns in the Daily Mail comments, want it to be "fishy" is so they can prop up their delusions that they're smarter than most everyone else.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

It was a diesel car, the fire service confirmed it

Repeated for the hard of understanding

 

[Foster Zygote]

There is such a thing a criminal libel which means technically whilst the brand might be Range Rover it might technically not be liable for the fire caused by driver error or misdemeanour. Should its sales be impacted by such a libel then technically it could sue for business reputation damage.

Just no.

If the fire service had officially stated, "it was a diesel Land Rover, which is a notoriously dangerous brand with an alarming tendency to burst into flames whenever you look at it funny", that would be criminally libelous. Just factually stating the make and model of the vehicle is absolutely not libelous.

But keep grasping at those straws.