Seen the videos and pictures. The whole of the top deck alight. Reports that it's collapsed. Hope the fire fighters are all safe. Battling a fire like that where there's a whole line of cars going up like bombs must be extraordinarily difficult.
More likely a petrol or diesel car. Contrary to common disinformation about electric vehicles, data from the Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency (MSB) has shown that EVs are 20 times less likely to catch fire than petrol and diesel cars
My daughter flew out of Luton on Monday afternoon. I'm hoping I haven't got the return leg next week.
Luton always got to do one step further than us. Joking aside hopefully everyone involved is ok cars can be replaced. People can’t.
Probably. If so it has wiped out a significant proportion of the carbon reduction achieved by EVs in the country. Battery technology needs a complete re-think.
I can't find the data on that site so maybe you could post a direct link to it? If this is true, why do insurance companies charge more for EV insurance because of the fire risk? Is it just an excuse? I can understand that petrol cars are a fire risk in collisions due to fuel spills but diesel? I would expect there to be a huge difference in fire risk between petrol and diesel vehicles. The tendency for Lithium Ion batteries to spontaneously burst into flame is well documented. I am not a petrol head by the way. I fully support the move to EVs but batteries are still a big problem.
Wondered how long it would take for the petrol heads to blame EVs. Not long, going on this thread. Guess you read the Daily Mail. Shakes head..
Airport Officials were saying last night the fire started in car park 2. The car park with EV charging is Car Park 1.
https://www.autoweek.com/news/a38225037/how-much-you-should-worry-about-ev-fires/ Hope that helps. EVs are significantly less likely to burst into flames - unless the battery is damaged or exposed to extreme heat. EVs are only a small percentage of the cars on the road, so the overall risk comes out close to 1/1000 that it was an EV spontaneously combusting. That doesn't mean it wasn't, but it is unlikely.
From the BBC live feed Fire likely started in a diesel car - fire chief Fire chief Andy Hopkinson says it is thought the fire started with a diesel car, and then spread through the car park. No idea why he thinks diesel rather than petrol but he probably has a better idea than most
Thanks for posting that mate. So insurance companies are inflating costs for EV drivers because they think that if they can afford an EV they can afford to pay more for insurance. Scumbags. I understand that another "reason" for the higher premiums is that EVs are heavier than ICE vehicles and thus cause more damage in collisions.
I got interested when we were given a card to hang inside our car to id it as an ev on northlink ferries. I worried I’d bought a car that was more likely to be set on fire. The stats are however very encouraging, Ev’s are much less likely to combust. However, if they do burn they are a beggar to put out. Interesting that common knowledge is that ev’s burn and that an ev was responsible for the Luton fire, people love criticising ev’s. Not sure why that is.
The short answer is that they don't. It's another generalisation that is much quoted but which is not true across the board. My Niro EV costs about the same as my Soul EV did before it, and which is about the same as any diesel car I had before that. There are some cars that are expensive to insure, with Tesla being a notable example. I think it may be connected to their construction method, whereby if you have a smash, it is harder to replace one panel because it's built as a single shell. It's not because they have a higher risk of fire because they don't.
People read the mainstream media, and at the moment, the level of FUD, misinformation and outright lies or misrepresentation about EVs being pushed out is ridiculous. People believe it and repeat it though and so the lies become the truth. I would love to know why outlets such as the Mail and the Sun in particular are so anti but its not just them- you see such stories in all the MSM. It's almost as if they are being paid by the fossil fuel lobby to put out misinformation. I think it is probably more likely to be click bait - they get a high click rate on such articles, even though they are repetitive ****, because people love a bit of confirmation bias. So more clicks = more ad revenue, so it means they will do it again tomorrow as its a financial win. There is a prominent YouTube channel run by a guy in Norway called Bjorn Nyland. Its called TeslaBjorn. He is probably the most pro EV person on the Web and he makes a living from videos where he pushes EVs to their limit to obtain data that its hard to find elsewhere. Things like 1000 mile challenges in every car, so comparisons on efficiency etc can be done. He does videos where he deliberately runs EVs to empty to see what happens (I.e. do they have a 'reserve', do they reduce power as it gets close to empty etc). All really useful stuff if you are researching an EV. Anyway, he did such a video the other week and the Sun referenced it in an article without his permission and represented it as a regular guy who had trouble when his EV ran out of power. It would be laughable but its starting to have a real effect on people's perceptions. I wish it would stop. In the meantime, I wish people would stop believing everything they read.
