Is the LUTON Car park Negligent? Did an EV/Hybrid cause the fire?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 16 окт 2023
- What do I earn? • How Much Does @BlackBe...
Many people say it was an EV/hybrid that caused the fire, but there is no evidence of that, according to the chief fire officer's investigation of the Luton Airport car park fire. Instead, it appears to have been caused by a diesel vehicle's 12v battery system.
Also, is the car park negligent for not having sprinklers?
Fact Check: fullfact.org/online/electric-...
(not an ev/hybrid!)
£50 Free for switching Energy suppliers:share.octopus.energy/happy-hu... Sponsored!)
Join for exclusive content at blackbeltbarrister.com/
Become a Channel member: / @blackbeltbarrister
Support the channel: buy.stripe.com/14kdUS6gb4f26e...
or one-off: buy.stripe.com/bIYdUSfQLcLy7i...
TO CONTACT ME: Follow & Message on Instagram:
/ blackbeltbarrister
Media/Advertising requests: contact@blackbeltbarrister.com
For FORMAL ADVICE Requests ONLY:
clerks@ShenSmith.com (non formal requests will be deleted)
💌 Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @blackbeltbarrister
MY CAMERA GEAR
🎥 Big Camera amzn.to/3Nhbvll (amazon link)
🎥 Small Camera amzn.to/49P3ugM (amazon link)
🎙 RODE VIDEOMic Pro+ amzn.to/3QSnTJg (amazon link)
Gobe ND Filter amzn.to/40OsRLE (amazon link)
Neewer Ring Light amzn.to/46oiLCr (amazon link)
Switch Pod amzn.to/3ut9JXG (amazon link)
JOBY Gorilla Tripod amzn.to/40QBEgn (amazon link)
External Media Drive amzn.to/40Q6QMx (amazon link)
Peak Design Travel Carbon Tripod amzn.to/46u20Wq (amazon link)
Peak Design iPhone Tripod amzn.to/47DzTFg (amazon link)
Aputure Amaran 200x S amzn.to/47zFHQe (amazon link)
Aputure RGB amzn.to/3sTpgPQ (amazon link)
IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER:
I'm a Barrister of England and Wales.
Videos for educational guidance only, Always seek advice before taking action. Videos on my channel are not legal advice and should not be taken as such. I accept no liability for any reliance placed upon the content of these videos or references, therein.
#blackbeltbarrister #lawyer #barrister
Description contains affiliate links; I will occasionally earn commissions from qualifying purchases or leads generated.
The trouble with being a barrister, is that you believe what you are told by people whom you should be able to trust. Sadly, the fire department, together with a considerable number of police forces, have demonstrated repeatedly that they are perfectly happy to lie through their teeth and are far from trustworthy.
Deluded rambling.
@@eadweard. there's no evidence then?!
@@tim1289r No evidence for what?
@eadweard. I assumed you were replying to my original comment. If indeed you were, then i would suggest rather a lot of evidence to support my claim, however, if this comment section has just made it appear as though you were responding to my comment, then please ignore my previous comment.
@@tim1289r Which claim specifically is there a lot of evidence to support?
I have seen the first car on fire during the early stages. I am sorry BBB, but you will not convince me that it was not a hybrid vehicle.
Me too. Looking at the way the flames were shown to be exiting sideways from under the vehicle. This would not happen with fossil fuel alone. Maybe a hybrid???
Whilst there are fuel lines on an ICE vehicle that run to the front from the tank at the back these would not generally have any significant pressure in them with the vehicle parked as the lift pump in the fuel tank would not be running. The fuel would not squirt out to the side and would drip down onto the floor.
At this time we could all be classed a speculative keyboard worriers as we are not is possession of the true facts. Lets wait for the full unbiased report to arrive.
My heart goes out to all those that have been affected as dealing with insurance companies is never a smooth quick process and we all have our lives to get on with.
@@pichacker I would absolutely agree. EV/hybrid. Of course everybody concerned would rush to say it wasn't. There are billions at stake here. It would equate to a hate crime against the future of EV's. They ain't about to let anybody bring that edifice down.
Apparently, the words of Beds Firs Service initial statement that it was "not likely" an EV are sufficient proof for him. Concerning.
I've seen PLENTY of diesel fires in my time, and not one of them EVER looked anything that Range Rover 😮
@@HappyBagger Yes indeed. Fireman are largely recruited at base level and promoted through the ranks, not directly as a result of their intelligence level or reasoning ability. In addition, I have in the past been involved in briefing barristers. They may well be experts in law, but in their knowledge of the real world, many leave much to be desired.
Observation of the available early footage indicates that the fire was other than a diesel fire, through both severity and flame colour.
The hybrid power train was in existence at the time this car was constructed.
SO@@andrewthompsonuk1
Sure as shit looks like a battery fire given the lack of black smoke.
Diesel burns with black smoke.
@@andrewthompsonuk1yet, registration shows it was a pure diesel.
Has the Fire Investigator produced any actual evidence to support his assertion of the type of vehicle? Such as the reg number, VIN number or clear cctv of the vehicle entering the car park. Any one of these would enable anyone to confirm the fuel type and whether it was a EV or a hybrid or a filthy diesel. They are being very coy and I wonder why.
It was reported as E10EFL
@@ditch3827 There are two photos going about one from the rear and one from the front they don't appear to match number plate wise.
@@theolderigetthewrongbitget4746 They’re not on top floor neither !
Why would the Fire Service release a statement saying they believe it was a diesel car if that was not the case? I guess the evidence is their rather sophisticated investigations team.
I do not think they have any obligation to release any more evidence to the general public. Even if they did, I am certain it would not matter anyway. People seem to want to be convinced it was an EV.
@@drivinginluton5745 Well Sam as Terror attacks , no description of perps given as orders given from the Government to keep it 🤐
The VIN number of the burning vehicle is known to the authorities. Publish the VIN number.
What's the point of that? The conspiracy theorists have already decided what they believe.
Could those who lost their vehicles and other expenses collectively sue luton airport?A lady did try to use two fire extinguishers but they were both empty. Having then gone to the floor above there was only one fire extinguisher. This is surely negligence .
The Airport does not own the Car Park. Its not located within the boundaries of what Luton Airport owns. I found this out via their info pages on the Luton Airport Customer Info Page for Health and Safety.
She'd never have been able to put the fire out, there is no current practical way to put out an NMC battery fire. One method that has been tested is to submerge the vehicle in brine (A saturated salty solution), but that's really not practical, especially in a car park... The only entity that could be sued is the owner of the vehicle that started the fire, the car park was within the fire regs at the time it was built.
The vehemence of the authority's denials that it was an EV/hybrid tells me it was a hybrid.
But is was actually a 2014 DIESEL RANGE ROVER SPORT SE TDV6 A so not a hybrid
You just have paranoia. It does not make it a hybrid.
The cars verified registration tells me it was pure diesel.
Does anybody care what you think anyway???
@@ditch3827 The database that the public is allowed to access for that reg could have been changed. If you do an insurance check for that reg number it comes up as a hybrid but if you go to Kwik Fit it comes up as TDV6. 🤔
I dont car either way but just watched a video which goes into detail of an eye witness video of the "Evoque" burning severely under the front left, where the battery is in the hybrid version. The video goes on to explain a number of observations including no black smoke that would come with a diesel fire and the lights of the car still on so the 12V battery was still working. Why hasn't the owner just come forward and said what is was? Surely the police, insurance and media know by now. It just adds to the conspiracy theory that they are trying to cover it up.
this might feed the conspiracy about this issue but it has been reported that some people who publish photos of their burning EV that in some of these cases the police approach them as ask that they do not do so. I would normally scoff at such suggestions but in recent years this would actually fit exactly into what we see in other areas of policing.
DVLA say it was a 2014 DIESEL RANGE ROVER SPORT SE TDV6 A. Or are you suggesting in you crackpot conspiracy theory that the registration was altered?
@@ditch3827 thanks for being polite. It's not my theory. As I said I don't care either way but I'm just saying there is a video of the vehicle on fire with detailed observations of what can be seen in the fire and why it doesn't look like a diesel fire. They don't say it's not a diesel. That's all I'm saying. I don't care either way like I said.
@@donkinghan1 As it was a diesel fire, perhaps that is what diesel fires look like.
@@ditch3827 I didn't realize you were standing next to it and know for sure. Why do you feel you need to argue? I just shared info about the video I say which was on the Telegraph website and someone has made observations like the flames shoot downwards the smoke is not black...Again I don't care. It makes no difference to me if it was diesel or EV. Seriously, you want to argue over a car fire in Luton??? I just commented on a video. Am I not allowed to? No more replies.
Ive seen flames like that before many many times from lithium battery powered RC cars and drones,the advice is to keep the batterys stored in an old ammo box as they can spontaneously burst into flames,difference with EVs is your sat in the ammo box with the battery.
Except the registration has been verified to be from a pure diesel powertrain.
@@williammeek4078 what's the reg?
@@williammeek4078One drop down menu at the DVLA, believe half of what you see and none of what you're told!
The rc batteries are a bit different. They often have an external battery manager and sometimes the chargers are h
Diy and force charge the batteries without any cooling which is a recipe for disaster.
Most if not all evs made in the last few years aerial lifepo4 which doesn't burn even if you drill holes or put a pickaxe through them.
The source may well be ICE vehicle. But in car parks like this cars are parked very close together, which aids spread of fire. I am sure there will be EV or hybrid vehicles that subsequently caught fire and possibly made the event worse? Quite possible that new laws will come into being as we have more battery based vehicles. EVs may be less likely to catch fire but when they do, the fires are more intense. Sprinklers, compartments etc may become a necessity.
An interesting closely related subject here is the difference between trying to stop an event happening, then mitigating the impact of that event if it happens. In reliability engineering we use what is amusingly known as a 'Bow Tie' assessment. The knot of the tie is the event that usually you do not want to happen. At one far end before the event you put in place the processes which help prevent the event. A good example is brakes on a car to stop a collision. On the other side of the event you put in place processes that mitigate the effect of the event. Seat belts are the optimal example. One could say that an ambulance service and hospital is at the extreme end of the mitigation processes.
The point being that a fire suppression system is not going to prevent an initial event occurring, just mitigate the impact of it.
Agree re bowtie analysis. But the fire is the threat, the uncontrolled fire the top event and the sprinkler would sit after the fire and before the car park collapse - the catastrophic outcome. The had the threat - a burning vehicles, they had a top event - uncontrolled fire, and they failed to place effective mitigation defenses between that and uncontrolled fire and collapse.
@@limyrob1383 Well I agree, yes and I'm surprised or maybe not, that they had not considered the full set of possible consequences to an event almost bound to occur eventually. Had they been required to have performed a safety case then the lack of any mitigation of such an event that is highly likely to occur would seem negligent. Passing the issue off as a not required by regulations is a bit old hat these days.
@@andyrbush I agree with your comments about mitigation. In a nuclear plant safety case, it would be expected that all reasonably practicable measures of Prevention, Protection and Mitigation are used to minimise overall consequences and risks. We also like to use bow tie diagrams, including for events such as dropped loads.
How far away is the fire station and how long did it take them to get there? When designing the carpark they will have in mind that there will be a car fire at one or more times. This has happened at Heathrow many times but the downfall of the carparks was salt (concrete cancer). The same with Hammersmith flyover salt.
@@Numbnuts-It is an airport, so it is mandatory to have emergency services on site and if necessary to call on local district emergency services. At the end of the day, these corporations do have to go by the letter of the law and often will get away with minimum requirements of the law. However, that doesn’t stop them from reinvestigating potential safety hazards and making appropriate changes to exceed the requirements of the law.
Thanks for the clear up
I'm going to say only 2 things left to rule out.
1) Brake line corrosion
2) Suspension strut fault
Both are Hydraulic fluid dependent (extremely Flammable)
Which links up to MOT road worthy 🤷🏻♂️🤷🏻♂️
But the EVs that were parked there contributed to the severity of the fire, absolutely guaranteed. Unless we are saying there were ZERO evs parked there?
Talk about clutching at straws 😂😂😂
And every single other car parked in that car park contributed to the spread of the fire, no matter what fuel type it was.
Agreed but an EV in thermal runaway cannot be put out by conventional means.@@staceylee4071
Why Am I clutching at straws? That is a fact, EVs in thermal runaway cannot be extinguished by conventional means, unless you know better?@@fanfeck2844
It takes a lot for Diesel to catch fire, but its not impossible, it takes next to nothing for petrol to catch fire, its very difficult to start and EV fire. Most modern EVs have liquid or force air cooled battery packs which are managed/monitored 24/7 by the car (even when switched off). Chances are if you parked an EV between 2 Petrol cars and set one petrol car on fire, all 3 cars would be burning before the battery finally give up the ghost and caught fire. So while the EV in the middle "Contributed" to the fire by giving the fire a route to spread to the other Petrol car it wouldn't be the battery pack that did it. If anything it would be the exploding 12v battery (that all 3 cars share) that would spread the fire. The real reason this car park fire was so severe is because its bloody long stay airport car park, they're rammed 24/7 so its easy for the fire to spread from car to car regardless of make, model, fuel, color or age. And in this case it was a V6 diesel Range Rover of a vintage before they released a Hybrid model. 🤣
I've never heard a member of the fire brigade making a point, on what fuel the vehicle runs on, in a vehicle fire before !!
And so quickly.
@@partymanau Yes, but he only 'believed' it to be a diesel fire. So I think his belief was his boss being on the phone telling him to believe in his pension.
He knew that everyone would blame an EV for the fire. So corrected people.
@@8skellerns he "corrected" people only in so far as describing what he said was his "belief", not fact.
@@angleseyandy9110Yet all the Militant Diesel Head Clan took it as a conspiracy theory that he was covering up a EV fire, as they want every single car fire to be a EV to use it in their anti EV propaganda.
Liverpool Kings Dock car park..end of December 2017..looked like an identical fire with similar outcomes....Land Rover, no sprinklers, 1200 cars burnt out , car park demolished. I wonder how the legalities of that fire have played out?
yup fully diesel land rover that fire which the usual ev haters on here seem to want to ignore because it rather nulifies all the hate and is of course ridiculous anyway as this wasnt an ev fire, even it was a hybrid you cant say it was the traction battery that caused the fire especially as the battery for the hybrid model is at the rear and not at the front, at the moment nobody knows the exact model of the car all we have is the assurance of the bedfordshire fire department who have no reason to lie that the car was not a hybrid.
The big problem in liverpool was the plastic fuel tanks melting and creating a 'lake of fire' that burned everything in its path!
Not diesel, smoke wasn't thick enough; John Cadogan did a fantastic video on why the Diesel would likely not have been the cause.
Diesel under pressure burns quite differently.
@@andrewbarnard667 The only place in a diesel vehicle where there is enough pressure for it to burn is within the cylinder. The government has pinned it's carbon free future on EV's thus any evidence that might damage the EV's image is silenced... The evidence that this was a self sustaining fire is unimpeachable.... I'm surprised Daniel is going along with this based on Fire chiefs comments, most forget that a Fire chief is a political appointment...
@@dougle03 the diesel is way over 30.000 psi in fuel lines. When fractured if an ignition source is available it will burn just like a jet engine.
@@andrewbarnard667 Only in the injectors, not the lines - but that pressure even in lines is only when the fuel pumps are running and throttle is required. Do you think it was parked up and left, with the engine running?
@OsellaSquadraCorse no the people were in it when it happened. They hadn't got as far as parking it. The fuel lines to injectors in common rail diesels run at higher pressure. Its then just released by the injectors. Its not like the old type where the pump just pressurises each injector in turn. It's done with solenoids and lots of electronics.
If it was a diesel should there have been "oily smoke"?
Only if the temperature and oxygen supply were insufficient to support the complete combustion of the fuel.
Fire chief says that it is the 12 vdc battery that is the usual cause of a vehicle fires.
EV's and Hydrids also have 12 volt batteries !
But this car was a 2014 DIESEL RANGE ROVER SPORT SE TDV6 A so not an EV or Hybrid
So do petrol and diesel cars? 😂 what is your point?
@@iambenmitchell The point is that the car was not an EV or a Hybrid but a diesel.
The type of battery is more important. Lithium batteries can self combust whereas traditional Lead Acid or AGM batteries do not.
@@westwonic But we know it was a 2014 diesel only vehicle so didn't have a lithium battery. All this talk of EVs and lithium batteries is not relevant to this incident.
The area that the flames were exiting the vehicle, plus the colour of the smoke, plus how the flames were exiting as though under pressure, plus that Range Rover have been making hybrids since at least 2014, plus that the cause was decided with 26 minutes of stopping the fire yet Grenfell took 26 months to give a cause, all points to a cover up.
Because it was caught on cctv identified by it's reg number on dvla(UK gov.co.uk)as a 2014 "diesel" plain and simple 😅 get over it. 😂
@@r33gts so many people have seen this CCTV footage that clearly shows the vehicle and registration number…….yet no video has been released.
Ok, evidence free tin foil hat.
@@Malpriorvidsexcept it has
@@r33gtsyep the world is full of these sad know nothing idiots. He’s better to keep his mouth shut and be possibly an idiot rather than open it and confirm it.
If any one is to blame it is the building regulators as it should be mandatory to have sprinkler systems in all such buildings and at present it is optional so the owners of this car park opted out on the grounds of cost.
The fact that so many range rovers have gone up in flames, could range rover be negligent?
The next question is how many diesel vehicles catch fire each year, the government does not appear to give the stats on this, just lumping petrol and diesel car fires together. Even though getting diesel to burn is more difficult due to a much higher flash point.
When I mentioned that it could have been a diesel hybrid vehicle, I was not somebody who wanted it to be an electric vehicle because I don't like them. I was trying to raise the possibility of it being a hybrid after watching a plausible video on the "Auto Expert John Cadogan". The man presenting that channel is not anti EV, he has one.
Being somebody who is of a profession that interacts with the emergency services, you must be aware of the many instances where the police say something that turns out be incorrect.
@woolychewbakker5277 NO. While Auto Expert John Cadogan does have a thing about EV fires - several things by which I should say well researched videos on YT.
As these are well researched they would not have said what you assert BECAUSE Land Rover DO MAKE diesel hybrid vehicles and have done since at least 2014.
We know this because A, you can see them for sale on AutoTrader and B, you can see them going up in flames, their lithium Ion batteries 'torching' from under the passenger seat.
@woolychewbakker5277 And is that 48v battery a multicell Li-Ion battery? Is that the battery that never failed?
The so called auto expert is very anti ev and if you can't see that with his anti ev videos you need to have better understanding of English.
All anti EV "experts" should be roundly ignored. They are incapable of being objective and look for any incident to support their bigoted opinions that Evs are either not cleaner, not safe or dangerous despite all the evidence that proves otherwise. They are dishonest and will resort to outright lies if they think can get away with it.
I doubt anyone would admit to it being an EV even if it was because that kind of scuppers the short sighted current policy of getting us to use the damn things.
Quite. It'll be suppressed just as much as excess deaths. The "nudge unit" needs to keep busy.
@@D-Bunker-zv1bj Evidence?
@@Swaggerlot The DVLA registration which says t was a 2014 Diesel RANGE ROVER SPORT SE TDV6 A
@@Swaggerlot vehicle registration check lists the vehicle shown to be the cause as a diesel and not a diesel hybrid or EV. You can check for yourself, E10 EFL
Yeah. It would be much wiser to invest in public transport, walkability and cyclability rather than move to another damaging individualised transport system centred around cars.
Bizarre that there was no sprinkler system in what looks a modern building. Building regulations? Don’t most establishments put a notice on parking area’s stating the owner will bear no liability to any damage or loss experienced by the car owner.
sprinklers would just make fuel/lithium fires worse
Putting it another way, the ‘cause’ of the fires for all except the first vehicle was the lack of an effective fire containment system I.e. sprinklers. The ‘cause’ of the initial vehicle fire was battery, electrical, fuel, whatever.
Well, it just shows that the new Diesels are clean because there’s no smoke coming from that fire 🙄
That is because the diesel tank was not yet involved in the fire
Diesel does not self ignite in the same way as petrol. It has to be under extreme pressure. However, an electrical fire can start on a vehicle and spread rapidly.
Indeed, and make slightly different coloured smoke than EV batteries do. But apparently that evidence is now outweighed by an initial BFS statement that it was "not likely" an EV.
the 12v electrical system was still working well and truly after the fire has taken hold as the rear tail lights were still working. So unless there is multiple 12 v systems in a simple diesel model or there was some other electrical system in the car that was burning near white. Range Rovers, regardless of model have a terrible history on fires including diesel though.
Soak a rag in diesel, put a match to it and it will burn, vigorously. Doesn't need amazing pressure, or anything special, just enough heat to get it started.
People don’t generally leave a rag soaked in diesel oil in their car, when leaving it at Luton Airport car park though. The chances of a diesel car spontaneously combusting are pretty remote.
@@chrisblay Yet it happens every day of the week somewhere. The magical thinking that diesel, a liquid, low molecular weight hydrocarbon doesn't burn readily is frankly ridiculous.
Modern vehicles have an enormous amount of electronics that are still active when the vehicle is switched off. Electronics can and do fail, sometimes spectacularly.
Not like this vehicle did.
There's been mixed reports locally about the fire. There's fairly strong reports that the car was burning for a whole hour unattended before it spread to other vehicles causing the conflagration. An hour seems to be a very long time to either not call the fire brigade, or for the fire brigade to not turn up if they were.
It does seem fairly certain that there was some considerable time between ignition and wider conflagration, certainly enough time for someone to film it, go up stairs to find a full extinguisher (apparently, the one on that floor was empty).
A lot could rest on the exact sequence of events. A lengthy delay sounds to me like someone has got something very badly wrong. If people had been hurt or killed because of a delay in taking action, there'd certainly be Health and Safety Executive prosecutions in the offing.
Certainly the insurer of the car is not going to want to pay out if there was in fact plenty of time between ignition and conflagration and a reasonable expectation for someone to have done something about it. Understanding exactly why there was a delay is going to be a key component of who pays out.
There's is a strong possibility in all this that there was confusion: the airport has its own fire brigade, but it's duties are only related to aviation, not the car park outside. It's possible that the fire brigade was called, the location given as "Luton Airport", but it was not made clear where the fire was outside the fence and the fire brigade assumed "that's the airport's job". If this happened, then it's anyone's guess as to who holds the blame for the delay.
Yet another angle is that, apparently, the car manufacturer has already said that there was in fact a recall out on the vehicle, but the owner had declined to have the work done. If so, might the insurer decline to pay out on the basis of negligence on the part of the owner?
They might be able to get away with not paying the insured, but would find it almost impossible to not paying the major claim.
The elephant in the room, "why is it so difficult to prove and state officially the type of vehicle involved"? Surely the owner must know for a start! You cannot blame people for smelling a rat given what we now know and how the public gets kidded.
It has been positively identified as a pure diesel powertrain
You have to sign a non-disclosure agreement when you get paid for your silence!
Who by?Source?proof, I ask again, why cant the owner of the vehicle come forward and state what he drives?@@williammeek4078
You'd know the answer to that question if you'd ever been onto the scene of a large fire. It's a mess, a huge, charred, stinking mess. I'm impressed that fire investigators ever get to reach any conclusions at all, let alone quick ones.
@@williammeek4078by whom...?
My old Defender had a habit of spontaneously combusting. In the end it was cured by putting a rubber floor mat on top the battery.
That's not a cure, that's a fudge. 🤔
We know you can't give legal advice, but is this mechanical advice? 🤗
@@taras6806it's really bad advice. If your car has a habit of catching fire taking it to the dealer for repair should your first course of action, not sticking a rubber mat over it. 😂
@@handheldgaming4life I think most would recognise a joke when they see it - I think you did too. 😚
Dodgy Chelsea Tractors.
Sprinklers would not be particularly effective. Car fires tend to be inside the car and cars are largely waterproof. Rate of spread may be reduced be the general cooling effect, but it would still occur and as soon as you got to an ev/hybrid no amount of water will put that out. You would do more with fire breaks architected into the building, periodic gaps and separation to limit direct spread and managment hit gasses and of drainage to preven burning fuel flowing to other sections. But gaps take up space so I'm sure they are kept to a minimum. It does seem unfair that potentially one vehicle insurer (and by proxy mototists) will likely pick up the bill for this when the design of the car park so obviously contributed to the extent of the damage. Imo the biggest driver for change will be when car parks cant insure their building if there isnt a ton of fire damage mitigation designed in. I wouldn't wait fir regulation, it will be late if atall and probably only require some extra signs.
Yes you are technically correct, but that "cooling effect" has important benefits; it buys time for the fire department to respond and it buys time and most likely prevents the concrete from degrading and eventual building collapse.
Hi ,you are correct like putting fire on the roof of a house when kitchen is on fire!!
The important point is that any changes in law as a result of this should be based on the facts of the case, not uninformed opinion or political posturing. For instance, a knee-jerk reaction on installing sprinklers might be counter-productive where vehicle fires are concerned, as anyone who has seen the effect of water on a fuel fire can attest. And even if this was an electrical fire to begin with, petrol and diesel certainly became involved shortly after.
In the picture shown the flames are shooting out on the passenger side. The lights are still lit so the 12v system is still in tact.
Being an airport, Luton Airport's fire fighting fleet probably had a high volume foam canon appliance. I wonder how the fire spread would have been if Foam had been deployed immediately? Foam wouldn't stop a lithium fire but it would slow the spread to adjacent vehicles and structures. Just a thought.
I can't get my small ish van in a multi storey car park, I doubt an airside tender with a roof mounted foam cannon would stand any chance
Neither do fire engines. They all send their fire fighting vehicles to the perimeter.@@Phantom-mk4kp
Just a sprinkler system would serve the same purpose
@@Phantom-mk4kp If my house was on fire I don't expect the fire engine to squeeze through the front door to put it out. As far as I'm aware a fire engine is designed to stand some distance from a fire and use its ability to pump water or foam to put the fire out.
@@tastytechaddictsmtb depends what type of sprinkler.
Some petrol heads will STILL claim that it was an EV that made it worse.
Petrol is far more flammable than a battery in a sealed steel case.
Rubbish, You know very little. Lithium Iron spontaneous combusts Petrol/diesel requires an ignition source. 30 year firefighter
I think we have reached the point where car parks are going to have to have segregated / isolated areas to confine and slow down these car fires in the future. Anything with clear areas which allow fire to spread car to car so easily is now dangerous. The Freemantle Highway ship suffered catastrophically recently in the North Sea and it was supposed to have fire breaks and on board fire suppression. What chance does an open plan car park have.
Well no we just need sprinkler systems. A fire is going to struggle greatly to set fire to other vehicles if they have water pouring off them.
All the traditional fire fighting techniques have their pros and cons but conventional fossil fuel fire fighting won't stop lithium battery thermal run away and the very, very high temperatures these can reach. It doesn't matter what actually starts a fire, once the fire reaches and causes a lithium battery to run away it is way more ferocious than fossil fuels and plastics. Even if no lithium batteries are involved, the open nature of many car parks makes fire transfer easy. A proper fire break arrangement would slow this down and maybe even contain it.@@tastytechaddictsmtb
Question: wouldn't your points about negligence only fully apply to the initial car and the cars directly surrounding it as it could be reasonably assumed that the carpark shouldn't have allowed a fire to spread as far as it did, and thus the cars that were not near the initial car could have a claim against the car park?
That's. What I would assume.
If thats not the case then the law needs to change. Blame needs to be shared around more. Just look at the Aircraft industry if a pilot makes a mistake most of the time there are recommendations about all the backstops that failed as well.
Yes, that would be the likely basis of a negligence claim by the vehicle insurers (in a group action). That’s the only feasible route - car owners simply claim on their individual car policies and take any excess hit.
One scenario could be, say, an internal business risk/audit report by the car park company identifying generic+specific fire risks for that site and let’s say the risk was rated as impact catastrophic likelihood low then that risk would have to go on to the company’s Risk Register and the board would have to decide how to control that risk (a requirement of good governance).
If they decided to just “live with it” then that would be minuted and all this company documentation could possibly be used as evidence to support a negligence claim - because the total loss of the car park, and therefore also all the vehicles parked in it (and near to the car park), was proven to be reasonably foreseeable by the company itself, and the car park company would clearly have a duty of care to provide a safe environment for customers’ property.
The issue would then be was it reasonable to leave an accepted and potentially catastrophic fire risk to customers’ property (and their own) completely uncontrolled (if that was the case).
The compartment area for car parks is large and I doubt that the Luton Airport car park was anywhere near that compartment size. Having a fire compartment has a significant knock on effect for all sorts of elements, so of which users would find to be highly inconvenient.
IMO, having no sprinklers whatsoever to mitigate any fire's spread and even allow it to burn through the floor into lower levels should make it entirely the parking operator's liability for gross neglect.
No EV involved, it was a Range Rover, which are currently part of a recall for catching fire
no it wasnt it was a range rover sport. as seen by the two videos posted of both front and back.
It wasn't an Evoke is was a Discovery Sport Hybrid.
@@slowie9999 Does it matter which model of Range Rover it was?
@@tkpeters it does in this case as there wasnt a hybrid version of the evoque at the time of the model suggested howver there has been a hybrid version of the sport sice 2014. I think we are seeing the byproduct of rushing technological advancements without addiqute safety mechanisms in place
@tkpeters Yes. Facts are needed to be told. Recalls will be needed for the correct car make and model.
In this age of "no right to repair" it seams laughable to go after the owner of the vehicle resonsible, the companies that made the suspect parts should be liable unless it can be proven that the owner ignored warnings or made modificatons to the vehicle and those modifications caused the fire. I have no doubt these big companies with their deep pockets will be able to shunt the blame over to the individual owner.
DVLA records are not strictly accurate all the time. A hybrid vehicle may be recorded as a petrol or diesel vehicle because that is the primary means of motive power, i.e. the battery system is only used around town or for short distances. It is impossible to definitively state what the vehicle was without a detailed technical examination.
The DVLA records will be accurate as that determines the TAX on the vehicle. EVs and most hybrids pay £0 tax and I think the owners would quickly get it corrected if it was costing them money. Petrol/diesel hybrids are recorded as HYBRID ELECTRIC or ALTERNATIVE FUEL VEHICLE depending on the date of first registration (tested by checking my neighbours cars on the DVLA).
They can't say it's an electric car even if it was.
Take of your tin foil hat.
@@ziggarillooff*
Every car has a battery. So what.....
You mean they say it was an electric car even when it wasn’t.
Hello Daniel, I do not think the addition of sprinklers, would be beneficial, to dampen down either electrical or fuel caused fires, and may possibly worsen the situation… It would have to be powder or foam, probably powder! I suspect that insurance companies, will probably want to see legislation, that all cars should be equipped with built-in power systems, both for the interior and exterior. This I think would have been more likely to prevent the spread of fire, in this instance… Cheers! 👍
Sprinklers would have stopped the spread of the fire. Just pouring water non stop (sprinklers usually have big water tanks attached) would have cooled down the area making the spread of flames much more difficult. The original car certainly would have still been toasted with or without them. But who knows. It all got burnt down.
For car fires, my local fire brigade recommends that ordinary water extinguishers must not be used, because of the risk of triggering secondary electrical fires.
But high pressure water mist extinguishers (sometimes known as "fog guns") can be used and are to be found installed in car factories as fire suppression systems.
Otherwise, as you say, Class B extinguishants, such as foam or suitable dry powders can be used.
Powder has no effect whatsoever on battery fires, what it does is incase the heat and insulate it from outside which in turn makes the thermal runaway progress even faster which eventually overcomes the powder.
The reason powder works on regular fires is because they need oxygen to work. Chemical fires don’t as the oxygen is part of the fuel source.
@@tastytechaddictsmtb So what exactly are the key chemical reactions in an EV battery thermal runaway?
BBB, Thanks for the update and your insight. All the best !
If you do a quick search you can easily see this was not the first car park fire. Since the previous fires never encouraged new laws, why would this one? Odd that there isn't any video footage flooding RUclips since it was a car park at a highly monitored, secure airport.
I keep hearing claims that it was a diesel Range Rover which started this fire but this really doesn't ring true. It takes a lot to get diesel burning and when it does it burns with dirty black smoke which was not evident in this case. On the other hand, the electrics on a Range Rover are quite capable of catching fire but, again, it seems unlikely. The photos I've seen suggest a battery fire on a hybrid but I'm sure the facts will come out sooner or later.
Tell that to all the diesel RR owners whose cars have caught fire recently. Nobody said the fire starts with the fuel. But that the car was a pure diesel and not an EV or hybrid.
@@williammeek4078 Who are all these diesel Range Rover owners, how many do you know? Give me some links so I can ask. I live near London and there are a LOT of Range Rovers around here. I don't know anyone who's car caught fire nor have I seen any burning Range Rovers.
You may be right but so far I haven't seen a definitive statement on what started the fire, just a lot of unevidenced claims.
Never saw a diesel fire burn thru concrete ever.
@@partymanau try google. Car fires, including diesel, have been taking down car parks for longer than EVs have been around
That was a rather odd looking diesel fire. But totally not an EV or hybrid. Right.
There is a report online from a disabled person returning to UK through airport that spoke with staff.
They say, that a man drove his already smoking car into carpark. Then, because he was late for flight, he asked security to deal with car smoking. Supposedly saying he was wealthy and the car was disposable.
Now a man has been arrested.
So, it could be made up. But it was a 2 digit number plate, not cheap.
And the car was not parked properly, it was pulled up just next to a lift/stairwell access. To quickly disembark to catch flight?...
And, it took several days before police arrested a man.... is that because he jumped on flight and arrested on his return?...
We will eventually find out, because some people whose cars were in there are being offered well below market value for their destroyed vehicles.
Thanks for your explanation, I couldn’t see how it was not (legally) the car park’s fault that a fire from one car could lead to all the cars burning down/up. But you have clearly clarified this as far as I’m concerned, and I’m a bit more understanding of negligence. 👍
He literally explained that in the video on why it is not legally their fault
@@tastytechaddictsmtb I have just re watched his previous video but I cannot see where he explained how they were not negligent he merely stated they were not negligent and could not be sued for negligence. In this video he explains why they are not negligent.
Fitting sprinkler systems to car parks would be a Bad Idea.
Adding water to an oil fire (diesel or petrol) would add oxygen increasing burn rate making things worse.
Adding water to an electrical fire may add current draw, increasing heat and increasing flashover risk.
In short these are the most likely things to catch fire in a car park! Probs best not to add sprinklers!
I think any sprinkler system for a car park would need to be a high pressure water mist system as opposed to an ordinary low pressure water system.
You didn't study sciences at school and it shows.
Yes, water H2O contains oxygen and hydrogen, but so strongly bound together at the atomic level that separation is practically impossible.
Water is the best thing for putting out fires due to its high thermal capacity and enormous latent heat of evaporation
and water with additives is the best thing for putting out Li Ion battery fires.
Diesel fuel does not burn if a match is thrown into it. This was one from the 'security services' dirty-tricks department: a deliberate explosive device designed to wreak maximum structural damage and set off already-dodgy EVs nearby. James Bond's MI5 day-job! Like the recent, fake 'computer glitch' of air-traffic control, over a long-holiday, summer weekend -- and Luton's outrageous, £5, terminal-frontage-road, passenger drop-off fees -- it was designed to destroy confidence and hope in regional air travel for the masses. Wake up, suckers!
Never heard of a lead battery catching fire before!
Yet, the 12v system is the leading cause of all car fires.
SO we have video of the front and the back of the landrover,including the REG, but we can't say for sure it was a hibrid? USE THE EVIDENCE.
With all the video footage of the alleged vehicle I would imagine it could easily be identified. One clip shows it stationary, but not parked, with a fire extinguisher close by, no doubt the owner wanted help, so why did he not come forward. Also there is a clip of a car breaking through the ceiling, I have never heard of a diesel fire that could degrade concrete to allow floors to collapse. The fact that is in the governments best interest to quash all info on EV fires is a side note.
Registration has been identified as a pure diesel powertrain.
@@williammeek4078 SO how did it burn like that? no black smoke! did it run over a LOX line? i just don't see how a diesel would burn like that.
The collapsing ceiling clip could have happened at the height of the fire, when any steel would soften and distort. It looked like a steel and concrete construction, quite possibly the steel was structural and the concrete was not.
@@malthomas987 you’re showing a very clean misunderstanding of combustion here. Smoke is produced due to incomplete combustion. This is why when you floor a diesel when it’s cold you get a large plume of black smoke out the back. If your fire is hot enough all of the fuel is burnt, and thus you don’t get black smoke.
It doesn’t need to degrade the concrete, it merely has to get the steel inside the concrete soft enough that it bends and stretches.
The strength in the concrete comes from the rebar, if you construct a carpark out of regular concrete it would fail pretty much instantly.
Battery powered car are "much less likely to catch fire" simply because battery powered cars only represent somewhere between 2 and 3 percent of cars in the UK😂
Lithium Iron is a volatile chemical and highly unstable. How badly you are informed
What I think this case will all boil down to, is how quickly they called the fire brigade. It seems not quickly. And whether or not employee training was thorough enough to have prevented the fire getting as bad as it did.
lucky it was not an aeroplane on fire, or a crash landing.
@@HorsleyLandy88 they’re literally put on standby by the control tower and are near the runway. The control tower doesn’t monitor the carpark.
While the lack of sprinklers did not cause the initial fire, had there been a sprinkler system subsequent fires could have been prevented. Even if the initial fire was not extinguished the water should have prevented a heat build up to ignite other vehicles. Could the owners of vehicles other than the initial firestarter (or their insurers) not argue around that? On a general point, perhaps fire safety regs for car parks should be upgraded? Even 1 tank of petrol or diesel is quite a potential fire.
I think your wrong about the car that started the fire, I have seen an Image of it and the fact there is not thick black smoke billowing from it as you get in diesel fires, as well as the colour of the flames being the same as those of an electric car fire, makes me pretty sure its a hybrid.
Wishing it to be doesn't make it true.
Vehicle registration check lists it as a diesel and not a diesel hybrid or EV.
Except the registration has been verified and it was a pure diesel.
Not way diesel fuel was burning, and not the 12v system either because the rear lights were still on when the flames were coming out below. Hybrid battery then.
Who's wishing? I wouldn't personally wish for any kind of fire as innocent people can die in them. Sounds more like you are the one wishing its an internal combustion engine fire because you want to believe it wasn't an electric car. I was stating an opinion, based on the pictorial evidence I had seen. @@ziggarillo
There should have been sprinklers under several regulations and laws however the rules were changed a few years back to say that fire coverage is the discretion of the Site H&S/Fire officers which means they decided not to go with automatic sprinklers which have been proven to protect the structural integrity and reduce the spread of fire.
As someone who working with the H&S at work act and the Regulatory Fire Act every day. the lack of cover in that building was disgraceful.
I suspect a major factor in the severity/total damage caused by this and like fires, is that an economic carpark design prevents access by fire engines. Consider, the shorter the ramp between levels, the more spaces. The ramp length depends on the height between floors that allows cars to 'hill start' if stopped. Thus, your going to approve a design with the lowest roof to give short ramps and thus the highest proportion of money making spaces. Fire engines are tall and long so even if they could get in, turning the sharp corners is probably impossible. It seems to me that sprinklers must be mandated, at least on car parks under buildings.
They probably have dry risers on all levels.
@@nighttrain1236 I'd certainly hope so.
They shouldn't need to drive the engine in. As long as there are dry risers they connect the engine at the bottom and the hose of the floor with the fire, same as they would in a block of flats.
@@nighttrain1236 Wet riser would be preferable...
Thank you for this explanation 🙂
Many manufactures of high status vehicles now use lithium iron batteries rather than the traditional lead acid batteries for the 12V supply. The reason for this is the slight reduction in weight and they cost nearly six times as much. Problem is like with any FeLi battery they can be prone catastrophic thermal breakdown.
But of course the lead acid battery is still the biggest cause of car fires.
This is not true. You are mixing up Lithium Ion and Iron. Lithium Iron Phosphate batteries are very stable. Also Ion is the lighter one as it has greater energy density.
Its, 's not a weight issue. They hold more power size for size as cars now have start-stop engines, more computers onboard, heater seats, steering wheels etc. They are also not prone to the discharge effect that kills a lead acid battery if done too often. They are just better all round.
@@ziggarillo Wrongm lead acid batteries can't catch fire they are non-combustible, please go and study your science.
Except the 12v battery in a RR is in the back, not the front.
John Cadogan from Auto Expert “Straya” done a great video breakdown on this event.
Just another biased anti ev dude can't believe a word he says.
This fire raises a number of issues. Whilst many concentrate on the initial causes of the fire, the other question is to establish factors in relationship to speed of spread and was there other contributing factors. It is said, fires involving batteries, produce far higher temperatures of burn. It will be interesting to see what the post fire investigation reports identify in this area. Further the failure of the structure must also be of concern. As you rightly point out subsequent to the findings will this lead to a change in regulations requiring sprinkler or a foam based fire suppression system in car parks.
this is probably the most important factor which isnt being looked at by the media, if it was made more intense due to electric/hybrid vehicles (lets just assume that 24 of them were as its estimated that between 2 and 3% of cars in the UK are electric/hybrid) then unfortunatly a sprinkler/foam suppression system wont work as it wold fail to put the fire out (it would probably contain it to the cars involved though) the problem with the EV's catching fire is that they burn at a much higher temp which will then weaken the structure its on which im sure was already fabricated in such a way that corners were cut anyway for cost saving measures.
The planes that hit the twin towers were not EVs
Staticially at least 10% of the 1500 vehicles in the car park were EV, likley higher since the airport is a popular business hub and we know that EV's are mostly bought through business. Not many people are spending their own money on EV's. It's not zero, but the number is very very low. So any fire in a space where vehicles are packed in close together was always going to be high risk, this risk made all the more serious when many of those vehicles contain small barely contained self feeding explosions...
My last minibus had a 1000amp 12 volt battery.Anyone knows that its not the voltage but a 1000 amp DC current can be very volatile in heat if there is a poor connection and/ or an open circuit typically to the starter motor.Many truck run 24 volt and upto 2500 amps which is even more volatile if it goes wrong.
After the storm of megalies aimed at the public via the MSM and political establishment over the last two years our BBB is too willing to take on trust claims from another high ranking official. Another EV fire would undermine the government’s push for mandated introduction of these vehicles.
But there is no hard evidence to suggest that the officials have it wrong; just armchair experts who think that a video of a fire allows them to determine what is burning.
@@tlangdon12 ... where's the hard evidence either way?
A petrol vehicle I once owned..pretty high end ..had a small lithium battery as part of the alarm system…that spontaneously combusted when the vehicle was parked….so although it may not have been an EV or Hybrid any vehicle could possibly have lithium batteries which can ignite.
and some french diesels from about 20 years ago had a habit of catching fire aswell(there was even a watchdog/panorama thing on it at the time), the cooling system fans would keep going after you get out and cause a short and electrical fire a few hours later... and the more recent vauxhall zafira B spontaneuos combustion problems aswell... people going mad 'because its an evil EV', but you know, most cars are capable of catching fire... we even had a petrol hyundai parked outside that did that a few years ago- and it hadn't been driven in a few days...
I am impressed with the integrity of the side light system still functioning.
That's because there was nothing wrong with the 12v ancillary power system...
the negligence was that there was a large scale multistorey carpark fire in glasgow a few years ago and the FBU and fire authorities called for legislation to require fire supression systems (sprinklers etc).. which was ignored
It was a Diesel Hybrid.
Where the fire started was the Lithium battery beside the lefthand front wheel.
Totally agree. 30 year firefighter.
What's missing from this story is the fact that EVs are impossible to contain once a fire starts. Accidents happen, but to allow these insanely dangerous vehicles inside buildings or near dwellings is a liability. If this fire started because of a fault in electrical wiring attached to the building, with no relationship to the vehicles, having EVs in proximity means catastrophe. ICE vehicle fires are relatively easy to douse and extinguish. EV fires are impossible and burn at a greater temperature. They are a liability, any sane underwriter should ban them from residential parking structures and in this case too. An ICE vehicle will not blowup and burn a hole through the floor causing the whole building to collapse.
diesel and petrol cars catch fire more frequently per capita and store 7 times the potential energy if their fuel than any battery tech currently, also newer modern salt based lithium cells do not and will not catch fire, most modern cars have plastic fuel tanks, in the recent liverpool echo fire that also burned down a car park in 2017 the fire department report said that the fire spread quickly because of close proximity of vehicles, plastic fuel tanks, plastic parts on the outside of the car lack of sprinklers, plastic guttering causing rivers of burning fuel to go down on the on ramps and rain channels and setting other cars alight (something that doesnt happen with electric cars) download the pdf file its online you might learn something.
Hi, You are spot on. ICE vehicles do not burn hot enough!!
Fire department: it was a diesel, not an EV
Randoms on the Internet: it doesn't follow my own worldview, so they're probably lying. EVs are dangerous and should be stopped.
Another random (me): Following that logic, diesels are dangerous and should be stopped
Original randoms: How dare you use my own spells against me, Mr Potter?
I would have thought that the car park must have some kind of fire certificate, like most buildings. If it was just a diesel fire, then it should have been quite easy to put out using a fire extinguisher. So the first question is was there working fire extinguishers in the area.
You can’t put out a 2000 centigrade lithium fire with a fire extinguisher, and definitely not with sprinklers …
I don't believe a single word until they release the actual make and model.Range Rovers have repeated eletrical fires, then once it hits the Li Battery then you can forget about putting that out.
So you are calling him a liar......
Thank you for this. There is, of course, a lot of speculation about the cause, and probably most people reasoned it might be an EV. Good to have clear facts offered.
As much as I appreciate BBB's thoughts on this issue... But I feel both You and He should acknowledge there is currently a complete absence of 'facts' about the cause of the fire.
He merely repeated what apparently the Chief Fire Officer said, something like 'it is believed to have been a diesel car and not an EV'. Surely it would be better to complete the investigations and 'Know' what started the fire... and not just 'Believe' what did 😜
No facts, he's just passing on someone's "belief", which means we're in the realms of religion rather than law.
@@angleseyandy9110 Spot on there.
The cause of the fire and whether it was an EV or not is a red herring.
The issue is the spread and the difficulty in putting the fire out.
The increasing use of and difficulty of extinguishing self sustaininglithium battery fires (not just in EVs but in other vehicles containing them) is a factor that has changed on recent years.
Regulations for car parks especially enclosed or underground ones, tunnels,car ferries etc. all need to be reviewed in the light of events at Luton and events at Luton and the Fremantle Highway fires.
Buildings require a safe evacuation period of 5 minutes and as there were no reported injuries or deaths then that principle seems to have been satisfied. Multi-storey car parks have a fire resistance requirement of 15 minutes that can be satisfied by the appropriate steel structural sizes that would have been provided just by the strength of the steel needed. Sprinklers generally double the notional fire resistance of the building, but in this case because of the low requirement, is completely unnecessary. Besides, water sprinklers would have been unsuitable for vehicle fires. Other fire suppression systems in quantity are hazardous to health. EV fires are particularly difficult to extinguish and mostly fire brigades are instructed to contain if possible but don't attempt to extinguish.
The most effective fire suppression would have been if all the cars were fitted with their own extinguishers both auto and manual.. Vehicle fire suppression systems are readily available and can be simply retro fitted. Some countries e.g. Germany mandate the fitting of a fire extinguisher within easy reach of the driver. As the likely start of the fire was in a Range Rover that appears to have been abandoned in an aisle, a hand held extinguisher would have allowed the driver to put out the fire before it took hold.
With regards to the vehicle type, I believe it has only been suggested to have been a diesel and this is not yet proven. Secondly with regard to the whole electric vehicle issue, it is not simply about the cause of the fire but whether the presence of EVs made the fire more severe regardless of the initial vehicle to catch fire.
Surely DVLA saying it was a 2014 RANGE ROVER SPORT SE TDV6 A Diesel is proof enough?
EVs contain less total energy than a similar ICEV so will contribute less to a large fire such as this when compared to a similar ICEV.
@@ditch3827have DVLA said that?
You just have to look at the fire and the smoke it was emitting to know it was an Electrical fire. A lead Acid battery tends to explode when in a failed state due to the build up of hydrogen. Only a lithium battery burns in the way shown in the pictures. I still maintain this was a Range Rover Sport and it was a Hybrid, the evidence as presented (regardless of what people say or is reported) suggests this. As much as some people are desperate to blame an EV for the fire, there's just as much desperation to deflect blame from them. I don't care who was to blame but if the technology in just one car we're being forced to used can destroy an entire car park, then to me, this is very disturbing and I would demand we understand why these fires are occurring and demand improvements in safety. Do we actually have to lose lives before we stop playing these stupid blame games and demand improvements.
As the car has been verified to be a pure diesel, are you asking the same for all diesel cars?
@williammeek4078 Verified by whome exactly?
if this is your argument to ban a hybrid if it was a hybrid then you can make the same argument for an almost identical fire that destroyed the liverpool echo car park started by a diesel land rover in 2017, a fire that spread rapidly due to plastic fuel tanks blowing and rivers of burning fuel going floor to floor, download the report on that fire its very interesting, EV car fires wont spill fuel from floor to floor.@@radweld
The Kings Dock fire in Liverpool in 2017 (which damaged 1309 vehicles and destroyed the car park) was started by a Range Rover that was way too old to have been hybrid and at a time when the number of EVs and hybrids on the road was negligible. It doesn't require an EV to start a fire of this scale.
If it was a 12v failure why are the lights on showing that system working correctly? Also the fire is front left where RR EV batteries are sited not the fuel tanks at the rear. Diesel is black high soot lithium is high intensity burn as filmed.
You are spot on.
Why the discussion! Owners will file against P.L. Owners insurance. The Insurers will deny and fight, it will go to court, repeatedly , and eventual settlement. The only thing that is absolutely certain is… The vehicle owners Will Get Shafted
1st comment
🎉
It really doesn’t matter what vehicle caused it … The point is, once alight EVs burn with incredible ferocity.
Tell us honestly Mr Black Belt Barrister, would you take your family on a ferry now ???
Now you know a ton of lithium battery burning at 2000 centigrade would burn right through the deck … and the deck below … and the deck below that … And there’s NOTHING that will stop it.
Haha pure fallacy you are funny.
As it stands we will never know. It’s very clear that it’s near on impossible the trust anything you see or hear on any form of media
Did the carpark have adequate fire fighting equipment and do they have dry risers for the fire brigade as the engine is to heavy to go in. What was the risk assessment for this under build control.
Due to the structual damage and the risk of more exploding cars, no firefighters entered the car park. All was delt with from the outside as it is a open framework build.
@KingGold171 it's all to do with Time of response and Risk assessment !!!. You can see in the video two used fire extinguisher and the fire was still mildish and there is No impact to the concrete surface or upper structure . You will also have to look at design of the connection of the pillars with the floor's and type of concrete and rebarI and so . Yes this car was responsible for the fire BUT ?
@@Numbnuts- Fire extinguishers were reported empty before being used. Lack of safety checks on fire fighting equipment.
Sick of being treated like we are idiots. Many know what a lithium fire looks like and we know when something is played down. As for the absence of Sprinkler systems in a brand new updated car park is beyond belief. But they will still squirm their way out of it. Guess we just have to expect to lose our cars when we pay to park long/short term.
Yep that was clearly a diesel fire due to that thick smoke. It straight up darkened the room. Number plate registration shows DIESEL 2014 Range Rover Sport 259hp.
EVs less likely to catch fire you say, please do some fact checking.
They are less likely to catch fire, BUT , when they do , the consequences are significantly more serious. Thems the facts.
@@paultrewin5871 No that's not a fact, petrol vapour is explosive, its far more dangerous than an ev fire.
Coolant leak on Range Rover from hot engine melting plastic pipe. Flashpoint occurs even with diesel with an engine bay fire.
This recall is documented.
So is the Loch Ness monster.
Just thinking.... sprinkler systems in a multi storey carpark may not be such a good idea... I'm not sure water would help overly much.
Further to previous video about insurance. Many insurance policies have a capped total payout. So, if this 1 car is on the hook for the cause, the policy might be capped at £5m. Who then pays for the remaining possibly £45m of combined other costs?
This is a common belief now that the 12V system was on fire on the vehicle pictured, however 3 things contradict this from the picture alone.
1 the position of the fire, ejecting from the passenger side of the vehicle with obvious glow underneath (I’ll come back to this soon)
2 12V systems have a lot of plastics near and at the ignition points, meaning lots of black smoke, considering the ferocity of the fire at that point, the car park is remarkably clear of this, but plenty of smoke none the less
3 considering that the 12V system is suppository well alight at the time, why are the lights still on? Common 12V fires start in the engine bay or from poor internal wiring, either of these would have killed all electric by the time the fire got to the extent it currently is in the pictures of the vehicle that was pictured.
So, back to my first point.
If you look on Land Rovers publicity materials on their hybrid vehicles, the battery is under the passenger side of the vehicle (in right hand drive cars to be specific), running from around where the seat starts towards the rear seats, roughly where the yellow glow underneath the car and the flames venting to the side are.
As I remember, they only believed a hybrid wasn’t involved, my bet would be if the number plate could be run on it, it may come up as a diesel hybrid.
How do we know the fuel system isn’t involved yet? Diesel has a high ignition point and burns in a totally different way, not bright yellow orange, but more of a blue tone to it. As a flammable fluid, it’s pretty lazy, hence why rioters have never used diesel bombs.
For reference, there are several Land Rover hybrid fires that have caused issues, though by the time they are photographed, the vehicles usually a burned out shell. I’ll bet though that if you do find an image of a burning Land Rover hybrid not long after it starts, it’ll present itself in a similar way to how the Luton airport vehicle was erupting.
Hi, You are spot on Retired FF with 30 yrs and with FP and Fire investigation training!
The legal requirement for sprinklers rather depends on which set of regulations you are referring to. The prescriptive construction regs do not mandate sprinklers. But sprinklers are "good practice" - not best practice. Risk control requirements for a work place require risks to be ALARP (As Low As Reasonably Practical) and good practice that is readily available and cost effective should be installed. People were working in the car park (security) and its is a business undertaking so i think ALAPR regs could apply. View on the vehicle forums is that the Fire Chief is wrong, the the question is; why is he saying that? Do we know if the initiating vehicle is also the same vehicle seen falling though the floor? If it is and it is diesel then the building should withstand a pool fire, if its an EV then it burns hotter and its is reasonable for a compliant building to collapse. They cant have it both ways. Diesel fire = collapse looks negligent.
I watched an interesting video by a well known engineer who looked at the initial photographs of the burning rover. He pointed out numerous indicators that the fire was a battery - not diesel fuel. Main points were.......lack of dense black smoke, smoke was light and white, intense fire on the passenger side (LHS) of the vehicle (where battery is situated). Intensity of heat seeming to be underneath the vehicle. Rover history of battery induced fires. So, strong indicators of a battery fire rather than fuel. Rover could have been a hybrid. The vehicles lights were on also so probably not a circuitry issue. Who were the owners of this vehicle as someone tried to extinguish the fire with a fire extinguisher but were unsuccessful.
You are spot on Retired firefighter with 30 years and in Fire investigation and fire safety. It stinks
@@michael.randall5034 They did not say whether the smoke smelled or not so I don't know. I assume it would probably have been quite acrid.
So much speculation when it can all be solved by the owner coming forward. Two reasons why they have not come forward, arson or has been told by a government department not to.
Big fat thumbs up for answering those questions straight away. Sure you lost retention, but thanks ever so much for not wasting my time.
Should the owner also be liable for the costs of the airport closure? If it follows that any loss due to your negligence/misfortune rests on you? Regardless of whether common sense might say that it shouldn’t have been able to be happen given what the initial problem was.
This seems to be an established part of English law. I’m thinking Selby rail crash and other examples.
At the moment it seems to be a "diesel" and "not a hybrid" by omission: It's truthful to say it's a diesel even if it's also a hybrid. Presumably EVs are car manufacturer's futures so why has Land Rover been silent in protecting its electric future and hasn't told us categorically it wasn't a hybrid? In fact surely it's in all manufacturers interests to prove it wasn't an EV or hybrid?
We either need to be told it absolutely wasn't an EV or hybrid, or if it was, that steps will be taken to mitigate such a disaster so that future purchasers won't be discouraged from buying an EV.
So, who can be held “responsible or negligent” for causing this fire? Should the owner of the vehicle in which the fire first occurred be held responsible for “causing” the fire by his or her negligence of a mechanical or electrical defect on the vehicle?
I think its a classic pass the parcel situation. The lawyers will no doubt sort out who or what is to blame !
Could the car manufacturer be liable if there's a design issue? If not and the car was recently serviced could the garage be liable?
Negligence is one of my favourite areas of law. It isn't difficult in principle. DOC; breach; no novus actus interveniens; causation; damage (ideally foreseeable) and Bob is our Uncle. Though he rarely is as it is never that simple. Is it ever, Daniel/Alan?