I wonder if it was started by an electric car fire 😬
I’ll be surprised if it’s not
my mum was flying back from Glasgow last night
we had to track her on flightradar to figure out if she was diverting to Gatwick or Stansted, in the end it was Gatwick and she got the train straight through back to Luton where my dad could pick her up
no Idea of vehicle type, but i remember when my neighbours old Beetle went up on a hot day outside our house, pretty scary how quickly it went from a bit of smoke to a fireball
Someone has just lost their no claims bonus in style.
My money would be on a badly maintained car that had been making 'progress' as they were late.
Consequentially, hot.
BBC news is saying it was a diesel car that started it?
ahh okay - noting about that (that I’ve seen) on the BBC news website yet.
Diesel
We had the bosses old car torched in the multi-storey at work recently. Made a hell of a mess. Still hissed off as employers still haven't cleaned the bike parking area properly. Everything is black from four foot upwards. They have at least mopped the floor of black ash.
Vauxhall ?
Seriously though been a lot of car fires and significantly more broken down (not just aged) vehicles littering the road than I remember for a long time.
Cost of living impacting repair and maintenance of vehicles highly likely.
I am curious how this would work insurance wise.
Is the insurer of the car (assuming it wasnt a building fault that started it) going to be responsible for all the payout.
Asking for a friend honest.
Is the insurer of the car (assuming it wasnt a building fault that started it) going to be responsible for all the payout.
Yes.
Interesting how many people automatically assume that if there's a fire it's caused by an electric car.
Is the insurer of the car (assuming it wasnt a building fault that started it) going to be responsible for all the payout.
Interesting question (to which there is probably an obvious answer): let's assume this fire caused £10 million of damage to other cars, to the structure, to disruption to the airport etc. And let's assume the car owner is at fault. If the owner's third party policy only covers £5 million of liability, will they go after the driver personally for the balance?
We had the bosses old car torched
Christ where do you work and what had he done?
Luckily no one was hurt but my first thought was why was no sprinkler system installed?
If the owner’s third party policy only covers £5 million of liability, will they go after the driver personally for the balance?
Would they even bother?
You're never going to get £millions out of some regular Joe punter at Luton airport, all you'd achieve is bankrupting someone and probably claw back less than the costs of your legal fees. I guess we're talking insurance companies though, so anything's possible.
An electric car probably didn't start it but a few will be involved and bringing their own challenges to the situation.
Anyone know how insurance was handled after the similar incident in Liverpool a few years ago?
1000+ cars , and the structure destroyed. Estimated £20m+ of damage
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-46290095
If the owner’s third party policy only covers £5 million of liability, will they go after the driver personally for the balance?
If Luton is like any other airport car park there won't be working CCTV due to lack of investment, so they might struggle to identify the car that started it anyway.
Unlikely (but of course possible) to be an EV, for two reasons
1 - EVs are something like 10+ times less likely to catch fire than an ICE or an Hybrid
2 - There are photos of a LR Discovery Sport (not an ICE) on fire all on its own on Twitter - story is is caught fire before being parked hence the owner jumped out quick.
But it's all conjecture at this point. Lets wait and see.
In parallel with that though, the tabloids and general gutter press anti-EV campaign seems to be having an effect, evidenced the first two posts on this thread.
I know a guy who is rabidly anti-EV, his rants (and they are proper rants!) always come round to the subject of fires. I know they can be difficult if not impossible to extinguish - but they aren’t [i]that[/i] common are they? Certainly not compared to conventional car fires. I don’t think it would make much difference in a (sprinkler-less!) multi storey anyway would it, it’s going to be way too hot inside to deal with anyway once a few petrol/diesels are on fire in such a confined space, surely!In parallel with that though, the tabloids and general gutter press anti-EV campaign seems to be having an effect
if the owner hasn't been demonstratably negligent then they're only on the hook for their own car. everyone else claims off their own insurance. 3rd party coverage doesn't cover "everything caused by your car" it just covers "things you negligently did in your car", so if your car is burned by a "random" fire event in the car next door (which is possible, I've had a car do it), their insurance isn't covering jack.
In parallel with that though, the tabloids and general gutter press anti-EV campaign seems to be having an effect, evidenced the first two posts on this thread.
The structural damage bit is interesting - whether it was before the fire or caused by the fire - because a major concern now for a lot of multi-storey car parks is the extra weight of modern vehicles. Not all to do with EV of course, much of it just because of auto-bloat over the last 10 years but EVs are heavier again and the buildings simply weren't designed for that amount of weight; they were built in the days when a car weighed 1500kg. Plenty of modern cars are up around the 2000+kg mark now.
At the Liverpool car park fire one factor was the type of petrol tank in modern cars. Rather than being metal which can split on impact they tend to be 'plastic' which bend on impact, hence safer in crashes, but can melt. Hence, one car catches fire, petrol tank melts spreading burning fuel under other cars, whose petrol tanks melt, spreading more burning fuel.............................
but they aren’t that common are they?
Significantly less common than ICEs. Most ICE fires are due to the sheer complexity of the design - EVs are considerably less complex.
Do bear in mind that there are some pretty significant press campaigns against EVs - just look at the Sun - they run story after story on the topic. It appears to be partially sponsored by parties with an interest in keeping ICEs alive, and partially because their target audience engage and it drives conflict hence "clicks" - quite some parallel with the anti-cycling narrative.
In fact, being an EV driver, working broadly in the car / powertrain development industry and a cyclist I see a lot of similarities between the narratives. People have swallowed the stories they've been fed re why EVs don't work etc and repeat those as facts. Same with facts as to why cyclists are terrible etc. As an EV drive - they're absolutely fine - no worries at all, even charging on a road trip isn't the issue that is reported. I have 750 miles to drive next week without a home charger and have not a single worry about it.
What makes this really interesting is for those of us who have been convinced by the anti-EV argument (I include myself in that one before I had one) - it's a bit of an insight into the mindset of those who have bought into the anti-cyclist argument. Us humans are very suggestible !
Hence, one car catches fire, petrol tank melts spreading burning fuel under other cars, whose petrol tanks melt, spreading more burning fuel………………………..
TBH I'd prefer a plastic tank that melts and dumps fuel at a reasonable temperature all over the (flaming) floor. Rather than a steel tank that allows it to boil and then spray a mixture of boiling petrol and vapour out of all the holes once it hits the pressure limit or the plastic fittings/lines melt... Unless of course there is a sprinkler that can bring it under control before then.
(BTW it takes a good long while to melt a plastic tank)
Bullet
Full MemberBBC news is saying it was a diesel car that started it?
Indeed, confirmed as diesel car
https://twitter.com/Gill_Nowell/status/1712027823114772709
And a video, looks like an RR Evoque to me
https://twitter.com/LordCxsh/status/1712007637112344967
It is interesting everyone leaps to it must have been an EV. As above, shows how susceptible we are to propaganda.
There's already a video on YouTube showing the fire and proclaiming it to be the deathknell for the EV. Any comment that states it was caused by a diesel SUV (Evoque) are being deleted.
there isn't sufficient data to suggest one way or the other what propolsion system is more likely to catch fire, there are too many variables, one of which is that ~50% of vehicle fires are arson!
depending on what way you want to swing the argument around car fires and the accelerant that causes it , you can claim that either is worse or better.
Interesting how many people automatically assume that if there’s a fire it’s caused by an electric car.
Cars never caught fire before EVs.
There is a crazy amount of misinformation on this. I mean the only reason we have "third party FIRE and theft" insurance is because ICE cars used to regularly catch fire. ICE cars have got gallons of flammable (potentially explosive) liquid in ffs. And it's under where your children sit!
It is interesting everyone leaps to it must have been an EV. As above, shows how susceptible we are to propaganda.
I don't think anyone 'leaped' at the assumption – I posted the original thread wondering if it was (with a gritted teeth emoji) as I knew just what the fall-out would be if it turned out to be.
If that makes sense?
"Cars never caught fire before EVs."
You're either a Joker or an Idiot, which is it?
Cars never caught fire before EVs.”
You’re either a Joker or an Idiot, which is it?
I think you might be missing the irony
It should have been an EV
How about that? - then that keeps everyone happy! /s
nice back-pedalling 😉I don’t think anyone ‘leaped’ at the assumption – I posted the original thread wondering if it was (with a gritted teeth emoji) as I knew just what the fall-out would be if it turned out to be.
You’re either a Joker or an Idiot, which is it?
That's not an either or question, though in this case it's very very clearly the former.
nice back-pedalling
Not back-pedalling at all - that is exactly why I put the gritted teeth emoji there in the first place.
It is interesting that the point even comes up, I wonder if before ICE you'd have petrol drivers suggesting it was diesel? (too young to know if there was that divide, honest).
On subject of propaganda, it's similar to the "EV is so heavy they cause way more damage to roads"
For those asking who is liable, a similar case happened here a few years ago and it seems they went after the car manufacturer and the garage that sold it.
https://www.rte.ie/news/2020/0713/1153085-shopping-centre-fire/
It's really easy to be mis-understood.
Statement like "I wonder whether" also read in a quite accusatory manner.
For example....
"
I wonder whether @johndoh reads the Daily Mail 😬
"
Note - this is not a personal attack - I'm not actually suggesting he does, just illustrating how this type of sentance can come across.
5labFull Member
if the owner hasn’t been demonstratably negligent then they’re only on the hook for their own car. everyone else claims off their own insurance. 3rd party coverage doesn’t cover “everything caused by your car” it just covers “things you negligently did in your car”, so if your car is burned by a “random” fire event in the car next door (which is possible, I’ve had a car do it), their insurance isn’t covering jack.
This is correct, every man for themselves insurance wise, unless they can prove that the owner of the vehicle that caught fire was negligent, which is very unlikely, on account of everything having been on fire. This is a common misunderstanding even within the insurance industry, just because the fire started somewhere else, doesn't mean that someone else will pay your claim.
