There is no law in the USA that requires winter tyres...
None of that makes your claim that the U.S. has only occasional snows, that last a couple of days at most, any less wrong. Despite a lack of laws mandating snow tire use, they are quite common in the northern U.S. Other people make use of all season tires designed to work on snow as well as pavement. I had an uncle who had snow chains hanging in his garage because he lived in rural Michigan and had a plow attachment for his Ford F-250. Most towns and cities in the snow belt have snow plows with salt spreaders to help clear the roads. When I first moved from the Great Lakes region to South Carolina, I was amazed by the number of old cars, like Volkswagen Beetles, that were still on the roads here, because up north the copious road salt use means that old cars tend to rust out quite badly. In rural and/or mountainous regions, they don't need a snow tire law because people just know they need them when the time is right.
Secondly, if your car has lights on 'automatic' they will switch off when you switch off the engine or the start button.
And? What if you don't have the lights on 'automatic' (or don't have that feature), or you don't switch off the engine? You're still wrong about the lights being on precluding an electrical fault in the vehicle in question. An actual investigator would look at the light evidence and understand how little that indicates, but you want to play armchair detective so you try to make it mean something that you can "discern for yourself".
If the electrics have caught fire, then one would expect all lights to fuse as automatically so lights wouldn't normally still be showing if the driver has switched off the engine or start button. Unless of course the lights were on manually but even then, the electric fire is likely to short circuit.
All you're doing is demonstrating your ignorance of how a car's electrical harness works. This is classic Dunning-Kruger effect. Remember way back at the start of the thread when you said you don't know anything about cars? You should try to remember that now instead of pretending you can hold down a discussion of the technical aspects of electrical circuits.
Thirdly, an EV can burn to temperatures up to 2,000ºC, concrete spalls at temperatures over 500ºC. Diesel and tyres do not tend to ignite until the temperature is >500ºC. Fact: the concrete at Luton Airport car park didn't just spall, the rebars deformed and the concrete seems to have melted, or at least fallen through because of lack of support. This did not happen at the Liverpool ECHO car park fire.
So an EV
can burn at temperatures in the same range as butane or propane. Wow! Scarry!
Concrete spalling is not the same as melting.
Why don't all EV fires melt the pavement under them? It seems like that should be a defining feature of EV fires.
Why didn't the video you linked to show molten metal and concrete dripping from a hole in the ceiling? Why did it show a sudden collapse of a span, consistent with the structural failure of steel support brackets caused by the level above being engulfed in flames from numerous burning vehicles?
75 liters of gasoline contains over four times the specific energy of a 450 kg Li-ion battery. The flammable solvents contained in a battery are far less than the fuel typically carried in an ICE car, and they don't burn any worse, even when all the other flammable materials in a car are factored in. What you
think an EV battery fire is compared to other vehicle fires is based on your own ignorance and the ignorance of the conspiracy theorists you're credulously accepting as authorities.
Fourthly, yes a firefighter will be trained to know of the different types of fire. For example, at the recent fire at Moscow's Crocus Concert Hall, it was noted that the 'grenades' thrown by the gunmen 'looked like government issue phosphorous' one due to the white light flares. And as demonstrated by chemistry teachers all over the world.
Oh look! A squirrel!
That's not what I was saying, and I'm sure you know it. You've said that a firefighter at the Luton garage incident said that it looked like an EV fire, but there is zero evidence of this having happened. You couldn't even find the source that
you read it from, and even then that was hearsay, so you have no idea whether it's true or not. That makes it
not a fact. I'm surprised someone as scientifically qualified as yourself would think that was evidence.
It is weird how addicted people are to not knowing or wanting to wait until the authorities tell them what they should surely be able to discern for themselves.
I know you think you're "discerning it for yourself" because you're too clever to be fooled. But the truth is that you are too ignorant of even the basic physics of the matter to discern anything about it for yourself. That's why you're upset - why you start referring to those you're arguing with using negative language like "addicted". You're trying really hard to sound like the smartest person in the room, but for some reason you insist on doing it in a forum where a lot of people are much more scientifically educated than you are. Or is that the whole point? Is that part of what you really want?
Every genuinely smart person I've ever met has been capable of admitting when they're wrong about something.
