EV general discussion

bigmike20vt said:
you seriously telling me you believe a 2 year old MG4 will be worth under £9000? if so fantastic. finally the people complaining that there are no usable EVs for a sensible price will have to shut up!.
Click to expand...

Exactly - the same people complaining that EV's were expensive are now complaining used EV's aren't worth much :confused:
 
Jonnycoupe said:
Problem with that fact is on fire risk is an EV typical age is MUCH newer than average ICE so 'twenty times less likely' is an irrelavent fact when you look at the car parc
Click to expand...

Agreed that other factors are at play. But if an older ICE car was 20 times more likely to be a fire risk I would be surprised. The Swedish study indicated that 75ish% of ICE car fires involved cars that were over 10 years old. There would also be a number of older Leaf and Zoe’s in that data as well.

So it will be interesting to see how longer term numbers work out. Fundamentally EVs are less prone to catch fire, when they catch fire they are harder to extinguish but they are less likely to spread as they don’t leak flammable fluid.
 
Last edited:
Question for the Insurance experts.
Q: Is the entire insurance claim - for ~1,500 cars and a new car park, plus all the other expenses, going to fall on that one insurance policy?
 
bigmike20vt said:
nice...... my car is electric but our other car is still a diesel. We will go full electric when the car needs replacing but for us it makes no sense to replace a 12-13 year old car which is still running well (certainly not from an environmental point of view).

My parents are making noises about getting a new car and i hope they at least consider an EV, and an MG4 would suit their needs quite well i think. Realistically their next car will be their last (my dad is almost 78) I want them to get something with as many driver aids as possible for highway use, whilst not being too large for my mum to drive, or too small for my dad to feel comfortable in doing the 200 mile drive to my house on the motorway.
Click to expand...

We went back and forth on whether we should keep the Fiesta or move to a second EV and ultimately decided on switching. Due to various factors none of our journeys have been longer than the radius range of the Model 3 (~100-120 miles) and if we did need to go further its just a manner of spending 5 minutes to plan the route* (or whacking in the destination on the screen and letting the Nav do the rest).

My wife has had her eye on the MG4 Dual motor every since it was rumored then announces as the "X Power".

*Given I would be over analysing everything about the journey anyway, planning the route would be something I would need to do otherwise my anxiety will go into overdrive!
 
SDK^ said:
Question for the Insurance experts.
Q: Is the entire insurance claim - for ~1,500 cars and a new car park, plus all the other expenses, going to fall on that one insurance policy?
Click to expand...
I doubt it, it would sink the insurance company and the underwriter. I expect the industry as a whole will take the hit for the cars and the buildings insurers take the hit for that.
 
b0rn2sk8 said:
I doubt it, it would sink the insurance company and the underwriter. I expect the industry as a whole will take the hit for the cars and the buildings insurers take the hit for that.
Click to expand...
i wonder how much money that 1 disaster will add onto everyones premiums for the next few years?

edit someone at work is claiming that most airport carparks are at your own risk and insurance is void if anything happens.... surely that cant be the case?
 
Last edited:
bigmike20vt said:
i wonder how much money that 1 disaster will add onto everyones premiums for the next few years?
Click to expand...
just the range rovers/patient zeros, insurance would go up ... and his prior accident declaration would be wordy.
merseyside car park was £20million for 1000cars .. so 50p each

e: range rover driver would have to declare the building destruction too .. but maybe they have a claim against JLR
 
Last edited:
Simon said:
Do you believe everything people tell you ?
Click to expand...
no but there were a few here at work who do. but note my last part of "surely that cant be the case!"

i think their confusion was because they cant claim on the operators insurance, but instead have to claim on their own insurance.
 
Last edited:
SDK^ said:
Question for the Insurance experts.
Q: Is the entire insurance claim - for ~1,500 cars and a new car park, plus all the other expenses, going to fall on that one insurance policy?
Click to expand...

Its quite possible.
Most (if not all) large insurers would have reinsurance (ie you parcel the risk back out) which would cover this sort of thing anyway.
Reinsurance will trigger on say loss over £xM or just in general say 75% of risk is sold back out, so they limit their risk to 25%.

Its what the "names" at Lloyds you hear about often get involved in.
So you may accept some risk of having to hand over cash for a large unexpected event, with the knowledge it would be rare, say 1 in 20 years.
They tend to take the cash in the 19 years and spend it then OMG national tragedy Mr xxx famous for olympics 20 years ago is having to sell his medals due to unexpected large bill type stories
 
bigmike20vt said:
i wonder how much money that 1 disaster will add onto everyones premiums for the next few years?

edit someone at work is claiming that most airport carparks are at your own risk and insurance is void if anything happens.... surely that cant be the case?
Click to expand...

At your own risk only stops anyone there being able to take the carpark owner / landholder to court as opposed to any other part should something happen thats irrelevant to the carpark owner/land owner.
Eg another party scratches your car, you cannot go after the carpark because you dont know who did it.
You cannot get out of your statutory duties whatever you try to do.

Eg if you negligently ran that carpark and it crushed a car, or heaven forbit it crushed a kid, they would still be responsible.
In this case you couldnt sue the carpark owner as it wasnt their issue. IE they are not responsible for a 3rd parties triggered issue.
 
If the safety systems at the car park were inadequate like the failed sprinklers at merseyside one, I think you'd have some legal recourse against owner, or,
if you leaned on a railing and it failed from corrosion. ..... part of his H&S statutory duty.
 
Apparently there was no sprinklers.

Also no fire extinguisher on the level the fire started. One of those there when fire first started went to get one but it was empty. They went down the get one from next level and when came back up the fire had already spread.

Definitely sounds like fire brigade think it was a diesel car that started it. Although eventually some EVs did catch fire. Over 1000 cars involved.
 
Last edited:
No one died and no one was seriously injured. A few people breathed in some smoke who were at ground zero. A fire fighter breathed in some smoke which is a known hazard of the job.

The fire safety protocols seemed to work in this incident.

Sprinklers are not necessarily a requirement and generally their purpose is to suppress fire to enable evacuation, not to put out fires. If people are able to safely evacuate without sprinklers, they may not need to be installed.
 
Having tried to put out a car fire with 400l of water, extinguishers do very little unless you are there immediately.

C class diesel with an oil cap missing, scary how fast they go up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom