Luton Airport Car Park Fire

Status
Not open for further replies.
JayUtah said:
<snip> logical fallacy ad hominem.



Disconnecting the load from a lithium-ion battery that is or about to experience thermal runaway does absolutely nothing to prevent it. The reaction you fear in that kind of battery is a chemical reaction inside the cell, not a problem with the load circuit. And you can still have problems with the load circuits with the battery in perfectly good condition and indicating no failure. Then you'd have the same scenario as with any other car's non-propulsive electrical system.
Click to expand...

No, the reason the engine cuts off when the electronics detects something dodgy going on with the battery, the aim is to prevent an electric fire from dashboard activity, such as the heater, operation of the engine, lights, radio, etc. It is a safety feature, except some EV drivers have found themselves also unable to open the car doors when all of this cuts out.

Once a thermal runaway start you can't stop it, you should get away as fast as possible. Find out how to exit your EV car in an emergency.
 
No, it's not ad hominem to point out that you think you're making a statistical argument without being able to demonstrate any understanding of statistics.

Vixen said:
No, the reason the engine cuts off...
Click to expand...

Yes, you just repeated what I said, only with more words. The scenario you're proposing for the hypothetical electric or hybrid vehicle as the cause for the Luton fire is a thermal runaway of a lithium-ion battery. Pointing out that the load circuits are disconnected for safety doesn't have anything to do with it.
 
JayUtah said:
No, it's not ad hominem to point out that you think you're making a statistical argument without being able to demonstrate any understanding of statistics.



Yes, you just repeated what I said, only with more words. The scenario you're proposing for the hypothetical electric or hybrid vehicle as the cause for the Luton fire is a thermal runaway of a lithium-ion battery. Pointing out that the load circuits are disconnected for safety doesn't have anything to do with it.
Click to expand...

Stop spreading unpleasant lies about me. I am well qualified in statistics. Sorry if that sticks in your craw.


Sorry, but hybrid vehicles do have disconnection management systems. Hence the debate on the meaning of the 'culprit' car's tail lights being on because if a hybrid, that doesn't necessarily mean the driver left the engine on.
 
No one is spreading lies about you Vixen, unpleasant or no. You may well claim to be well qualified in statistics but you've been lying about your qualifications and expertise repeatedly, so forgive us if we don't believe you.
 
Update today: Luton Car Park to be demolished.

The car park that caught fire at Luton Airport will have to be "fully demolished", the airport confirmed.

The fire broke out on level three of Terminal Car Park 2 on 10 October and was thought to have started in a diesel car before spreading rapidly.

The airport said any cars parked on levels ground to three "are not recoverable".

However a process is still "ongoing" to remove around 100 vehicles from the top deck.
Click to expand...
BBC

One wonders what will be done about Car Park no. 1, as that is supposedly where all the EV chargers are located. Correlation with charging and EV fires. But otherwise, probably the same design as the doomed no. 2 car park.
 
Vixen said:
Stop spreading unpleasant lies about me. I am well qualified in statistics. Sorry if that sticks in your craw.
Click to expand...

I told you what was wrong with your "statistics" argument. You have no response. That's typical from you every time you try some new way of claiming you're better and smarter than everyone else. Sorry if that sticks in your craw.

Sorry, but hybrid vehicles do have disconnection management systems.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant. The car in question was diesel-fueled, not hybrid.
 
JayUtah said:
I told you what was wrong with your "statistics" argument. You have no response. That's typical from you every time you try some new way of claiming you're better and smarter than everyone else. Sorry if that sticks in your craw.



Irrelevant. The car in question was diesel-fueled, not hybrid.
Click to expand...

Sorry but I was explaining why it is near meaningless to cite statistics showing that 'most car fires are petrol' or whatever. It really does not prove anything about the car in question.
 
Vixen said:
Sorry but I was explaining why it is near meaningless to cite statistics showing that 'most car fires are petrol' or whatever.
Click to expand...

No, you were trying to bluff your way past the statistics showing your insinuation that vehicle fires occur preferentially in accidents isn't supported by evidence. What you did was mention the word "statistics" and then make up a bunch of stuff. The other insinuation that accident induced fires cannot be qualitatively compared to non-accident fires simply has no statistical basis.

It really does not prove anything about the car in question.
Click to expand...

You're trying to bluster your way past evidence showing how quickly fires develop in vehicles using only the non-fuel components as the combustible. The vehicle in question regarding the Luton fire is diesel-fueled. Citing irrelevant facts about hybrids doesn't change that fact.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
The thing is, when Andrew Hopkinson chief fire officer of Beds said, "“We don’t believe it was an electric vehicle,” Andrew Hopkinson, chief fire officer for Bedfordshire Fire and Rescue Service, said.

“It’s believed to be diesel-powered, at this stage all subject to verification. And then that fire has quickly and rapidly spread.”

He was not lying.
Click to expand...

If, indeed, he has good evidence right now that it's a diesel hybrid then this statement is grossly misleading at best and is reasonably called a lie. When we say something is a diesel vehicle, we mean internal combustion. We never call a diesel hybrid anything but a diesel hybrid.

If he knows it's a hybrid, such careful parsing of words won't evade claims of dishonesty. Especially not since, as I hear, most people are too stupid to even understand terms like "pending final verification".

A picture was circulated of the suspect car, which the public were supposed to work out for themselves was a Range Rover. As Range Rover are not bringing out a full EV until 2024, then Hopkinson can say it is not believed to be an EV with full confidence. Likewise, there is nothing to prevent a diesel car from also being a mild hybrid or a plug-in hybrid as the diesel will be the majority power of the car. So he is not lying there, either.
Click to expand...

See above.

In the Liverpool Fire the make and model of the originating vehicle was named immediately (Range Rover) but on this occasion the fire brigade has not actually uttered those words, so your number one surmise that legal advise is what has come into play here. This could be because:

  • There is a trheat of legal action against the car brand which could backfire if wrongly named.
  • Political pressure from high up due to the recent investment in a Jaguar Land Rover gigfactory to make Car Batteries via Tata, the owners of JLR.
  • There may be a polcie investigation ongoing. That will be a gag.
  • The Fire Brigade works closely with the police to draw up its Fire Report, so it would be unethical to announce a cause before the investigation has been completed.
  • A man has been arrested 'as a precaution' on suspicion of Criminal Damage. The police might not want to alert other suspects, so he is effectively also gagged and stopped from leaving the country.
  • The press are gagged from identifying this guy or discussing him due to the police arrest.
Click to expand...

None of these purported reasons change my analysis. If the facts come out in mere months, then the hiding of information will have done no good at all. Indeed, it will only harm the authority of the fire brigade, because people will not trust them nearly so readily in the future.

So you see, there is no conspiracy or 'lie' per se.
Click to expand...

If you know it's an EV, then it is definitely a lie to say you believe it's a diesel. If you know it's a hybrid, then it's close enough to a lie that the difference is inconsequential. You are knowingly encouraging your audience to conclude it's a strictly internal combustion engine when you know damned well it's not.

If as expected it is revealed to be a q-lithium battery fault then there is no loss of face for the fire brigade as they did say subject to verification and it was diesel as they believed.
Click to expand...

You've said most people can't understand caveats like "pending verification". This is why, you claim, that the web page can't be trusted -- they simplified the text because people don't know what such caveats mean. So how then can the same caveat protect ones reputation when most people can't understand it?

This is especially a problem since a number of layfolk have claimed it's an EV or Hybrid from the start. In that case, the brigade looks utterly dishonest or incompetent, since even the untrained observer recognized the real source.

So, no, if it turns out to be a hybrid, then the reputation of the fire brigade will certainly and appropriately suffer.

And, even supposing this weren't the case, what advantage is there to hiding the truth until the official report comes out? How does this benefit the brigade or whoever is supposed to be interested? Such reports don't take forever. As I said, the Liverpool report was a mere five months after the event (not two years as I think you've suggested).

As with the Liverpool car park fire, no-one was killed or seriously hurt so I expect that by the time the report comes out it'll be yesterday's news hidden on page 5 which most people will have forgotten about already. But there has been a lot of public interest in this particular case so it will be interesting to see how it is handled if it turns out it was indeed a lithium battery issue initially. They may never know for sure.
Click to expand...

If they never know for sure, then so be it. I kinda doubt that they would find no evidence of a lithium battery, but I don't know much. In that case, they haven't been dishonest. But that's not the case we've been discussing. We've been discussing a case that is so clear and easy to recognize that folks online can identify the hallmarks of a lithium battery just by watching some amateur videos online and hence the caveat of the chief is intended to deceive.
 
I seem to recall an arrest was announced related to this fire. Some assumed the driver of the initial vehicle was arrested, though no name or reason for arrest was given. It seems like a reasonably good bet, but who knows?

In any case, I presume that there's only so long a person can be held before charges are filed and the name released. I could be wrong about the latter perhaps. Has there been any more information about this arrest?
 
Vixen said:
The thing is, when Andrew Hopkinson chief fire officer of Beds said, "“We don’t believe it was an electric vehicle,” Andrew Hopkinson, chief fire officer for Bedfordshire Fire and Rescue Service, said.

“It’s believed to be diesel-powered, at this stage all subject to verification. And then that fire has quickly and rapidly spread.”

He was not lying.

A picture was circulated of the suspect car, which the public were supposed to work out for themselves was a Range Rover. As Range Rover are not bringing out a full EV until 2024, then Hopkinson can say it is not believed to be an EV with full confidence. Likewise, there is nothing to prevent a diesel car from also being a mild hybrid or a plug-in hybrid as the diesel will be the majority power of the car. So he is not lying there, either.

In the Liverpool Fire the make and model of the originating vehicle was named immediately (Range Rover) but on this occasion the fire brigade has not actually uttered those words, so your number one surmise that legal advise is what has come into play here. This could be because:

  • There is a trheat of legal action against the car brand which could backfire if wrongly named.
  • Political pressure from high up due to the recent investment in a Jaguar Land Rover gigfactory to make Car Batteries via Tata, the owners of JLR.
  • There may be a polcie investigation ongoing. That will be a gag.
  • The Fire Brigade works closely with the police to draw up its Fire Report, so it would be unethical to announce a cause before the investigation has been completed.
  • A man has been arrested 'as a precaution' on suspicion of Criminal Damage. The police might not want to alert other suspects, so he is effectively also gagged and stopped from leaving the country.
  • The press are gagged from identifying this guy or discussing him due to the police arrest.

So you see, there is no conspiracy or 'lie' per se.

If as expected it is revealed to be a q-lithium battery fault then there is no loss of face for the fire brigade as they did say subject to verification and it was diesel as they believed.

As with the Liverpool car park fire, no-one was killed or seriously hurt so I expect that by the time the report comes out it'll be yesterday's news hidden on page 5 which most people will have forgotten about already. But there has been a lot of public interest in this particular case so it will be interesting to see how it is handled if it turns out it was indeed a lithium battery issue initially. They may never know for sure.
Click to expand...

It was a diesel car, the fire service have confirmed it.
 
Vixen said:
Stop spreading unpleasant lies about me. I am well qualified in statistics. Sorry if that sticks in your craw.


Sorry, but hybrid vehicles do have disconnection management systems. Hence the debate on the meaning of the 'culprit' car's tail lights being on because if a hybrid, that doesn't necessarily mean the driver left the engine on.
Click to expand...

It was a diesel car that started the fire, the fire service have confirmed it.
 
Vixen said:
Sorry but I was explaining why it is near meaningless to cite statistics showing that 'most car fires are petrol' or whatever. It really does not prove anything about the car in question.
Click to expand...

It proves the living **** out of the fact that the type of fire you're trying so desperately to dismiss as suspiciously improbable is actually extremely common.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom