Luton Airport car park fire

[SmartAmg]

I could have told them parking spaces should be bigger decades ago, but nothing to do with EV's!

Agreed.

 

[davymead]

(Below Hindhead on the A3 is my top tip)

 

[ALFAitalia]

If we're going to live with 100% EV's in the near future,.....

Define near....according to current predictions EVs will account for no more than about 25% of UK cars by 2030 .....and then about 30 years to exceed 90%....assuming the powers that be don't introduce more draconian laws to try and get them off the street sooner of course.

 

[HappytalkAgain]

Now updated:

Until EVs became mainstream I hadn’t realised how many people have to tow their twin axle caravan from Glasgow to Morocco three times every week, with 6 passengers, 4 bikes and 2 dobermans, at 85 mph, and they must only stop for a maximum of 5 minutes once to refuel.

I’d like to see an EV do that. And until they can - and do so for a purchase price of £5k and the energy cost no more than 10% of the cost of petrol and diesel then EVs are doomed to fail. I almost forgot that must be 10% based upon the energy prices in 1993.

And don’t get me even started on charging infrastructure (there are only three working chargers in the whole of the UK and they’re all in Daventry, and the need to replace the battery packs every 6 weeks at a cost three times greater than the cost of the car is past a joke.

The batteries are made by children and raw materials are mined by corrupt governments. During manufacture those materials must circumnavigate the world six times. A diesel must travel 544k miles before it even equals the CO2 output of manufacturing one battery.

Then there’s using it. Wind turbines don’t work without storm force winds and solar panels only work in June, so the the so called green EV is using electricity produced from fossil fuels. Hello sheeple, when will you wake up and smell the diesel fumes, I mean coffee?

And let‘s not kid ourselves, when “they” eventually install enough public chargers, the national grid can’t cope with simultaneously charging 37 million EVs from stone dead to the 150% we must all insist upon in case we have to go to the airport early one morning.

Need i mention the fact that 99.2% of the population don’t have a driveway to charge their car on, and so pavements will be littered with charging cables? And 98.7% of people rent their home and there’s no way landlords will pay to install chargers.

I could go on, but I’ll leave you with these final thoughts.

I read on an anti EV forum that a member spoke to someone in the queue at the barbers, who had read in the letters page of Auto Express that a disappointed EV driver who was forced to have an EV as a company car by their employer found that:

1. The 200 mile range claimed by the manufacturer can fall to as low as 169 miles if you drive at 112 mph in the midday heat of the Sahara desert, or in temperatures below -42 degrees C. We get both extremes every day here in Luton.

2. They had to take their car back for a recall, and the dealer told them that there had been another one in for the same recall the week before, and that the senior master technician said that they had once done a warranty claim on an EV too. The headlamps misted up.

3. In 2022, at the main dealer it takes nine senior master technicians three days to make an EV safe enough to change the window wiper blades. In 1977 I changed the engine in my Ford Granada on the footpath, on my own, at night, in 20 minutes. And that’s progress?

4. The UK is accountable for 0.7% of global CO2 emissions, and privately own cars make up 0.1% of that, so unless China stop building 92 coal powered power stations every week then there’s absolutely no point doing anything about it.

EVs aren’t the solution, but that won’t stop the Government forcing everyone to buy an EV just like they forced everyone to buy a diesel. We should definitely invest in hydrogen, hydrogen is definitely the future and the infrastructure could definitely be ready by next week.

Some interesting points there Rob. Can you elaborate?

 

[MikeInWimbledon]

If we're going to live with 100% EV's in the near future, I fear everywhere we park these vehicles will have to be looked at in a way no one has before. Imagine a shopping mall or other building with underground parking and thousands of people above it and something like this happens, doesn't bear thinking about.

We aren't going to live with 100% EV's in the near future.

There are 34 million ICE vehicles in the UK, and only one million EV's, of which only a quarter of a million were sold in 2022.

We only buy 1.6 million vehicles a year. A number that has been declining since we "reached peak car."

Do the math and you'll see. that

...... not only will we not have 100% EV's in the near future,
we're decades away from even 50% EV's....

At best all you can say is that the carriage trade and company car mob will be 100% EV within a couple of decades.

 

[Bobby Dazzler]

Some interesting points there Rob. Can you elaborate?

Sorry Ant, I am a man of few words

 

[Petrol Pete]

Bit long winded and obviously VW , but Daimler does get a mention . We must bear in mind how many people VW employ . if the Germany car industry takes a (another ?) $hit with Germanys economy not doing too well things might not go too well for 'The Powerhouse'. I do realise I am dragging the thread away from the fire just as I have attempted to pull it back in line .

But I think at this point we will never know the real reason for the fire despite the car park owners admitting to having ANPR recordings (making it pretty easy to identify the car concerned) and the fact that the person who drove the car in there seems to have completely disappeared from the face of the earth , maybe on legal advice from their insurers ?? , (if it were my car I would tell the world to warn them not to buy one) , but anyhow.....

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[BTB 500]

and the fact that the person who drove the car in there seems to have completely disappeared from the face of the earth , maybe on legal advice from their insurers ??

Perhaps they weren't insured to drive the car and are personally liable for all the damage ...

 

[markjay]

let's dry to drag this thread back in line.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Perhaps they weren't insured to drive the car and are personally liable for all the damage ...

If a car has a valid motor insurance policy but the person driving wasn't insured to drive it at the time of the event, then the insurer will pay-out any damages due to third parties (and if applicable the insurer will subsequently will chase the driver and try to recover their costs).

It's only if the car had no valid motor insurance policy in place at the time of the event, that third parties won't be compensated (because there's no insurer to cover the costs).

In such circumstances, the following will apply (from the government's website):

"You may be able to claim compensation from the Motor Insurers’ Bureau (MIB) if you’ve been injured or your property has been damaged because of an uninsured or ‘hit and run’ driver."

 

[Petrol Pete]

One would normally (decades ago) to expect 'posh' new cars to be fully insured , I think times have changed....hopefully not in this case.

 

[st13phil]

The insurance situation - as I understand it - is as follows:

1. Those whose cars were damaged / damaged beyond repair will claim from their own insurer for repair costs or monetary compensation if written off
2. The carpark owner will claim from their insurer for the cost of demolition / reinstatement of the carpark facility, and possibly also business interruption (if they have that cover)
3. The insurers who have paid out to their respective insured(s) may attempt to claim back their monies from the insurer of the vehicle that is identified as the root cause of ignition (if that can be established) or may not bearing in mind that for at least some of them they would be claiming against themselves
4. Unless negligence can be established on behalf of the carpark operator (highly unlikely), any claim against them would be futile

Bottom line is that due to the way insurance works, we will all be paying for the cost of the fire and resultant damage through increased premiums for next few years.

 

[Petrol Pete]

The insurance situation - as I understand it - is as follows:

1. Those whose cars were damaged / damaged beyond repair will claim from their own insurer for repair costs or monetary compensation if written off
2. The carpark owner will claim from their insurer for the cost of demolition / reinstatement of the carpark facility, and possibly also business interruption (if they have that cover)
3. The insurers who have paid out to their respective insured(s) may attempt to claim back their monies from the insurer of the vehicle that is identified as the root cause of ignition (if that can be established) or may not bearing in mind that for at least some of them they would be claiming against themselves
4. Unless negligence can be established on behalf of the carpark operator (highly unlikely), any claim against them would be futile

Bottom line is that due to the way insurance works, we will all be paying for the cost of the fire and resultant damage through increased premiums for next few years.

As explained in post #314

 

[ALFAitalia]

Volkswagen Cuts EV Production, Cancels New Wolfsburg Factory - CleanTechnica

Volkswagen announced this week a new plan for the production of electric vehicles that does not include building a new factory.

cleantechnica.com

 

[markjay]

Volkswagen Cuts EV Production, Cancels New Wolfsburg Factory - CleanTechnica

Volkswagen announced this week a new plan for the production of electric vehicles that does not include building a new factory.

cleantechnica.com

"....demand for electric cars in Germany has suffered a significant decline this month primarily because the German government has decided to end EV subsidies for business customers"

 

[st13phil]

"....demand for electric cars in Germany has suffered a significant decline this month primarily because the German government has decided to end EV subsidies for business customers"

Which demonstrates one thing definitely: businesses will pull forward planned expenditure of government subsidy of that expenditure is being withdrawn.

And one thing probably: absent the subsidy, EV purchase doesn't make economic sense for many businesses.

 

[markjay]

And one thing probably: absent the subsidy, EV purchase doesn't make economic sense for many businesses.

Unless legislation prevents them from having an alternate - what happened in Germany is what you get when you withdraw subsidy without replacing it with legislation.

Something does not make "economic sense" is you could have done something else which will deliver the same result but work-out cheaper, and you didn't.

Businesses will always try to spend as little as they can, but at the same time if a cost in avoidable then they will spend the money because 'it is what it is'.

In a similar way to how tyre fitters pay for recycling contractor to take away old tyres, and garages pay recycling contractors to take away used engine oil. It's costing them money, but it has to be done. If that's the only option, then you cough up.

Once sales of new ICE cars is banned, businesses will lease new EVs, subsidy or no subsidy.

 

[st13phil]

Something does not make "economic sense" is you could have done something else which will deliver the same result but work-out cheaper, and you didn't.

Absolutely.

So you agree that consumers - be that businesses or private individuals - are being forced through legislation to give up the most cost-effective solution to their requirement for personal mobility?

(For the avoidance of doubt, I'm not interested in whether that position is "justified" or not - for whatever external reason).

 

[markjay]

Absolutely.

So you agree that consumers - be that businesses or private individuals - are being forced through legislation to give up the most cost-effective solution to their requirement for personal mobility?

(For the avoidance of doubt, I'm not interested in whether that position is "justified" or not - for whatever external reason).

Yes and no....

You could equally argue the same regarding legislation that forced consumers to pay for AdBlue systems that they have no interest in, or - going back - also DPF and Catalytic Convertors etc - all expensive stuff that (almost) no consumer would have voluntary paid for if they had the option to avoid it (and indeed, some remove it from their cars). And going even further back, consumers were forced to give-up leaded petrol. The list is long.

To sum it up, for businesses and private individuals, a car driven on leaded petrol and having no emission control systems whatsoever is probably "the most cost-effective solution to their requirement for personal mobility".

But this is just how legislation and regulation work.

 

[BTB 500]

One would normally (decades ago) to expect 'posh' new cars to be fully insured , I think times have changed....hopefully not in this case.

Not so long ago it was standard for fully comp. policies to include cover for driving other vehicles (although typically just 3rd party). Nowadays it's rare for it to be included, but I think quite a few people aren't aware of this and genuinely think they are covered to drive a friend or family member's car if necessary.

 

[ALFAitalia]

Interesting....I've never had a policy that didnt give 3rd party cover for other cars...I've never asked for it....so I don't think it's that rare....he says checking insurance certificate in wallet....yep covered! I do note however that it's only the policy holder that is covered for other cars....not my wife even though she's a named driver on my insurance.
That said I'd be pretty uncomfortable using someone else's car on just TP insurance....