wyx087

How can the car be in any shape or form remotely related to EV? How can you even drag in EV in any shape or form when it clearly is an ICE related fire. You say you are not biased against EV's. But you clearly have an agenda, or so blind you cannot bring yourself to believe multiple layers of facts being presented.

There are many eye witnesses, multiple videos and possibly even statement from vehicle driver. At this stage, how you are actively questioning the official statement is....... Different angle of the vehicle you've quoted. Clearly not parked and the owner or people helping had the time to get fire extinguisher. Correct. Looks like engine bay fire. The driver has probably already given statements to the authorities. In case you've missed it, see my post earlier regarding JLR ICE fire recall. ICE are a fire risk and ICE cars with plastic fuel tank spread fire very quickly. Only reason this diesel vehicle fire is in the news is because it destroyed a car park. Whereas every single EV fire will be blown up by the media big time.

There was the Jag i-pace EV recall due to battery fire risk. I searched "Range Rover fire", there is also recalls regarding fire risk. The 2 recalls are exclusively related to assembly faults that would make the ICE a fire risk. https://www.autoblog.com/2023/04/10/range-rover-fire-recalls/?guccounter=1 Swings and roundabouts. Nothing is perfect and nothing have zero fire risk.

There's no way I want to drive an ICE car with un-claimable increased running cost if my car was in the shop due to fault of someone else.

Another video emerged from a different angle, showing license plate: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1712232395049422942 The paint on the ground match Luton airport promo page I posted earlier. The vehicle is a 2014 diesel, not hybrid of any kind. Looks like it's just been abandoned whilst driving. Very unfortunate to have happened in middle of the car park. Would not have been on the news if it were at side of the road.

Insurance question coming soon: do you ever park in densely packed multistory car park?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/10/11/london-luton-airport-fire-car-parking-garage-live-updates/ Notice how the fire so easily spread out as though it is flowing liquid? Plastic fuel tanks under a few min of sustained heat will let go and add more fuel to the fire. edit: https://www.bedsfire.gov.uk/news/major-incident-declared-luton-airport

This is the official report for the 2018 Liverpool car park fire. https://www.bafsa.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/bsk-pdf-manager/2018/12/Merseyside-FRS-Car-Park-Report.pdf Its conclusion: My takeaway: the fuel tank is only required to contain the flammable liquid for 2 minutes! Which of these related incidents were due to "EV turned a simple car fire into a disaster"?

A diesel car is reported to have started the fire. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-67075159?ns_mchannel=social&ns_source=twitter&ns_campaign=bbc_live&ns_linkname=652676048ae7803bb6842d1f%26What we know so far%262023-10-11T10%3A20%3A57.962Z&ns_fee=0&pinned_post_locator=urn:asset:da8da83c-082c-4784-9a26-0419f41c06e0&pinned_post_asset_id=652676048ae7803bb6842d1f&pinned_post_type=share There was also a Liverpool car park fire in 2018: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-46290095 Statistically, the likelihood of EV being a major factor in spreading the fire in 2018 is very low. Sad to see people are jumping on this and blaming EV's when tightly packed car park fire happens with all cars.

There is post on social media of the possible source, a Range Rover. https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1712003447992520755 I tried to verify by looking at car park markings and it does look like Luton airport car park markings: https://www.holidayextras.com/terminal-car-park-2-luton-airport-parking.html From the way flame is shooting out, might be a PHEV HV battery?

You sure it isn't due to increased energy cost, labour cost, parts supply shortage and opportunistic industry-wide rip off? That is correct. But I don't consider the same insurer increase the increase because why would anyone blindly renew? It had been like this for years, I can always find a better deal by switching, So I switch insurance every year. Some years the amount I pay goes down, some years it goes up.

As I mentioned in the other thread. My insurance for 2 EV's increased by about 30%. A non-fault accident on the Leaf as someone bumped into it while parked, admitted fault and their insurance gave me £1000 to go away. I had front bumper repaired for £400, and added new license plates with green flash. It was 30% increase even with this additional non-fault claim. That was 2nd cheapest last year with multi-car discount to two different cheapest policies. Of course, Admiral renewal were 100% more, but no one blindly renews without looking around...... do they?

The Luton Airport fire: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-67073446 I'm travelling from there next week for a long weekend away. Hope my travel plans wouldn't be affected.

Yes further explanation is required, but let's keep it topical and be specific. Just from last few pages, BBC reported on the run away MG, it also reported on the Cornwall van fire. How are they being controlled to not report all "truth about EV's" that we have to use Geoff as source?

Just asking for why you would make such claims. Where have you seen any evidence of such "punishment"? Seeing this is "truth about EV's" thread, the reason for your alleged main stream media not "dare to speak out" about this truth is very topical. If it goes into politics, it's still on topic.

Hum. All that Geoff reports are already in the media. What has he reported that were not reported elsewhere? The fact is Geoff is gaining viewership by exploiting the algorithm. He exploits with anti-EV clickbait titles and pandering to an audience that likes have their anti-EV sentiments confirmed with many not factual throwaway one-liners. The actual news can be found elsewhere and the reporting are better elsewhere. *sigh* What sort of punishment would main stream media get? if they were to speak out...... against what? What evidence is there? Some level of tin foil hat going on here.......

Channel is biased, motivation is to sell their product, yes. The information presented can be argued to be steered in a direction that is beneficial to their business. However, this channel's motivation isn't for viewership in stark contrast to likes of Geoff as I demonstrated previously: I personally place more weight over this Electric Classic Cars video than Geoff buy cars videos. Mainly because I can verify its cited sources myself and arrive at my own conclusion. The delivery does not contain languages designed to incite emotions, information are presented without being tainted by throwaway one-liners, and my time isn't wasted by rambling. The comparison of burnt cars not the same age is indeed something not taken into account for all the fire statistical studies I've seen. This is idea of comparing like-for-like really need to be fed back to source of those studies.

It's today's attention economics, whichever gets the greatest views get pushed to front of the algorithm and the creator is incentivised to make more of the same. Balanced verified reporting is out, sensational clickbait rambling is in. This video (and its accompany mini series) explains the reason why such divisive contents are so popular. The 1min or so part where the video is set to start is the important bit. Whole video for context. This video explains why we, as viewer, now need to verify the sources and think critically about information we are fed on social media. Video starts at conclusion, what we need to do, only ~2min to watch: THINK before you share stuff online.

Instead of dozen of posts guessing, read the manual in your glovebox?

First port of call, as always, should be the manual. Does the paper manual for your car talk about Safelock? Does the dash flash up with Safelock message when you shut off ignition? Is it possible it's not equipped on your car? (although unlike Tesla manual, the Skoda Octavia manual doesn't have such wording) Sorry, this is going further and further off topic. A lot of times people's view are formed around what they know (very reasonable). But often the industry moves on. Unfortunately the scary new stuff taunted by media are blamed for standard industry-wide practice.

You've never heard of Skoda's Safelock? Seems to be standard across VAG cars: https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&f=86&t=1773347 Mr Paul-G has same level of outlook and deduction skill as you, see the conclusion he came to: https://www.myaudiq5.com/threads/manually-open-doors-from-inside-on-power-failure.41960/

Sorry to say, in case you haven't read the manual, your lad will also be locked in. Just like house keys, anyone I want to have access to my Tesla, I can send them a phone key. https://www.tesla.com/ownersmanual/model3/en_us/GUID-E004FAB7-1C71-448F-9492-CACF301304D2.html Let's look at the title of this thread....... If you can't relate to EV's, then why post them here? There's a big forum out there. No matter how old your story. The fact is there are features exclusive in EV that makes it much better experience for that particular use-case. If you are refusing to see it that way, no one can help you see any positivity in EV's.

I'm pointing out that there is currently no known interior difference between different trim levels of Model Y. You can check on as many sources as possible, this is widely known. The manual may say this for many reasons. Unlike German cars, Tesla don't do extra cost options apart from colours, tow bar and software stuff. You asked Tesla owner for info, here is the info. *sigh* I think you just can't help bringing in your biases. I don't defend EV's, I only try to talk about the truth. As I've repeatedly said and previously referenced, I've posted many instances of negative EV coverage or info. My old man have snoozed in the car during a summer day out. Add his phone as phone-key and turn on "keep climate". Not only any problem, it's much better than any ICE car. Window also works as long as car is awake. You specifically singled out a brand of EV despite it would have coped much better in your use-case if you had an EV. When pointed out, you refuse to use your imagination to think how much better it would have been with an EV. You can't help but repeated your "I'm not anti-EV, trust me because I said so" and "you are biased because you only defend EV's". Everyone knows both are not true and it's getting really old.

Pretty sure the rear door emergency release is equipped in all trim levels. Up to now, there is no interior difference between trim levels, only battery and motor difference. Without reading the manual, my old man instinctively used the emergency release when first time getting out from passenger seat. I had to point out the open door button. The car beeped and warned about not using it regularly. Very intuitive and doesn't need reading any manual. The front emergency door releases are not hidden AT ALL and does not need reading the manual AT ALL. Don't need to read the manual, because it is very obvious in the climate UI but here for your info: (go down to keep climate on, dog mode and there's also overheat protection) https://www.tesla.com/ownersmanual/modely/en_gb/GUID-4F3599A1-20D9-4A49-B4A0-5261F957C096.html Similarly, most car with ignition off wouldn't allow you to roll up/down the window. Skoda also disables interior door release if car is locked, as a feature! I don't understand why would your opinion of these things are so against Tesla and Porsche EV.

79p is on the most expensive end of the market. Comparing this to cheaper end of market for petrol is not comparing like-for-like. Cheapest ultra-rapid charging is at Tesla, 50p/kWh via contactless payment. There are cheaper and free public destination charging all about the places.