Car Park discrimination - no EV's allowed
Discussion
In a statement issued to the BBC, Alder Hey hospital said following advice from Merseyside Fire and Rescue it had "temporarily restricted the parking of electric vehicles in one of our smaller car parks while we upgrade its fire sprinkler system."
"Electric vehicles are still able to park in our main Hospital car park", it continued, pointing out it also had 14 spaces with EV charging points.
"Electric vehicles are still able to park in our main Hospital car park", it continued, pointing out it also had 14 spaces with EV charging points.
FMOB said:
The interesting bit is why they are upgrading the system?
Is it an acknowledgement that existing building fire protection isn't good enough to protect against an EV fire?
This is well known, no? They catch fire much more rarely but if they do they a complete bugger to put out. If the car park is under wards that are (obviously) hard to evacuate then this makes perfect sense.Is it an acknowledgement that existing building fire protection isn't good enough to protect against an EV fire?
FMOB said:
"We have been forced to act mainly due to the levels of sanctimony we have been experiencing", said Malcolm Tucker, a spokesperson for Alder Hay Foundation Trust. "When we had the occasional Prius or Leaf driver to contend with the situation was tolerable. But now we are inundated with Teslas, the drivers of which are convinced they are saving the planet whilst being completely incapable of actually driving, we have had no option but to ban all electric vehicles. Yes, regrettably, that includes milk floats."
"Our decision to ban all electric vehicles was made finally as a result of a Model 3 owner causing structural damage to a supporting pillar in the car park. The vehicle veered out of control into the pillar and CCTV footage revealed that it was due to the driver being preoccupied with looking down their nose at the driver of a Range Rover Sport, who was parking in an adjacent bay".
Angela Kirby, leader of the Foundation Trust commented, "We don't want them in our hospital, comparing notes about how far they managed to travel on a full charge, why the public charging network is definitely improving and tutting about how unhealthy it is to have vehicles powered by fossil fuels in a hospital car park. I wish they would all just f
k off." The BBC approached Barry Wainwright, councillor for Outer Liverpool, for comment about proposals for a separate car park for the terminally self-righteous, but he was unavailable for comment.
It is a bit wky of Mr Poncenby-Scouseworth or whatever his name is.
I'm sure we've all found ourselves in silly situations where there is a policy which seems dumb at the time, but as a normal grown-up you say "Sorry, did you say I can't park here? Oh, I can park over there? Nice one, thanks" and park in the other car park. Not start an argument with a security guard over asupermarket receipt hospital policy that the security guard has no say over then go to the press.
However, a Scouser, with a double-barrelled surname, driving an EV... A combination like that is going to produce more whines than Bordeaux.
Remember the car park where you couldn't park EVs for a bit whilst they improved it to better cope with EV fires.
ky of Mr Poncenby-Scouseworth or whatever his name is.I'm sure we've all found ourselves in silly situations where there is a policy which seems dumb at the time, but as a normal grown-up you say "Sorry, did you say I can't park here? Oh, I can park over there? Nice one, thanks" and park in the other car park. Not start an argument with a security guard over a
However, a Scouser, with a double-barrelled surname, driving an EV... A combination like that is going to produce more whines than Bordeaux.
Remember the car park where you couldn't park EVs for a bit whilst they improved it to better cope with EV fires.
Louis Balfour said:
FMOB said:
"We have been forced to act mainly due to the levels of sanctimony we have been experiencing", said Malcolm Tucker, a spokesperson for Alder Hay Foundation Trust. "When we had the occasional Prius or Leaf driver to contend with the situation was tolerable. But now we are inundated with Teslas, the drivers of which are convinced they are saving the planet whilst being completely incapable of actually driving, we have had no option but to ban all electric vehicles. Yes, regrettably, that includes milk floats."
"Our decision to ban all electric vehicles was made finally as a result of a Model 3 owner causing structural damage to a supporting pillar in the car park. The vehicle veered out of control into the pillar and CCTV footage revealed that it was due to the driver being preoccupied with looking down their nose at the driver of a Range Rover Sport, who was parking in an adjacent bay".
Angela Kirby, leader of the Foundation Trust commented, "We don't want them in our hospital, comparing notes about how far they managed to travel on a full charge, why the public charging network is definitely improving and tutting about how unhealthy it is to have vehicles powered by fossil fuels in a hospital car park. I wish they would all just f
k off." The BBC approached Barry Wainwright, councillor for Outer Liverpool, for comment about proposals for a separate car park for the terminally self-righteous, but he was unavailable for comment.
Nice one
Terminator X said:
"But industry figures have challenged the decision, pointing to research that indicates petrol cars are considerably more likely to catch fire than EVs."
Missing the point, once on fire you can't put them out.
TX.
That trope cop-out really boils my pee as it is blatant obfuscation. An EV battery fire is a low probability, high consequences risk. The decision to provide risk mitigation is not just about the likelihood of an occurrence, it is also about the consequences of an occurrence. A risk being low probability does not mean that no mitigation should be provided.Missing the point, once on fire you can't put them out.
TX.
Other factors the EV lobby pretend are not salient are that a fire in anything can cause a thermal runaway in an adjacent healthy EV just by raising the local ambient air temperature enough, the fires cannot be contained without specialist infrastructure, Li-ion battery fires release very toxic chemicals and they burn at very high temperatures which can compromise rebar in concrete structures. It was inevitable in my opinion that restrictions on parking them under buildings would be imposed at some point. My fear was it would take a tragedy first so full marks here for trying to prevent that rather than reacting to it afterwards.
The history of transport is littered with regulation changes which followed tragedies. I think it inevitable at some point that a building somewhere in the world will be compromised by an EV fire under it, or an EV fire in a confined space like an underground car park will cause significant casualties. Saying told you afterwards will be no comfort to those affected but if such an event does happen then I hope the EV lobby chokes on its sanctimony because it is a real and foreseeable risk.
siremoon said:
Terminator X said:
"But industry figures have challenged the decision, pointing to research that indicates petrol cars are considerably more likely to catch fire than EVs."
Missing the point, once on fire you can't put them out.
TX.
That trope cop-out really boils my pee as it is blatant obfuscation. An EV battery fire is a low probability, high consequences risk. The decision to provide risk mitigation is not just about the likelihood of an occurrence, it is also about the consequences of an occurrence. A risk being low probability does not mean that no mitigation should be provided.Missing the point, once on fire you can't put them out.
TX.
Other factors the EV lobby pretend are not salient are that a fire in anything can cause a thermal runaway in an adjacent healthy EV just by raising the local ambient air temperature enough, the fires cannot be contained without specialist infrastructure, Li-ion battery fires release very toxic chemicals and they burn at very high temperatures which can compromise rebar in concrete structures. It was inevitable in my opinion that restrictions on parking them under buildings would be imposed at some point. My fear was it would take a tragedy first so full marks here for trying to prevent that rather than reacting to it afterwards.
The history of transport is littered with regulation changes which followed tragedies. I think it inevitable at some point that a building somewhere in the world will be compromised by an EV fire under it, or an EV fire in a confined space like an underground car park will cause significant casualties. Saying told you afterwards will be no comfort to those affected but if such an event does happen then I hope the EV lobby chokes on its sanctimony because it is a real and foreseeable risk.
Pica-Pica said:
siremoon said:
Terminator X said:
"But industry figures have challenged the decision, pointing to research that indicates petrol cars are considerably more likely to catch fire than EVs."
Missing the point, once on fire you can't put them out.
TX.
That trope cop-out really boils my pee as it is blatant obfuscation. An EV battery fire is a low probability, high consequences risk. The decision to provide risk mitigation is not just about the likelihood of an occurrence, it is also about the consequences of an occurrence. A risk being low probability does not mean that no mitigation should be provided.Missing the point, once on fire you can't put them out.
TX.
Other factors the EV lobby pretend are not salient are that a fire in anything can cause a thermal runaway in an adjacent healthy EV just by raising the local ambient air temperature enough, the fires cannot be contained without specialist infrastructure, Li-ion battery fires release very toxic chemicals and they burn at very high temperatures which can compromise rebar in concrete structures. It was inevitable in my opinion that restrictions on parking them under buildings would be imposed at some point. My fear was it would take a tragedy first so full marks here for trying to prevent that rather than reacting to it afterwards.
The history of transport is littered with regulation changes which followed tragedies. I think it inevitable at some point that a building somewhere in the world will be compromised by an EV fire under it, or an EV fire in a confined space like an underground car park will cause significant casualties. Saying told you afterwards will be no comfort to those affected but if such an event does happen then I hope the EV lobby chokes on its sanctimony because it is a real and foreseeable risk.
Most normal companies would just restrict the parking of EV's to elsewhere in the car park to mitigate the risk rather than blow a small fortune on upgrading the fire protection for the 1 in 43 chance an EV might park in that particular bit of the car park.
LB's rant is very good, if only our public officials were that honest and direct.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff