Linas.P

Not sure about small block V8, I kind of like staying more or less true to nature of the car. So perhaps in Triumph Spitfire I would put 2.5-3L L6 from BMW, to VW Beatle perhaps 4-6 cylinder boxter from Porsche or Subaru and so on, classic BMW works very well with modern BMW straight-6s etc. But you 100% right about environmental impact, presumably one is fitting engine from scrap car, so the engine is technically carbon neutral, the mileage will be very low so tailpipe emissions pretty much irrelevant. On contrary - large battery will be extremely detrimental for environment as the pollution is stored in the battery, so for BEV the higher is the mileage the better and classic cars as you say don't actually do high miles. Obviously, if batter is as well salvaged from some crashed Tesla, then perhaps it is less of an issue, but now many conversions actually use new parts, because there is simply not enough of crashed Teslas to do all the conversions (because of how popular they are, and they are used not only for cars, but as well solar energy storage etc.), as such the environmental impact is HORRIBLE for these classic conversion. Indeed just keeping the cars as they are or doing reasonable ICE conversion would be much more environmentally friendly. Let's just be clear - these conversions are not about environment, it is new stupid fashion, ripping apart classic cars to make them electric, because in some religious cycles that is cool. If they would be about environment then classic cars are the last cars to be made electric... again as you said - just because how little they are used.

By allowing useless and dumb kids to get ahead in life by simply means of their parents paying the price. That is not to say all, nor even most, not even many privately educated people are dumb, that is not what I am saying - but like for like taking identically smart child with the same IQ will allow them to achieve more in life if they go to private school. It introduces unfairness based on parents wealth (or willingness to sacrifice), not on merit. And I think this hurts majority of "average kids" the most... the really smart kids will succeed either way, maybe it will be harder in public school, but geniuses will be geniuses even in public school. The really really dumb ones with fail either way as well, just going to private school not going to guarantee the success, once can still fail it, but it is easier to succeed there. But for "average" person that creates enough difference where it could make a difference between failure and success, between getting that university place, between choosing the subject you like, between getting the graduate position and not getting it, between developing career in the field you want and having to work unqualified job in the field you don't care about... overall between succeeding in life and being happy or living pack check to pay check and being miserable. And if this would be based on merit and academic achievements... sort of slipping average into lower tier average and higher tier average. The lower tier defaulting to losing out to those who were better and smarter than them on their merit and academic achievements, but this should not be the difference of parents paying or not paying for it. But... you are indeed right to point this out - nothing prevents government from providing better public schools. Their argument will be lack of funds, and their argument is that tax on private education could be used to further fund public education and I accept it at the face value. But in principle, if they they prioritised the education and if they wanted to make it work, they could do it with or without tax on private schools - that is true.

Never heard anyone in UK charging extra for fitting any standard sized tyres... perhaps some 24" or "stretched" set-ups, but not for 18" 245 tyre... an Irish thing? As for the choice of the tyres, it is always compromise. My first experience with Nexen was as it happened on my first Lexus and I was massively disappointed and never consider Nexen as a brand again. That was very long time ago and if memory serves the tyres model were something like N2000 or N5000, I literally could not accept the tyres and replaced them less than 100 miles later (I think it was exactly 200km). Main issue was unpredictable understeer on wet and noise... obviously that means nothing when talking about N Fera SU4, which is completely different tyre design 10 years later. I know for a fact that Nexen has improved significantly since my experience, but I still consider them budget brand perhaps trending to mid-range now, which is why I just can't accept their pricing... as they price themselves like premium tyres.

Yeah - totally agree, as well they did some Ferrari 308 or 328... which at first seems like sacrilege, but knowing how slow the cars actually were and how unreliable and finicky the original running gear is... actually not as bad idea. Basically... if I had classic with blown engine, perhaps one that was never really sounded that great anyway, or was slow (VW Beatle) or parts are simply unobtanium, so driving it means engine swap anyway... then I can see the point of conversion. But to take cars with legendary engines, with loads of charisma and butcher them for blind goal of "electricity is the future" is sacrilege.

In my opinion "sealed for life" is non-sense. What is reasonable period to replace ATF then? Well simple "gear oil" for manual transmissions on "unsealed" units last 40,000-50,000 miles, so ATF must last at least twice that, because ATF is much more expensive and more "advanced" fluid, so 80,000-100,000 miles would be my bet. Obviously the time and use should also be considered. For 3 years old car with 100,000 miles only easy on motorway, probably unnecessary. For 3 years old car used as taxi in the city with 100,000 miles, the gearbox would have long failed. For 15 years old car with mixed use at 78,000 miles... somewhere in between, I would tend to replace it and the filter if I would be looking to keep the car long term. Note - you can't replace all the ATF at once. So good idea would be to probably do it in few runs, drain replace filter and gasket (good idea to prevent leaks at 15 years old, my gasket on 12 years old car was hard as rock), refill... drive maybe for 6-12 month, drain again and refill and then you should be good for another 100,000 miles / 10 years, or thereabout based on the use. I know we had aerospace engineer here who said 50,000 miles, but he had luxury of doing it himself (which isn't really simple DIY job) and I find it just excessive... again considering that simple manual gearbox oil last 40,000 miles.

No I don't care about your breakfast and nobody should. There is something called "public interest", you argument seems to be that this fire isn't, but I disagree - large fire destroying thousands of cars in popular airport where many have parked in the past is not "just a matter of airport, parking operator, insurance and those people who lost their cars there", it is a matter of public interest, where finding should be scrutinised at national level. That is my opinion. So they they owe the explanation, not for me personally "to scratch my itch" and I don't even know why would you word it like that, but to the public.

Not sure how that justifies why we need to pay insurance premiums? It is not like we driving cars that are known fire risk? When was the lest time Lexus caught fire? As well I am just little bit surprised - I thought that if car is insured and it burns and it damages surroundings then the car insurance will cover EVERYTHING? Am I missing something? Is this because their own home was burnt rather than third party? What I like about this story is that they clearly naming the car officially, not like in the subject of this topic - "some sort of diesel car"... what are they afraid to publicly say exactly what car it was? Is that pressure from Land Rover because they are afraid of bad publicity that their cars are fire hazard? Why can't they say what exact car it was, was it mild hybrid, what started the actual fire (it was not diesel - we know that much). Why don't they get Land Rover engineer to explain what is burning so fiercely under the front of the car? I think logical starting point would be to forensically examine the car that burned and because I assume there is nothing left from it, then identical model. I mean maybe recall is needed, why is government sitting on their hands here. Seems like top priority should be to check if this was something particular with the car that started the fire, or this may be something shared by entire model range... basically why I am saying this - conspiracy theories are borne out of this, they most of the time incorrect, but they are all correct about one thing - something is being hidden here! Why it is being hidden. I was now week since the fire and we don't even know the exact model and year of the car, just from what was shared on the internet it is Range Rover of some description. Wouldn't fire department finished with at least preliminary findings by now... I have strong feeling somebody is trying to bury the cause of this fire... am I paranoid or what? Or this is being treated like "some 1500 car burned in the airport with damage ~ no less than £20 million and explosion that blown through 3 floor - BUT IT IS NOT A BIG DEAL!". Is it really not big deal and I am just imagining that this is potentially important to get to the bottom of it?

Doubt it - the beats would run from police until the first corner at best... must have been very straight road then. The car basically does not turn. As for the topic - I agree, I have tried electric cars and despite their admirable technology and efficiency they all lack "soul" for me... I always feel like in glorified milk float or golf buggy... actually funny to say it as I never drove milk float, so I just assume they feel like that, yet they may actually be better. But I have driven golf buggies a lot, I swear not because I play golf!

No - just friction of lycra caused it! I long warned of danger!

Many good points there - just to be clear I never said "ban private education", I just said it is undesirable and unnecessary in principle... IF public education is is provided in decent standard. I agree that societal problems are far deeper than just education and even best education system in the world may not solve all the issues in UK. However, my argument is that having private education and system where to send kids to decent school costs fortune just makes it worse. Because apart of all sort of issues in society you add financial burden on top. I never said private education created these problems, quite specifically I said private education is just a symptom of wider problem, so your statement/conclusion is out of place here and not in line what I have said. Basically, I agree with you here - but hat is because I never said anything to contrary. It is a cure for those with money to spend - yes!

Same for you Bill - do you have any peer reviewed scientific data that climate change causes "catastrophes"? An not think you interpret as "catastrophe" like actual rise of sea level, melting ice, rise of temperature, but actual direct link to "catastrophe" - let's say massive landslide, tsunami, tornado, volcanic eruption etc. My statement does not need scientific study thought - is very simple math. The problem here is that you do not understand what "2C target" is. You wrongly believe that it is enough to just "cut the use of fossil fuels" to achieve it, I really not sure what you want me to prove here. Do you understand what word "excess" means? Humans contribute 90% to the excess, but nature contribute another 10%. Meaning excess will be there regardless and all things you want to prevent will happen regardless. Any excess, even 1%, will result in climate change, be it slower climate change, but it would still change. Do you agree with statement that climate change is natural process? Do you agree with statement that humans are not causing it just accelerating it? As such does it makes sense that even if we eliminate all humans the climate change still going to happen and it will go beyond 2C? I am concentrating on 2C target here as this is clear impasse in our discussion if you can't understand the meaning of it. And it matters because all the restrictions nowadays are specifically made to achieve it. So you can't understand the decisions, if they are good or if they are bad if you don't understand what they are aiming to achieve, nor how inadequate they are to achieve it (and inadequate is huge understatement). Or other statements needs discussion as well, but we can't even start before laying foundation - hydrogen, China's emissions (that is actually not a problem as per capita is low), China's EVs adoption (stats are fake)... I mean you already incorrectly pre-empting my stance there, I think we can discuss all those in more detail, but for now we can seem to agree even on basics.

I am not literal in this case - EVangelists are as well self-sustaining fire, even the plastic bag on the head does not help...

Likely... but that is why I started by saying we probably should invest more in research. After all we relatively smart when we decide to do something, it was not stupid people that created nuclear bombs or landed on the moon, or the ones that work on DNA manipulations, so if properly funded and prioritised I think we could get to the bottom of what causing climate change, how bad it can actually be and what we can do about it. Seem like good start for problem solving to me. You know when my car does not start I first investigate what I can, if I can't figure out myself I call mechanic or take it to the garage... I usually don't start from smashing the windscreen with hammer right away... normally.

You can't on EV fires - they are self oxidising... so that will stay around sadly. By the way I am not denying that fire was started by the car that runs on diesel, I am just correcting incorrect narrative that it was diesel itself that caused it. We can clearly see from video and pictures that what is initially burning is NOT diesel, diesel was not what exploded multiple floors either. This is basically a fact. That diesel and other fuels eventually caught fire that is as well fact, in the end if they would not burn then we could not power engines with them, but diesel was not what started this fire.

Agree with you that in practice it is harder to achieve, but that doesn't make the current system in UK any better. I think it is objective to say that UK system is bad, without the need to find alternative solution. So I think we can agree that it is bad and could be made better... I have actually seen opposite in my experience, the more uneducated parents were the more they actually pushed their kids to study harder, unnecessarily so. As well they are more often than not took teacher advise as some sort of divine word and would punish their kids for not following it. The the hardest studying kids in my experience were always the ones from poor and uneducated families, those were actually majority of my class mates who gone to study in "gymnasiums", because that was seen by their parents as more prestigious and bragging rights. The ones from educated families were way more relaxed, more often skipping classes, putting much less effort into studying (yet still achieving most of the goals), but their parents were the ones complaining to principals, telling teachers how to educate their kids etc. Finally there were kids from antisocial and incomplete families who often had the worst in all aspects, bullied, picked on by teachers etc. But I would say majority of them still stayed in the school and finished it, at very least they were not artificially limited in their opportunities by the school. It is important to note here that the only reason poor kids from uneducated families were excelling in studies was that the education was 100% and totally free. Again, I think the biggest issue for me is that barrier between poor and good quality education is monetary one. You can say it is subjective, I don't think people from my generation would agree, but I don't mind you saying that. NO and specifically NO. You still not understanding how unrealistic 2C target is. We can end this topic right here as you either not reading or you failing to understand what I am saying - to stay below 2C target, it requires us disappearing from the planet and MORE. I don't know how to explain it any better - planet is warming because of ~2% excess Co2 (at least that is the theory), humans are causing ~1.8% of that. That is all we do, what we eat, our houses, our heating, our cooling, our transport, our clothes, the air we breath as well. To stop client heating we need to reduce excess Co2 by 100%, that means we need to wipe out this 2% excess, but even killing every human on earth achieves only 1.8%. Switching from ICE to BEV literally has effect of only 0.04%, getting rid of all "fossil fuels", would save maybe 60% or 1.08%... so as long as humans are alive, we still have this excess, which is still causing climate change. So in simplest possible terms - human life is incompatible with this goal. This is simple math, it is not even debatable or controversial - to achieve the goal it requires human extinction. You know wrong, because you are not getting the math. It doesn't add-up. Wind, solar, hydrogen, and all manner of alternative energies will reduce emissions (by ~60%), but they won't completely eliminate them. Again to achieve this goal we not only need to eliminate 100%, but as well additional natural emissions, so carbon capture is basically the only way. That was simplified example on "human experience", and yes - from perspective of living in UK the climate change will feel exactly as living in Canary Islands. The "more frequent extreme events" is speculation at best, there is no proven link between frequency of extreme events and climate change - this is alarmist narrative and I would argue (maybe incorrectly) that this is simply the result of instant information space i.e. in middle ages the tornadoes may have been just as frequent, but because only the 100 people who died from it knew, nobody else took notice of it. Now that we get all information from all around the world, we think it is more frequent. On top of that there is clear narrative from the press to always blame everything on climate change, despite again there being no proof that it is correlated. You forgetting to mention all the positives - permafrost and tundra (unproductive land) turning tropical and very productive, desert likely flooding and becoming jungle etc. It is zero sum game, some place will become more hospitable, some will become less hospitable. We just repeating same argument here. You claim of "catastrophic damage" is unproven, subjective and depends on perspective. As I said coast line actually will become longer. Gulf stream may stop, but ocean currents are constantly shifting so this is nothing new. Sure climate in UK may become more "extreme" and we may get proper 4 seasons, which from my perspective is actually good, I honestly kind of hate overly mild climate without pronounced snowy winters and with wet gloomy summers. Again - we can agree here - change will happen, but that it is for worse or that it is catastrophic, that is your interpretation of facts, not a fact. Again - no we can't see extensive damaging effects. I can see change which is in line and expected with warming temperatures. Again - this is just narrative, if you consider the changes as damaging, then they will get more damaging, if I don't see them that way, then they will not be damaging. As well there is nothing really exponential about the changes, only our information environment is becoming exponentially more concerned and alarmist about it. And finally, you reached the conclusion which was obvious considering your overall perspective... you see it as damaging and you believe we can make a difference, so you think that logical choice is to act. If that would be my perspective, then I would reach same conclusion. The difference is that I know for a fact - we can't make a difference, at least not with the goals and actions we taking right now and I don't see the effects as causing any harm, so predictably my logical conclusion is not to do anything. Which is by the way not necessarily true, I am playing devils advocate here at least a little bit. Because my primary perspective would be - nuclear fusion > carbon capture > climate control > terraforming of the planet > space exploration > multi-planetary life. But that is little bit "science fictional", still I don't see the problem with climate change at all - it is happening, but that is about all.

I don't have complete answer to the climate change, but if we focus onto factual outcomes - rising temperature, sea level and meting ice... then we already doing adaptation and we already doing "trial and error". As well animals do it naturally. So we can already do a little experiment... We can go to a different locations and see how we feel. We know that about 2000ppm Co2 would result in temperature 6C higher than now... where is 6C higher than UK? Canary Islands... so we can go there today and see how we feel. Hottest temperature on Earth nowadays is "death valley" at 56.7C (or 20C higher on average than UK) - again we can go there and I reckon majority would not like it. Animals do that all the time, they do migrate as well, but if we really want to see the effect on particular animal, then we can take say bees from UK and take them to Brazil... and... ohhh wait they thrive there! We can as well take fish from more salty seas to less salty (because melting ice dilutes the ocean) and see how they adapt. My understanding is that they will be just fine considering the process is so gradual (literally thousands of years), but I might be wrong as I am not an expert here. Now sure - at the same time we know that some animal will be fffed - like sorry polar bears! As for water level... we don't really need adaptation at all, simply as well build and maintain buildings some shoreline locations will have to be moved further inshore. We don't need any special buildings, just ideally not building them under the water. Now obviously I am oversupplying here and it is almost parody of the climate science, but that is partially why I started this thread - when eco mentalists says that "0.5C more and world ends" (because we are already up by 1.5C on the 2C target) I just want to illustrate how ridiculous is this statement.

No that is kind of opposite - we taking away things that makes least difference, but creates maximum pain (at least from my perspective). So this is not example of evidence based experimenting. The goal of stopping human induced acceleration of climate change would require humans to stop existing and would still fail, because it is natural process - that is fact if you look into the evidence. So on one hand yes - nobody is "saying we should stop living", but the goal of limiting temperature rise to 2C above the temperature at the time of industrial revolution itself requires human extinction and more, it is otherwise not achievable. Unless - we admit that reducing emissions is not enough and we need something like carbon capture - then yes. I have explained this several times now, but it seems I am unable to explain it in such way that makes sense to you. I am not alarmist - I am only talking about the "hurt" that I am suffering myself. You already said you do not consider that an issue yourself, so we agree to disagree here - fine. Evidence to support what? That temperature is rising, that sea level is rising, that ice is melting? Yes - evidence for that is plenty! That this is damaging - that is already interpretation of facts and not a fact in itself. That is not my opinion, so we don't need to disagree on anything here. No and I am not suggesting that - I am saying "if they would be good"... so that is theoretical. You geographical point is good and valid. Although partial solutions that we had in our country was so called "Gymnasiums" - they are still public schools, but for kids who are academically better than others, still free to attend (although back in my days there were rumours of bribing for places). That said what is important is that acceptance in them at least in theory was based completely on academical merit and now how rich the kids were, secondly their diploma had exactly same value as simple secondary school and the only reason they were attractive was because in theory all the kids were "proven good students", so in theory there was less nonsense and distractions. So it worked something like this - there would be geographically located secondary schools all working at roughly the same level, they were not strictly limited to geography but predominantly attended by kids from the area. And then in bigger cities and some towns they had "gymnasiums" which were secondary schools, but instead of being automatically attended by kids from the area, they were based on application and usually kids would travel there from around the city to attend. Most importantly as you can see the attendance was based on academic merit and not MONEY! And it was actually choice of the kids themselves to some degree, because they had to achieve that by getting good grades. And it was only for grade 8+ (so ~14-15 years olds+). So they kind of achieved what UK is trying to achieve with money, just without money and without disadvantaging anyone. Because you could get just as good grade in normal secondary school (in fact it was easier to get good grade in normal school) and you would get into the same universities. I know the argument here could be - "yeah but in public school in UK you could also get good grade"... theoretically yes, but practically no. The system I am describing really gave no advantage to anyone who didn't already had it, nor took it away from somebody. And we even had opposite of that - we had like "technology/technical schools"... usually for kids who were not academically good (sadly that is why they were considered schools for losers), but they were focusing on "blue collar" work, basically welders, mechanics, carpenters etc. Very good idea in theory and to large degree they worked, but in practice they as well had a lot of issues with antisocial types who were there because they dropped out of the normal school. Although I know that quality nowadays have significantly improved compared to the times I was in school. Nowadays they have strong record of teaching programming, robotics etc. and standard has really improved, it is no longer the place for those who can't read or write. To distil my argument then - I see the point of separation, as long as it is not based on paying fees to get kids into private schools, it should not be monetary distinction, it should be distinction on merit. And one may ask - so what is then distinction between the system I am describing and "tripartite" - the difference is that nobody was forced to take any of those options. One could simply continue in secondary school as long as they want and as long as they can get grade better than 4/10 (5 or 6/10 in some gymnasiums) and even then this was only requirement in later years for like 14-16 years olds, not putting 9 years old into inferior education because school failed to interest them in any subject.

How so? What is the actual benefit of private schools if state schools are good? ... and that social mobility is taken away (unless parents make sacrifices), because we allow rich parents kids to live in their private school bubble. If state schools would be decent, then everyone would go to state schools and it would increase social mobility? No?

But how it affecting my lifestyle brought you to the other conclusions? Or for that matter misquoting what I have said. Yes I said it negatively impacts my lifestyle, but none of the other points. And that is exactly what I think we are doing... we are "jumping to the actions" without understanding the science. And yes you right - science is often inconclusive, but we as well can have practical experimentation e.g. we do smaller jump, then larger jump and we reach the point to where we strain ourselves and then we come to rooftop and we can gauge that if you jump from this it is not going to end well. Whereas with environment it is literally "we have this theory and we think it may cause this - let's stop living now". I actually disagree that scientists says that "acceleration of climate change is damaging", I think that is exactly the misconception pushed by ecomentalists "science says it is damaging". No science says- it temperatures will rise, ice will melt, some animals will go extinct and sea level will rise. So that is fact. Ecomentalist interpretation of such fact would be "yeah exactly - so that is damaging", my interpretation is "no it is not damaging, that is natural and inevitable".

That is kind of my issue with reporting - as we know diesel does not burn by itself, so whatever is the fire in the video... it is NOT diesel fire. That the car was diesel - yes it is pretty likely, but that does not mean diesel caused the fire. Obviously, eventually when whole car started burning the diesel started burning as well, but diesel was not what started the fire. As well diesel was not what exploded so hard that it literally blown the floors. Just little note here - the explosion was so hard that it blown 3 floors, the camera angle is from ground floor (as you can see barriers) the car was burning on 3rd floor. Or was the explosion caused later by electric cars exploding in 2nd or 3rd floor maybe?! But it was NOT diesel that exposed. Hence my speculation that it was hybrid... That said - why don't they release specific model and end this speculation... what are they hiding? Just found this - seems to agree with my speculation as well.

Fine... you better lawyer than I am, on the basis that I am not even a lawyer... Still makes no difference... legal principles are the same small claims or "full blowing civil action with multiple litigants". The costs of legal reps travelling - again not my issue, they will be costs of defendant. That is why I said I would just use claims management company here. Truth to be told - it would be brave claims management company that takes on this case, but that would be marketing opportunity for them as well, so not impossible, in other hand more realistically they would look at the challenge ahead and would likely refuse to take on the case.. that is possible as well. In which case it wouldn't be large "civil case", it would be me suing them individually for damages, I wouldn't even bother with representation which I always do and often that is mistake, but it allows me to sue in cases where I would not be able to afford the cost. In civil suits where individual person is suing large corp. the cost usually are not attributed back to claimant, so I more than likely to be fine. My goal would be to settle out of court for compensation, as I agree with you - legally speaking it would be hard to prove any wrong doing in court. Right or wrong - I specifically mentioned in perspective of "lacking law", I am not sure if you have problem reading what I have said. I said sadly there is no law which forces car parks to accept certain level of liability. It would be "right" for such law to exist, but because it does not, then it can't be used in court. So here you are kind of right - in courts there are no "right or wrong" it is simple, dry, plain laws, either it is illegal or it is not illegal. Still - there is right and wrong from perspective of Carpark/Airport. Right thing for them to do (not necessarily legally required) would be to pick-up the bill for all cars destroyed in the fire and then recover the cost from insurance of the car that caused the fire. That is what any respectable business would do. This is legally possible, but I guess not legally necessary. The wrong thing for them to do would be to tell everyone to fff-off and use their own insurance, even if that is probably legal. They would still risk litigation and potentially damage to their image, as make no mistake - every single news article will pick on them for screwing over those drivers. As a matter of fact they haven't even screwed anyone over and news are already piling-up saying they are failing in their duty, not explaining owners what to do and leaving them in "limbo". This is where I have already took their spokespersons response... so they are under huge pressure to do the "right thing here". What I was wondering as well... Even if they got there, how could they access the middle of third floor?! Seems strange that it took so long for firefighters to arrive as well, when Airport itself has fire station... so perhaps the issue was more of lack of specialised equipment to access the place needed, not the time it took for firefighters to arrive. Note as well - many videos shows firefighters just watching how fire is spreading at first... pointing back to previous point, maybe airport own firefighters arrived, but could not do anything apart of standing and watching, until Luton FD arrived with cranes etc? Which again just points me to absurdity of not having sprinklers - if the building is such that access for firefighters would be difficult, then it seems no brainer to at least have sprinklers.

Not sure how my experience would make any difference to what is right and what is wrong... but here you happened to picked on the wrong person, because I do lawsuits pretty much for fun, I enjoy them... in fact I am slightly afraid that I will be banished as vexatious litigant one day. Not that any of cases I bring are particularly vexations, but just the volume of them and sometimes absurdly low amounts. To be honest in majority of the cases I am defendant, so perhaps that is not going to happen, but basically anytime when I am given an option to accept the cost (no matter how tiny) or face/submit lawsuit I always choose lawsuit... even if the principal amount is £60, I have sued for £2 and won. It actually may be less than that, I have sued Asda for false advertisement, because they shown fuel price as £1.04, but actually charged £1.09, consumer protection decided not to do anything, so I had to take them to small claims myself, rookie mistake - I have not claimed the costs, so I basically lost like £50 for that claim. I defend/start such suits just on principle alone and in many cases it have costed me more to defend it than paying up the fine. I have another 8 hearings outstanding this year, 7 out of 8 I am 100% confident to win, the 1 is 50/50% maybe interesting for case law later. When it comes specifically to insurance I had 2 suits, once technically as a witness, once in similar liability case. I think your point regarding the costs is kind of irrelevant - in insurance lawsuits costs would usually be covered by insurance company that is covering the third party (assuming you win). The only point where I believe your are correct - insurance companies are unlikely to want to sue each other and they always prefer to make it the issue for policy holder. If you asking specific number - I have long lost it, must be something between 75-100 cases. 16 this year alone, most Small Claims Court, but had few in Employment tribunal (which is technically not a court), not much luck in Crown Court sadly, lost both cases there, well CPS lost both on my behalf, but I was the victim so I count that on myself ... luckily haven't been taken into High Court yet as that does not pan out well in most instances. Which... luckily remind me the solution here - if I were to be involved in incident like here I would just go to my trusty claims management company and let them deal with it, I would not bother speaking with my insurance company at all, apart of maybe putting in "information only" note i.e. "my car just got destroyed". Only have used them 3 times so far, but compared to using insurance it is literally night an day. But they only work for non-fault claims. That said I am not qualified, nor practicing lawyer, even thought I have combined honours degree in business management and law.

That is what I have said, that is why I would like to see law change in this case to make sure car part operators are accountable. Car insurance policy easily covers £20 millions+. I think my policy has £100 million third party liability, for exactly such occasions. I would sue if I would be forced to use my cover... As I said ultimately the insurance of the car which started the fire is likely to pick-up most if not all the bill, this is exact reason why cars are required to always have insurance on public land, even if not being driven. So the only way I can see this working out is either Carpark/Airport liaises with car at fault insurance and provides details from where it has to be claimed or they cover the damages and they claim themselves, it should not be each individual claiming on their insurances under any circumstances. Besides it is as well argument to have - where is the line from where your car gets destroyed by another car burning, or from the carpark collapsing... I think if you are driver of one of few unlucky cars that can be seen parked where car is burning, then it would be reasonable to say you can claim directly from the insurance of that car, but if you were on another floor of car park which ten collapsed, then it is kind of difficult to argue you should be claiming from your insurance. In the end of the day it does not matter why it collapsed, what matters is that your car was crushed by the collapse. Whenever car park considers somebody else guilty for the collapse is their own issue. But I don't believe it could be reasonably expected that by saying you park "at your own risk" means our car park can collapse and crush your car. It is more like for occasions of somebody else bumping into you or somebody vandalising your car, not for the building itself collapsing. Either way - that is speculation for time being, but initial statements from Airport sounds promising.

That is one of the first discussion I had with my girlfriend - my view is that the correct way would be for car owners to claim damage from airport insurance and then for airport insurance to reclaim from the car insurance that started the fire. However, if we look at similar fire in Liverpool then the owners "were advised to contact their insurance". In case my car would be destroyed in such fire I would refuse to claim it on my insurance as that would be ridiculous, it would mean I would end-up paying far greater premium next year, have claim on my policy and would have to pay excess. As well it is not necessarily the case that all cars have Comprehensive or Theft + Fire cover, so their insurance may not even cover the damages, therefore reasonable thing to do would be for Airport insurance to cover the damage at first. But as we know insurance is not about doing right thing, more often than not they just going to try to shift the blame to somebody else. I guess there is possibility of making non-fault claim and for individual insurers to then reclaim the money from Airport or from car that started it. I am quite certain airport car park will say that it is not their liability, because car park was built in line with legal code and for example sprinklers are not a requirement, so there is no negligence on their side. That said I still see liability of Airport here, as there were no sprinklers and I think it is possible that some sort of agreement will be reached where Airport and car at fault insurance would reach the deal to cover parts of overall damage. It seems hard to argue that design was sufficient, when it turns out single car can burn entire car park, so it may not be in breach of regulations, but clearly not good enough. Although not really relevant for insurance, I think it is right to say that building code in UK is just horribly lacking. We had two major fires in 2017, one residential and one in car park, particularly Grenfell tower triggered building regulation review and yet we don't have sprinklers as an requirement despite in both cases it was concluded that they would have saved the day?! Luton Car park was only built in 2019, so after the pervious events, so again even without regulation it seems negligent that whom ever was responsible for fire safety did not think it would be good idea to install sprinklers?! What is for sure - I would not be the person whose car was destroyed in this fire as it may take years to process claims in such complicated case. Seem like lack of legal protections as well in our law, I would like to see the clause which would force car park operators to cover damages for vehicles parked there i.e. treat it as if the cars are in their "possession" rather than merely renting plot of land from them, yet as we all know car parks always says they "are not liable for the damages", which I always hated as in my mind that should always be responsibility of car park. P.S. - recently Airport Spokesperson said "We are working with APCOA Parking and the Motor Insurers' Bureau (MIB) who will co-ordinate with the various vehicle insurance companies."... so that makes me hopeful it will be as I said - claim off Airport/Car Park and then they reclaim from whomever is found ultimately responsible.

So the information we have so far: Fire started as Range Rover (likely older Evoque or older Sport). Now speculation is that it was hybrid, so that would point to Sport, because older Evoque didn't have hybrids, only the new one which looks different. So my bets would go at it being diesel-mild hybrid Sport. So although it was not BEV, it was likely still caused by lithium battery fire - that is my take. As well look at where the fire is under the car an where the mild-hybrid battery sits in Landrovers (coincidence?): What sort of surprises me - I always thought there were sprinklers in Luton car park, I certainly seem to remember red pipes on the celling and sprinklers, or am I just imagining it? And if there were none in relatively new car park then perhaps something needs to be done about that going forward. As well what is for sure - diesels do not explode like this: Actually don't want to dot together too many dots, but wasn't Liverpool arena fire as well started by Range Rover of some shape?