Cont: Luton Airport Car Park Fire part II

[Darat]

I just saw on BBC News:

BBC

How curious, another proviso has been added. Suddenly it is 'not a mild hybrid'.

Still no word of the make, year and model of the vehicle concerned.

What's with "the most probable cause"..? Is this another way of saying, 'We are just guessing, because an electric fault is always a good for plausible deniability'?
...snip[....

Nope. Until we have time travel pretty much all such reports will use that phrase. Do we know why the Concorde set on fire and crashed and killed so many? Well we in fact don't know but the most probable cause is a tyre that burst due to debris on the runway, which lead to a pressure caused rupture of the fuel tank. Accidents that consume the evidence e.g. fires will always be a matter of "the most probable cause".

 

[Jack by the hedge]

What is it with the sheer desperation to ...

What is it with the sheer desperation to keep pretending this was anything other than one more ICE car fire just like thousands of others?

Aren't there enough genuine EV fires for the anti-EV nutcases to talk about? Why do they have to keep lying to themselves about this diesel car fire?

 

[theprestige]

Electric Vehicle Derangement Syndrome: Instead of endorsing one of the many legitimate concerns about EVs, latch onto a bizarre conspiracy theory or absolute woo about EVs.

 

[Steve]

What is it with the sheer desperation to keep pretending this was anything other than one more ICE car fire just like thousands of others?

Aren't there enough genuine EV fires for the anti-EV nutcases to talk about? Why do they have to keep lying to themselves about this diesel car fire?

This one is special because Vixen discovered the massive conspiracy all by her lonesome. The other EV fires don't count because, well..... I don't really know.

 

[Vixen]

If the resulting fire destroys the evidence of the exact cause, time will not be a factor no matter how long they take to investigate it. You think you are making "expert noises" by acting as though it is obvious that any real investigation would have given a precise cause for the fire down to the specific component, and that the lack of such precise detail indicates something suspicious. But the mere fact that you think that only further demonstrates your ignorance, in keeping with someone who thinks that a single electrical fault should disable all the electrical systems in the car, or that diesel oil requires high pressure to ignite.

And if they're just lying about the whole thing to protect Sunak's precious capital investments in Big Battery, why wouldn't they just invent a source for the fire, like a battery lead with worn insulation, or a leak in the fuel delivery rail?

This thread has fallen into the same feedback loop as all your other CT threads. The more you try to prove your mastery of the subject, the more you actually demonstrate your ignorance of it. And the more you demonstrate your ignorance, the harder you try to prove your mastery.

No, I don't think they are lying. What they use is careful 'lawyer's speak' or they simply do not say anything at all. Yes, it certainly can be kept from the public as many such reports are. We'll get the report but it will be interesting to see what specific details are disclosed.

 

[Andy_Ross]

After five months of investigation they can only guess at what caused the fire? It can always be modelled on the Liverpool ECHO report, since no-one is sure.

Why do you think it would be difficult to identify the exact component under the bonnet after the car had completely burned out?

It was most likely a short in the wiring, that's the usual cause of electrical fires, the battery on a diesel or petrol engine car has to be able to put out a huge ampage to crank the engine, if there's a short on anything before the fuse box it will easily cause a fire. Fires in the actual fuse box are not uncommon.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Vixen why do you think you're competent to assess this fire? What makes you think you know more than the fire department?

 

[junkshop]

...The report is out in June.

Where are you getting this? Neither the BBC report you linked, nor the Bedfordshire Fire & Rescue Service press release it is clearly based on are this specific.

They say "expected to be published in the summer", and "expected to be published in summer 2024" respectively.

Do you have another, undisclosed source? Are you making assumptions? Are you trying to set up a situation where you can later claim that the report wasn't released when they said it would be, therefore shenanigans, and therefore EV?

Who (apart from you) has said that the report will be "out in June"?

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Where are you getting this? Neither the BBC report you linked, nor the Bedfordshire Fire & Rescue Service press release it is clearly based on are this specific.

They say "expected to be published in the summer", and "expected to be published in summer 2024" respectively.

Do you have another, undisclosed source? Are you making assumptions? Are you trying to set up a situation where you can later claim that the report wasn't released when they said it would be, therefore shenanigans, and therefore EV?

Who (apart from you) has said that the report will be "out in June"?

Well obviously it's June because June is in summer (well no, summer starts on June 21st) and everyone knows when a company or organisation says something is coming in 'summer' they mean June (well no, they sometimes mean July or august).

 

[phiwum]

Well obviously it's June because June is in summer (well no, summer starts on June 21st) and everyone knows when a company or organisation says something is coming in 'summer' they mean June (well no, they sometimes mean July or august).

So the report is already being held back! From June, it has slipped to August. Very suspicious. The lawyers must not be signing off on it because it's too obviously deceitful.

 

[malbui]

You might be unaware, but some conspiracy nutters took what they thought to be a deliberate omission in the list of EVs that the vehicle where the fire started wasn't as an admission that it was a mild hybrid. They've now explicitly excluded that too. Conspiracy nutters will now, of course, find some other way to ignore the facts.

This is classic god of the gaps stuff familiar to those used to arguing with evolution deniers. Each new piece of evidence creates two new gaps in which to locate their special pleading and scientific illiteracy.

 

[junkshop]

No, I don't think they are lying. What they use is careful 'lawyer's speak' or they simply do not say anything at all. Yes, it certainly can be kept from the public as many such reports are. We'll get the report but it will be interesting to see what specific details are disclosed.

They (BF&RS) have stated, in a press release, that

...The vehicle involved was diesel-powered – it was not a mild hybrid, plug-in hybrid or electric vehicle...

There is zero ambiguity in this statement. There are no weasel words, no "lawyer's speak", there are no fuzzy edges or hiding places. If you are claiming (as you are) that there is further information being "kept from the public" that would disprove their statement, then you are accusing them of lying.

The specific make and/or model doesn't matter. There are no further details that could, by being obfuscated, make true their statement that

...The vehicle involved was diesel-powered – it was not a mild hybrid, plug-in hybrid or electric vehicle...

if the vehicle were some flavour of EV.

If you persist in your claim that it was (or even may have been) an EV after this statement was released, then you are accusing them of lying.

If you "...don't think they are lying...", then why do you continually accuse them of lying?

 

[gabeygoat]

"It was a diesel vehicle."

Ah, they didn't say it wasn't a plug-in hybrid! Suspicious!

"It was a diesel vehicle, neither an EV nor a plug-in hybrid."

Ah, they didn't say it wasn't a mild hybrid! Gotcha!

"It was a diesel vehicle, not an EV, plug-in hybrid or mild hybrid."

Look how they bend over backwards to eliminate that it was a hybrid or EV. What are they trying to hide?

this has been pointed out a bunch, but I like Phwium's version best. Vixen, I don't think you're stupid, so surely you realize this point? They included "mild hybrid" because the conspiracy people kept asking why they didn't include it. It's that simple.

 

[Foster Zygote]

No, I don't think they are lying. What they use is careful 'lawyer's speak' or they simply do not say anything at all. Yes, it certainly can be kept from the public as many such reports are. We'll get the report but it will be interesting to see what specific details are disclosed.

So now you're an expert on British law? Could you please explain what, precisely, this "lawyer speak" is in the official statements issued by the fire service? They've clearly stated that the automobile that started the fire was a diesel, not an EV, not a hybrid, not a mild hybrid.

So what language within the statements does your knowledge of UK law tell you is included to leave wiggle room for the vehicle having been powered in whole or in part by a Li-ion battery?

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Vixen doesn't claim to be an expert, she just claims to know about the topic, sometimes better than people who are experts.

But she never claims to be an expert.

 

[Vixen]

They (BF&RS) have stated, in a press release, that



There is zero ambiguity in this statement. There are no weasel words, no "lawyer's speak", there are no fuzzy edges or hiding places. If you are claiming (as you are) that there is further information being "kept from the public" that would disprove their statement, then you are accusing them of lying.

The specific make and/or model doesn't matter. There are no further details that could, by being obfuscated, make true their statement that

if the vehicle were some flavour of EV.

If you persist in your claim that it was (or even may have been) an EV after this statement was released, then you are accusing them of lying.

If you "...don't think they are lying...", then why do you continually accuse them of lying?

'Lawyer-speak' because they haven't told you anything at all except what is already in the public domain. They have stated it is not an EV, PHEV or MHEV and that was a diesel car with a 'probable' electric fault which started in the engine bay. The EV bit is to 'reassure the public' (although given the devastation...). None of this is information that is new. There has been a short CCTV clip. They could have easily published a longer version because the CCTV cameras must have been in action for some while after that. Maybe they couldn't at the time - investigation and all that. Nothing about the vehicle make, model or year. No interviews with the driver. (Maybe he prefers to lie low and who could blame him, except I am sure the SUN newspaper could have offered him half a million for his story.)

So we have had press releases that have told us nothing at all really. We already know the fire spread. I expect it will be a Liverpool ECHO scenario of fuel lines running down the floor and via the drains to other floors, etcetera, etcetera, except with the Liverpool one the car was parked and had been smouldering for a while. When the fire crew were alerted, there were two rows alight, so this will be a repeat of that.

We have heard nothing about the Car Park itself, although a search told me that the car park builders had gone into administration not long before (so can't be touched for compo as it's wound up or under new hands).

I expect to see a lot of criticism of the car park building.

Nothing has been reported except the bare minimum which shows you the facts are being tightly controlled by government via the lawyers.

With the Liverpool fire, newspapers reported from day one what vehicle it was.

 

[junkshop]

'Lawyer-speak' because they haven't told you anything at all except what is already in the public domain. They have stated it is not an EV, PHEV or MHEV and that was a diesel car with a 'probable' electric fault which started in the engine bay. The EV bit is to 'reassure the public' (although given the devastation...). None of this is information that is new. There has been a short CCTV clip. They could have easily published a longer version because the CCTV cameras must have been in action for some while after that. Maybe they couldn't at the time - investigation and all that. Nothing about the vehicle make, model or year. No interviews with the driver. (Maybe he prefers to lie low and who could blame him, except I am sure the SUN newspaper could have offered him half a million for his story.)

So we have had press releases that have told us nothing at all really. We already know the fire spread. I expect it will be a Liverpool ECHO scenario of fuel lines running down the floor and via the drains to other floors, etcetera, etcetera, except with the Liverpool one the car was parked and had been smouldering for a while. When the fire crew were alerted, there were two rows alight, so this will be a repeat of that.

We have heard nothing about the Car Park itself, although a search told me that the car park builders had gone into administration not long before (so can't be touched for compo as it's wound up or under new hands).

I expect to see a lot of criticism of the car park building.

Nothing has been reported except the bare minimum which shows you the facts are being tightly controlled by government via the lawyers.

With the Liverpool fire, newspapers reported from day one what vehicle it was.

That's a big old pile of words that don't even slightly address the content of the post they purport to reply to.

Care to try again?

 

[junkshop]

...We have heard nothing about the Car Park itself, although a search told me that the car park builders had gone into administration not long before (so can't be touched for compo as it's wound up or under new hands).

I expect to see a lot of criticism of the car park building...

You're trying to blame the carpark now? How in the hell does that help your 'it was an EV, but "they" don't want you to know that' nonsense? You don't get to invent a new conspiracy just because all the gaps you were shoving your old one into have been sealed up with unambiguous statements..

Well, you can do that, if you want to, but it's going to make you look really similar to a nutty conspiracy theorist with a tenuous grasp on reality. If you just want to report on/discuss current events, then it's probably not the best approach to take.

 

[phiwum]

CONCLUSION

Spot the change: Bedfordshire Fire & Rescue Service has gone from ruling out an EV of any sort to including the possibility it might be a mild hybrid diesel-fuelled vehicle, after all.

'Lawyer-speak' because they haven't told you anything at all except what is already in the public domain. They have stated it is not an EV, PHEV or MHEV and that was a diesel car with a 'probable' electric fault which started in the engine bay. The EV bit is to 'reassure the public' (although given the devastation...). None of this is information that is new. There has been a short CCTV clip. They could have easily published a longer version because the CCTV cameras must have been in action for some while after that. Maybe they couldn't at the time - investigation and all that. Nothing about the vehicle make, model or year. No interviews with the driver. (Maybe he prefers to lie low and who could blame him, except I am sure the SUN newspaper could have offered him half a million for his story.)

You say that the new press release adds no new information at all, just reiterates what was publicly known. However, on March 16, you wrote the following:

CONCLUSION

Spot the change: Bedfordshire Fire & Rescue Service has gone from ruling out an EV of any sort to including the possibility it might be a mild hybrid diesel-fuelled vehicle, after all.

As it turns out, the new information is quite clear. It was not a mild hybrid. This was apparently news to you, since you made some hay over the fact that the previous release "includ[ed] the possibility" that it was a mild hybrid.

So how can you say there's no new information? You felt the previous release was consistent with the vehicle being a mild hybrid and the new release is clearly not consistent with that possibility. Hence, there is new information in the latest press release.

 

[Mojo]

What is it with the sheer desperation to describe what the vehicle is not?* Why not add in 'it was not a petrol car'? Whoever released that press release seems really anxious for it not to be an EV.

"The fire wasn't caused by my smoking my Marlborough lights, Officer, nor by my setting the tablecloth on fire with my lighter, honest, Guv, the fire most absolutely was not caused by my trying to light the gas oven with a blow torch. It wasn't me, honest, Officer." <fx whistles nonchalantly>

I wonder what Shakespeare would have 'methinks' of himself of such a person? Someone help me out with the right phrase.

*Is it an implicit admission that it would be politically disastrous for Vehicle Zero to have been an EV of some sort?

It's a characteristic of conspiracy theories that evidence contradicting the conspiracy theory is presented as evidence supporting it.