Cont: Luton Airport Car Park Fire part II

[phiwum]

'Before' being the operative word.

This is the quote.

Video footage has emerged apparently showing the moment a multi-storey car park at Luton Airport partially collapsed after a diesel car caught fire before spreading to other vehicles.

There is some ambiguity in the wording. The car park collapsed after the diesel car caught fire before spreading to other vehicles. I think you're reading it thus:

The diesel car caught fire. The car park collapsed. Only after the collapse did the fire spread to other cars.

Is this what you're thinking?

 

[Vixen]

From public funds? Now what gibberish are you spouting?

Ask politely and I might help you.

 

[Vixen]

I can follow that link, read the article, copy from it and paste what's copied, all perfectly happily. Maybe you need a better browser, or something?

Why didn't you include the bit that says the family were on the plane for 2 hours before seeing the fire while getting off?

It is against the MA and poor copyright etiquette to cite the entire article. I cited the relevant bit which was the floor collapse, which is what we were discussing.

 

[Vixen]

Why are you so lazy others need to spoonfeed you when they want you to reply to them?

I asked about converting diesel to hybrids and asked for examples and you provided a government website about kit cars.

Yes, if you search UK.gov webpage for DVLA there is a section on how to reregister a converted vehicle. Another poster has already stated what you should do so there is no need for me to repeat it,

 

[novaphile]

My link was as follows:

https://90newstime.com/index.php/2023/10/11/a473695827-html/?feed_id=97234&_unique_id=654ca304c9fa2

As I stated, I did not supply the link as it was dodgy. For the second time, it is not possible to copy and paste from it as it diverts to adverts.
Kimmo sabby?
You made out that I had underhand motives, yet again, so I wonder whether you are judging others by your own standards as this would not be the first time.

Another entry for the list.

 

[Vixen]

In what context? How does 1.5 hours (presumably from the first 999 call) help your argument that the single car burned through the floor, rather than the spans collapsed due to weakening of the supports due to high temperatures caused by numerous burning cars?

In the video, the whole span clearly collapses suddenly, and exposes the conflagration on the floor above. A single battery wouldn't do that, no matter how hot it got. Anything melting through the floor would produce visible dripping of molten concrete, starting as a trickle, and increasing over time, before the source of the heat fell through.

Do you think that video shows a single, electric powered vehicle melting through the floor of the garage?

That's a simple question. Why won't you answer it?


Which only goes to illustrate that you don't know the difference between heat and temperature.



Is the NHTSA part of the sinister plot to hide the dangers of EVs and hybrids from the unsuspecting public?

AFAICS the NHTSA is setting out to 'reassure the public'. It is called 'change management' where you try to allay the fears of people afraid of change.

I am not interested in being manipulated. Only interested in the actual facts. Not propaganda and reassurance that 'most car fires are gasoline and diesel, doncha know?'

Just the facts will do, thanks. Adult here.

 

[Vixen]

One more time: If you're trying to deflect blame from the manufacturer, why mention "vehicle fault"? Why not remain silent on the very day you execute a distraction by announcing an arrest?

(Oh, and you might want to look up the word "platitudinous".)

To me 'vehicle fault' is neutral. It doesn't lay responsibility on any party in particular.

It's a useful term to get rid of journalists asking questions you cannot answer at this stage. It is a variation of 'We don't know but it looks like a vehicle fault' (Given the guy had to leave it in a hurry and apply a fire extinguisher to it.)

No Sherlock needed.

 

[Vixen]

First, you comment on the design of one car park, but not that of the other car park. Obviously, you better show that the two are different in this respect.

Second, even assuming you're right that ceteris paribus Liverpool should have spread more quickly -- and I don't grant that -- the fact is that not all things are equal besides this design difference. So, you find one difference that you allege would have caused faster spread in Liverpool, but you do not actually take into account the myriad other differences between the two fires.

Third, you say that the time to "major incident" at Luton was much shorter than the time to the retreat at Liverpool. But is "major incident" the same as a call to retreat? You seem to be comparing two different events.

And finally, if we trust the fire brigade to eventually tell the full story, then either they will mention the startling spread that cannot be explained by a diesel-originated fire or they will not. If not, then we will have to compare the expertise and reliability of two competing expert accounts, yours and the fire brigade. I think that I know where I will place my trust.

Of course, if they do say the fire spread faster than a diesel-originated fire can, then bully for you. Let's see what happens.

When the fire brigade arrives at a fire scene it quickly knows how to assess how severe the fire is and when to evacuate. It's its area of expertise. Luton Airport Car Park will have been built with set fire safety recommendations built in from past experience. It failed to adopt sprinklers as recommended but as they were not compulsory, quite a huge cost was saved as it is an expensive system to build in.

We will have to await the repot to find out what went wrong but in the meantime, we have the Liverpool report to compare it with Luton's.

 

[Vixen]

This is the quote.



There is some ambiguity in the wording. The car park collapsed after the diesel car caught fire before spreading to other vehicles. I think you're reading it thus:

The diesel car caught fire. The car park collapsed. Only after the collapse did the fire spread to other cars.

Is this what you're thinking?

No. Talking about this shot:


Screenshot 2023-11-11 233312 by Username Vixen, on Flickr

From this video:




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSZUBvdo1bw

DAILY TELEGRAPH seems to think it is one car that is falling through the floor not dozens.

But looking at the O'Reardon video this seems to be a vehicle falling from the ground floor to the lower ground...? (See fireball)

https://x.com/SussexIncidents/status/1711870714356117956?s=20

 

[GlennB]

It is against the MA and poor copyright etiquette to cite the entire article. I cited the relevant bit which was the floor collapse, which is what we were discussing.

Pathetic.

 

[phiwum]

Do you think that video shows a single, electric powered vehicle melting through the floor of the garage?

That's a simple question. Why won't you answer it?

AFAICS the NHTSA is setting out to 'reassure the public'. It is called 'change management' where you try to allay the fears of people afraid of change.

I am not interested in being manipulated. Only interested in the actual facts. Not propaganda and reassurance that 'most car fires are gasoline and diesel, doncha know?'

Just the facts will do, thanks. Adult here.

Huh. She neither answered the question nor explained why she wouldn't answer it.

That's a shocker.

 

[phiwum]

To me 'vehicle fault' is neutral. It doesn't lay responsibility on any party in particular.

It's a useful term to get rid of journalists asking questions you cannot answer at this stage. It is a variation of 'We don't know but it looks like a vehicle fault' (Given the guy had to leave it in a hurry and apply a fire extinguisher to it.)

No Sherlock needed.

You know what's way more neutral than "vehicle fault"? Something like, "We cannot narrow the cause yet, as the investigation is too young."

The latter eliminates (at least for now) driver error and intentional causes, but not manufacturer defect. Indeed, as soon as one hears "vehicle fault", ones attention is drawn to the possibility of manufacturer error (rightly or wrongly). This is particularly true if the manufacturer has had recalls and such in recent years. If I'm not mistaken, some people have discussed Land Rover's issues with manufacturer defects in recent years. In fact, I think you've mentioned it when propping up your motive for this scandalous misdirection by the fire brigade.

These lawyers and others who restrict what the chief[1] can say really dropped the ball here. They directed him to announce the arrest of the driver to distract attention away from Land Rover, but they failed to censor his attribution of vehicle fault when he could have simply remained silent.

[1] Truth be told, I'm not positive whether it was the chief who made the announcement of vehicle error and the arrest or some other official on Oct. 23, but my point will stand regardless. It appears that the discussion of both the arrest and cause of the fire come from a police statement or conference -- not sure which.

 

[phiwum]

When the fire brigade arrives at a fire scene it quickly knows how to assess how severe the fire is and when to evacuate. It's its area of expertise. Luton Airport Car Park will have been built with set fire safety recommendations built in from past experience. It failed to adopt sprinklers as recommended but as they were not compulsory, quite a huge cost was saved as it is an expensive system to build in.

We will have to await the repot to find out what went wrong but in the meantime, we have the Liverpool report to compare it with Luton's.

This is, I'm sure, a very good reply to some possible post I might have written. It is not, sadly, a reply to anything I actually did write.

I'll do you the favor of reproducing my post below so you might have another go. Now, remember: you should be replying to the actual words I typed. Also, when reading, the order that the words appear really does matter, so do keep that in mind.

Good luck.

First, you comment on the design of one car park, but not that of the other car park. Obviously, you better show that the two are different in this respect.

Second, even assuming you're right that ceteris paribus Liverpool should have spread more quickly -- and I don't grant that -- the fact is that not all things are equal besides this design difference. So, you find one difference that you allege would have caused faster spread in Liverpool, but you do not actually take into account the myriad other differences between the two fires.

Third, you say that the time to "major incident" at Luton was much shorter than the time to the retreat at Liverpool. But is "major incident" the same as a call to retreat? You seem to be comparing two different events.

And finally, if we trust the fire brigade to eventually tell the full story, then either they will mention the startling spread that cannot be explained by a diesel-originated fire or they will not. If not, then we will have to compare the expertise and reliability of two competing expert accounts, yours and the fire brigade. I think that I know where I will place my trust.

Of course, if they do say the fire spread faster than a diesel-originated fire can, then bully for you. Let's see what happens.

 

[Steve]

You know what's way more neutral than "vehicle fault"? Something like, "We cannot narrow the cause yet, as the investigation is too young."

The latter eliminates (at least for now) driver error and intentional causes, but not manufacturer defect. Indeed, as soon as one hears "vehicle fault", ones attention is drawn to the possibility of manufacturer error (rightly or wrongly). This is particularly true if the manufacturer has had recalls and such in recent years. If I'm not mistaken, some people have discussed Land Rover's issues with manufacturer defects in recent years. In fact, I think you've mentioned it when propping up your motive for this scandalous misdirection by the fire brigade.

These lawyers and others who restrict what the chief[1] can say really dropped the ball here. They directed him to announce the arrest of the driver to distract attention away from Land Rover, but they failed to censor his attribution of vehicle fault when he could have simply remained silent.

[1] Truth be told, I'm not positive whether it was the chief who made the announcement of vehicle error and the arrest or some other official on Oct. 23, but my point will stand regardless. It appears that the discussion of both the arrest and cause of the fire come from a police statement or conference -- not sure which.

Well that should be good for another ten pages of the merry-go-round. Vixen has a deep mistrust of statements from official sources. Better it should be interpreted by a reporter and published in a newspaper.

 

[Andy_Ross]

To me 'vehicle fault' is neutral. It doesn't lay responsibility on any party in particular.

It's a useful term to get rid of journalists asking questions you cannot answer at this stage. It is a variation of 'We don't know but it looks like a vehicle fault' (Given the guy had to leave it in a hurry and apply a fire extinguisher to it.)

No Sherlock needed.

It was a diesel car, it has been confirmed by the fire service.

 

[phiwum]

No. Talking about this shot:


[qimg]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53325250191_737679b83b.jpg[/qimg]Screenshot 2023-11-11 233312 by Username Vixen, on Flickr

From this video:




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSZUBvdo1bw

DAILY TELEGRAPH seems to think it is one car that is falling through the floor not dozens.

But looking at the O'Reardon video this seems to be a vehicle falling from the ground floor to the lower ground...? (See fireball)

https://x.com/SussexIncidents/status/1711870714356117956?s=20

Okay, but you do agree that prior to the partial collapse, several cars were on fire. Great.

This was an actual reply to a question. Thanks!

On the other hand, I'm not sure of the importance of that partial sentence on the screen. It's clear that this is not the whole sentence, since it lacks punctuation. It's also clear that it's not saying that exactly one car fell through the floor. It's saying that of the two events (the collapse and the first car catching fire), the fire came first. Oh, and that the fire was initially limited to one car, which is the usual case for a car fire.

 

[Andy_Ross]

When the fire brigade arrives at a fire scene it quickly knows how to assess how severe the fire is and when to evacuate. It's its area of expertise. Luton Airport Car Park will have been built with set fire safety recommendations built in from past experience. It failed to adopt sprinklers as recommended but as they were not compulsory, quite a huge cost was saved as it is an expensive system to build in.

We will have to await the repot to find out what went wrong but in the meantime, we have the Liverpool report to compare it with Luton's.

It's not a Fire Brigade, it's the Bedfordshire Fire and Rescue Service.

They have confirmed it was a diesel car.

 

[phiwum]

It's not a Fire Brigade, it's the Bedfordshire Fire and Rescue Service.

I reckon I've been getting this wrong too. I'm also fuzzy on the exact name of the manufacturer of the vehicle in question, but it's a detail that doesn't matter much.

I've probably gotten some other details wrong.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Yes, if you search UK.gov webpage for DVLA there is a section on how to reregister a converted vehicle. Another poster has already stated what you should do so there is no need for me to repeat it,

I don't believe you. You linked to the page on kit conversion as if that answered anything, and people have mentioned how EV conversions do happen but no-one has provided evidence of someone converting a diesel to a hybrid.

Show that it happens.

 

[Vixen]

I don't believe you. You linked to the page on kit conversion as if that answered anything, and people have mentioned how EV conversions do happen but no-one has provided evidence of someone converting a diesel to a hybrid.

Show that it happens.

Try this:



https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=OhW6RYY31w4