• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Cont: Luton Airport Car Park Fire part II

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think it's a Range Rover thing. On Friday someone parked a Range River at our local CO-OP petrol station/mini supermarket, at the end of the row of pumps so that no-one could get to any of the driver side pumps. They weren't even at one of the pumps so it wasn't even a case of filling up and leaving their car there while they did their shopping, an annoying but regular act of selfishness. They'd literally stopped with their car angled across the end of the row of pumps and buggered off into the shop rather than park in the carpark.
I assume some socially minded person left a message scratched into their paintwork>
 
BBC has an item today on the fire brigade's training to deal with EV fires. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-66866327
One point it raises is containment of water used on such fires, to prevent pollution. (In fact it says they prefer to let them burn out if that's an option.)

It made me wonder if that's why this new-ish car park had no sprinkler system; they would have had to design in some kind of containment sump for the runoff, which gets expensive and complicated, and if their terms and conditions make it not their insurer's problem to pay for all the burned cars, the problem goes away - just let it burn so long as it meets the evacuation time regulations.

I'm just speculating as I don't know the regs but it reminded me our landlord at work won't let us wash vehicles on site, even without detergent, unless we take elaborate steps to collect the runoff for disposal.
 
1. So we can add the nature and role of Change Management to the long list of topics that you don't actually understand but pontificate about.
2. Oh look a right-wing lie. :rolleyes:
3. No-one is doing so. What is happening is that the risks are being exaggerated and lied about, and you're parroting those lies.
4. So the "EVs are so heavy they'll destroy roads and bridges" lie makes an appearance. :rolleyes:

Are you able to articulate your reasoning?
 
How can Australia possibly ever have snow if their latitude is so much lower than that of Finland? I mean, there's at least a 90 - 95, maybe even 100 degrees difference in latitude between Helsinki or other parts of Finland and Sydney. ;)

I had thought it was a given that mountainous regions do tend to be snowy. Silly me for failing to point it out.
 
Grenoble is not a ski resort. It's far too low.

Why did you put blizzard in quotation marks?

Pretty nearby, my sibling spent a year or two at Universite Grenoble Alpes via Surrey Uni and would often go skiing in the nearby resorts.

'Blizzard' is in quotation marks because we Finns prefer to be precise about such matters:

1.- lumi: snow
2.- pyry: snow shower
3.- myräkkä: snowstorm
4.- rae: hail
5.- räntä: sleet
6.- tuisku: snow shower with strong wind
7.- laviini: a small avalanche

THE 40 WORDS FOR “SNOW” IN FINNISH
 
I think it's a Range Rover thing. On Friday someone parked a Range River at our local CO-OP petrol station/mini supermarket, at the end of the row of pumps so that no-one could get to any of the driver side pumps. They weren't even at one of the pumps so it wasn't even a case of filling up and leaving their car there while they did their shopping, an annoying but regular act of selfishness. They'd literally stopped with their car angled across the end of the row of pumps and buggered off into the shop rather than park in the carpark.

Surely that is the whole point of a townie owning a Range Rover? It's to pull up at a supermarket in one. Or that was the impression I got with the folks of Sutton Coldfield. Social statement, m'dear. Considerably richer than yo-owwwwww'.
 
Again Vixen, what makes you think you're competent to argue that the two fires should have been comparable and that the Luton fire was extraordinary?

Your say so doesn't cut it unless you prove we should listen to you with experience or expertise. 'It just looks funny dunnit?' Isn't acceptable.

Is this the question..? Citation, please, of where I said I was an expert.

The Merseyside Fire Brigade put out a report on the Liverpool ECHO fire and it is written in a straightforward plain English style. That is how one can compare the Liverpool fire with the Luton one.

The aim of a report is to make recommendations on how such a fire can be avoided in future.
 
Pretty nearby, my sibling spent a year or two at Universite Grenoble Alpes via Surrey Uni and would often go skiing in the nearby resorts.

So you're aware of the differences between a large industrial city in the valleys and actual ski resorts in the mountains.
'Blizzard' is in quotation marks because we Finns prefer to be precise about such matters:
Which is utterly irrelevant to this conversation in English.
 
Is this the question..? Citation, please, of where I said I was an expert.

Asked and answered. You rarely claim to be an expert. You just assume you are and expect everyone else to take your judgment as fact. See here for a more thorough explanation of your habitual dishonest practice of insinuating expertise.

The Merseyside Fire Brigade put out a report on the Liverpool ECHO fire and it is written in a straightforward plain English style.

Asked and answered. Official accident reports are (1) not inexorably written in plain language, and (2) require some relevant expertise to interpret properly. You do not have the relevant expertise.

That is how one can compare the Liverpool fire with the Luton one.

No. The generalization of the findings of one accident to express expectations for a materially different accident requires expert judgment. You do not have that expertise.

The aim of a report is to make recommendations on how such a fire can be avoided in future.

That doesn't allow the type of comparison you are attempting.
 
Are you able to articulate your reasoning?

It's pretty obviously articulated already. He was kind enough to highlight four specific statements in your post and explain why the claim made there is not convincing.

1. Judgment based on expertise you don't have. I wrote fairly extensively a day or so ago on the hidden premise in many of your arguments that presumes a foundation for judgment that in some cases you can't provide, and that in other cases we know from evidence you don't have.

2. A reference to the 15-minute city conspiracy theory in which people will be compelled to give up automobiles.

3. A reference to your conspiracy theory that officials are going to great lengths to cover up failures in electric vehicles.

4. Factually incorrect statement that electric vehicles are generally more heavy than comparably sized internal-combustion powered vehicles.

The reasoning is the premises upon which you are basing your conclusions vary between provably false at worst and suspiciously conjectural at best. Any further questions?
 
Is this the question..? Citation, please, of where I said I was an expert.

The Merseyside Fire Brigade put out a report on the Liverpool ECHO fire and it is written in a straightforward plain English style. That is how one can compare the Liverpool fire with the Luton one.

The aim of a report is to make recommendations on how such a fire can be avoided in future.

Ah ah ah, I never said you claimed to be an expert, I asked why you think you are competent to assess the difference.
 
Are you able to articulate your reasoning?


This sort of post is the reason that people doubt your claim to have been educated in England. The post you were replying to was written in terms that a native English speaker would have no trouble comprehending.
 
Hey! I drive a BMW and I'm quite polite to other drivers on the roadways.

And I find idiots driving Dodge and Chevy pick up trucks far more annoying and impolite.

In the UK Audi drivers became the new BMW drivers. You guys aren't so bad any more, I mean, you're not Volvo drivers.
 
A sentiment which I'm sure is shared by all BMW drivers, whether or not anyone else would agree. :D


There's a quite well-known psychology experiment which conducted a poll of something like 2,000 drivers, and something like 3/4 of those polled considered themselves to be above-average or significantly above-average drivers.....

Anyhow, I drive a Mercedes coupe and I most certainly am a very good (and considerate) driver :D
 
Is this the question..? Citation, please, of where I said I was an expert.

The Merseyside Fire Brigade put out a report on the Liverpool ECHO fire and it is written in a straightforward plain English style. That is how one can compare the Liverpool fire with the Luton one.

The aim of a report is to make recommendations on how such a fire can be avoided in future.


The Beds Fire & Rescue Service put out a straightforward plain-English statement which unequivocally said that the initial vehicle to catch fire in the Luton Airport car park fire was an ordinary diesel car, and not a hybrid of any variety.

My word, we're onto the 55th page of the second iteration of a thread about a simple diesel-vehicle fire in an airport car park. And all those (wasted) words are 95% driven (no pun intended) by a single antagonist peddling conspiracy theories - albeit under the (clearly bogus) guise of "some people are saying" and "I'm only interested in the truth". What a bloody waste of everyone's time and effort.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom