Luton Airport Car Park Fire

Status
Not open for further replies.
Vixen said:
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.
Click to expand...

Not if the fire involves hundreds of cars in a building.
 
Vixen said:
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.
Click to expand...

It set the cars nearest to it on fire and it spread from there.

It was a diesel car that started it the fire service have confirmed it
 
Vixen said:
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.


.
Click to expand...

It's been confirmed by the fire service that it was a diesel car.
 
Vixen said:
Still valid in some countries*. JLR won't just be worrying about its UK sales.



*For example, Victoria Beckham successfully sued for 'criminal libel; when someone called her boutiques in France rubbish.
Click to expand...
The chief isn't in France and saying it was a Range Rover wouldn't be saying that Range Rovers are rubbish. It would be stating a plain fact.

Hence, the silence on the make cannot be fear of lawsuits.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
 
Vixen said:
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.
Click to expand...

The highlighted demonstrates a breathtaking ignorance of motor vehicle function.

Vixen said:
*But a petrol fire can be extinguished by the fire brigade quite effectively within ten minutes.
Click to expand...

A ridiculous claim in the known circumstances.
 
At the risk of introducing a degree of reality into the discussion the initial vehicle, as demonstrated by the video, was a rather elderly 2014 Range Rover Sport with around 84,000 miles on the clock. Given the most recent MoT showed a carbon dioxide emission of 194g/km it was not a hybrid. And the MoT also lists it as a diesel.

I believe the LR recall of ~112,000 vehicles due to fire risk mas been mentioned? It was a Landie that started the, also previously mentioned, Liverpool fire. They have a history of fires.

Finally the value of such a vehicle, prior to incineration, would have been ~€32k. Now it would be rather less.
 
Last edited:
catsmate said:
They have a history of fires.
Click to expand...

For years I drove a Ford Explorer from a model line that had a history of fires from the ignition harness. We used to riff on their marketing slogan: "At Ford, quality is Job One. Putting out the fire is Job Two." My ignition harness did finally overheat and burn off a lot of its insulation, but thanks to a recent engine degreasing, nothing else caught fire. This was while the car was sitting in the outdoor car park of a convenience store.
 
W.D.Clinger said:
By the way, it has been confirmed that the fire started in a diesel vehicle.
Click to expand...

Vixen said:
That is not actually true. It is 'believed' to be a diesel vehicle 'subject the verification'.
Click to expand...


You are 26 steps behind. On 11 October, at 3:30pm, the Bedfordshire Fire & Rescue Service posted an update saying "The fire service can confirm the initial vehicle involved in the fire was a diesel car."

Two days later, The Bedfordshire Fire & Rescue Service had "determined that the vehicle that first caught fire was a diesel car."

So you're 26 days behind concerning the confirmation, and 24 days behind concerning the determination.

I realize some people are unable to understand the plain English used by the Bedfordshire Fire & Rescue Service. I also realize it is extremely difficult for some people to deal with many aspects of reality.

But while I feel sorry for people who simply cannot deal with reality, it would be patronizing and condescending to pat them on the head and pretend to go along with their delusions. When someone is wrong about something so simple as whether the Bedfordshire Fire & Rescue Service has both confirmed and determined that "the vehicle that first caught fire was a diesel", that person is simply wrong.

It is of course remotely possible that the Bedfordshire Fire & Rescue Service's confirmation and determination were made in error, but there is no doubt whatsoever concerning whether the Bedfordshire Fire & Rescue Service has "determined that the vehicle that first caught fire was a diesel car."

Incessant passive-aggressive wrongness cannot undo the fact that the Bedfordshire Fire & Rescue Service has published that determination.

The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it.​

Impiety and witlessness won't do it either.

tl/dr: "It has been determined that the vehicle that first caught fire was a diesel car."
 
Last edited:
zooterkin said:
Of course, you have no evidence whatsoever that the official statement on the Bedfordshire Fire and Rescue Service website was based on the press statement rather than being an actual statement in its own right, do you?

Even if it were based on the statement to the press, if it was inaccurate, it would by now have been updated. (It hasn't been.)
Click to expand...

No attribution? Safely disregard.
 
I'm still getting a kick out of the fact that Vixen's thread makes absolutely no sense at all, if the Fire service hasn't actually stated that the vehicle in question is diesel-powered.
 
JayUtah said:
For years I drove a Ford Explorer from a model line that had a history of fires from the ignition harness. We used to riff on their marketing slogan: "At Ford, quality is Job One. Putting out the fire is Job Two." My ignition harness did finally overheat and burn off a lot of its insulation, but thanks to a recent engine degreasing, nothing else caught fire. This was while the car was sitting in the outdoor car park of a convenience store.
Click to expand...


“Car park”? In Utah?
 
Vixen said:
You might think they are 'shadowy figures' but lawyers and politicians are perfectly respectable professions.
Click to expand...
Instructing the fire service to deceive the public is not respectable.

Thankfully that's only your fantasy. In reality there were no shadowy figures and the car was a diesel.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
...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'.
Click to expand...
How can the driver be out on bail if he hasn't yet been charged? That is such a ridiculous statement. You should really stop playing at being a lawyer.

I'm not that familiar with how the police work in GB, but I'd wager that "arrested", in this case, doesn't mean "hauled off to the station in handcuffs", but rather, "required to come in immediately and answer some important questions". (That's assuming that the person in question was even the driver of the vehicle, which is not certain.) Having been questioned, if the police are satisfied that the person was just some luckless motorist whose car caught fire in a really bad location, they would release said person without charges, and without identifying them, because in that case their identity would be no one else's business.
 
catsmate said:
At the risk of introducing a degree of reality into the discussion the initial vehicle, as demonstrated by the video, was a rather elderly 2014 Range Rover Sport with around 84,000 miles on the clock. Given the most recent MoT showed a carbon dioxide emission of 194g/km it was not a hybrid. And the MoT also lists it as a diesel.

I believe the LR recall of ~112,000 vehicles due to fire risk mas been mentioned? It was a Landie that started the, also previously mentioned, Liverpool fire. They have a history of fires.

Finally the value of such a vehicle, prior to incineration, would have been ~€32k. Now it would be rather less.
Click to expand...

Oh dear, catsmate. Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear!

Have you taken the trouble to check your source, that the vehicle concerned is 'a rather elderly 2014 Range Rover Sport with around 84,000 miles on the clock. Given the most recent MoT showed a carbon dioxide emission of 194g/km it was not a hybrid. And the MoT also lists it as a diesel.'?

No? Oh dear.

The only photo that has been widely published in the press is the one supposedly taken from behind the vehicle (we are left to surmise thus, as it hasn't been officially confirmed this is the vehicle in question, but let's assume that this hind shot is an authentic still of a CCTV image as issued by Luton Airport Car Park).

The video claiming to have been taken from the front was uploaded onto X/Twitter by someone called @andysoullinux dated 12 October 01:00 possibly US time zone. The fire was on 10 October at circa 20:45. Not one news outlet has used this video or its image. Why? Because it cannot be authenticated.

'Andy' appears to be somewhat of an EV afficionado. 'Andy's' profile reads: ' EV owner, green stuff, DevOps, Linux
Octopus referral code, great for EV owners'.


Maybe 'Andy' felt sufficiently outraged by the suggestion the fire started in an lithium-ion car? Anyway, someone looked up the registration plate on this unauthenticated video as being 'E10 EFL' and looked up on DVLA to claim '2014 Range Rover Sport with around 84,000 miles on the clock. Given the most recent MoT showed a carbon dioxide emission of 194g/km it was not a hybrid. And the MoT also lists it as a diesel.'

Well, well, well, and catsmate has seized on this as being a factual confirmed truth.

Here is a pic of the front and the back of the vehicle concerned. What do you notice? This is a 'spot the difference' exercise.

front by Username Vixen, on Flickr

back - the picture circulated in the national press as 'Is this the car?'

back by Username Vixen, on Flickr

Front - the unauthenticated video - still as uploaded by 'Andy' the EV advocate.

Note how in picture 1

  • the vehicle is on a slope going upwards.
  • note the size and shape of the fire extinguisher to its right.
  • Note how the vehicle fits in its lane.


Note how in picture 2

  • the vehicle now appears to be on flat ground or even in a 'valley'
  • the fire extinguisher to its left (back view on its right) is disproportionately large and the wrong shape.
  • the vehicle is now too wide to fit in its lane. It straddles the centre white line!
  • the bonnet/hood appears to be floating above the , er, bonnet.
  • suddenly, the registration plate is readable! Quelle surprise!

I must say the sign saying to 'terminal' is a nice touch. Well faked, @andysoullinux. Fooled catsmate, the arbiter of all that is not drivel.

As a footnote re the emissions, strangely, Jaguar Land Rover were caught red handed fiddling this, with a device that could hide the true (bad) emissions rate, but that's another story.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
Instructing the fire service to deceive the public is not respectable.

Thankfully that's only your fantasy. In reality there were no shadowy figures and the car was a diesel.
Click to expand...

It hasn't deceived anyone. It gave as little information as possible on the morning of 11 October when it could safely say without fear of contradiction that they 'believe' this, that and the other, 'subject to verification'. It didn't give the make or the model. It is only in recent years DVLA have started distinguishing mild hybrid diesels from diesel, so a hybrid is not precluded if that is how DVLA has classified it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom