the beer revolu wrote: We need to bare in mind that the original story of the smoking car entering the car park, now appears to be a crock of shlt. Without sound evidence to the contrary, I'm going to assume that every rumour regarding this fire and its aftermath is a crock of shlt.
the beer revolu wrote: » We need to bare in mind that the original story of the smoking car entering the car park, now appears to be a crock of shlt. Without sound evidence to the contrary, I'm going to assume that every rumour regarding this fire and its aftermath is a crock of shlt.
beer enigma wrote: » This is a fire claim, differs from third party. If your car or house catches fire and sets fire to the car or house next to it then there's no claim allowable against your policy unless it was deliberate. This wasn't deliberate so if its proven to be part of the recall, Opel will likely be liable but they will argue recall was ignored. Failing that its claim against your own with the industry agreement of no prejudice against your policy. Suing the centre for what? At liberty to try but good luck on that and to be honest the risk of costs against them I'd say all smoke no fire.... Pun intended
beer enigma wrote: » This is a fire claim, differs from third party. If your car or house catches fire and sets fire to the car or house next to it then there's no claim allowable against your policy unless it was deliberate.
Barr wrote: » That doesn't seem right , surely if your car or house catches fire and damages next doors car or house , then your policy is liable for the damages . Regardless of being deliberate or not.
Acosta wrote: » Local radio reporting a crash on the south ring. Someone called in to tell them there's no crash it's just people banging on their brakes to look at the demolition works. **** me!
grogi wrote: » Ignoring a recall is gross negligence. It changes the dynamics a bit.
who_me wrote: » Has that been established? Do you have a link handy? (Not doubting you in the slightest, I'd just like to read something about this whole affair that's not "I heard that....")
who_me wrote: » True, but then so too is building and selling a car that spontaneously catches fire...
marno21 wrote: » There was a crash, it was in the overtaking lane just after the onramp westbound at the Mahon interchange The delays from the crash were minor compared with the delays from the rubberneckers at the Douglas flyover though.
kub wrote: » Yes, an Opel Corsa, a BMW and a Van all in the outer lane, I passed going west bound and east bound approx an hour later. What I think is ridiculous is the amount of time it takes Gardai and removal services to get to these incidents on the N40 at rush hour. I remember years ago when the tunnel first opened a Garda traffic Corp unit was on constant duty on the N40 and tunnel with tow trucks on standby. Now with traffic levels at an all time high, it is high time they were reintroduced
Cork Trucker wrote: » Fitzpatrick’s recovery have the contract for towing cars that are broken down in or near the tunnel, I assume crashed cars as well. As for the Garda presence? Depleted resources will be cited as the reason for that.
kub wrote: » Perhaps they subbed it out to JD's because I saw one of their trucks being escorted through the back log by a Garda motor cyclist. You are correct about resources, but if for example, there was a big event on such as a match or some big gathering in the city centre, then it will be policed adequately. The N40 is as we all know jammed on a daily basis, in these vehicles there are hundreds of people, it has an obvious economic effect also it is a primary route for Ambulances to one of this country's main A&E's. It is ridiculous that Garda management cannot just put a single Garda on a motorcycle to be there, during rush hours and be ready to intervene in the Event of even a fender bender, that could cause havoc neverlone something more serious.
Harika wrote: » http://www.redfm.ie/news/cork/the-car-that-started-a-huge-blaze-at-douglas-village-shopping-centre-was-not-on-fire-when-it-entered-the-multi-storey-car-park/ The center manager
Augeo wrote: » Is the CCTV so good that it can "prove" there was no smoke, "Manager of the shopping centre Bartosz Mieszala says despite initial reports that smoke was seen coming from the car as it entered the car park, CCTV footage from the centre proves that was not the case. "http://www.redfm.ie/news/cork/the-car-that-started-a-huge-blaze-at-douglas-village-shopping-centre-was-not-on-fire-when-it-entered-the-multi-storey-car-park/ And, no offence to Bartosz but he's no fire chief etc etc etc.
grogi wrote: » Shouldn't it be Mr Mieszala?!
dulpit wrote: » So unsubstantiated rumours > the manager who'd be in the know?
Augeo wrote: » The manager claims CCTV footage from the centre proves that smoke was not seen coming from the car as it entered the car park. I'd not consider that overly concrete as proof to be honest. It's as unsubstantiated as any rumour really.
dulpit wrote: » It's not a rumour when it comes from the source of the CCTV, no? What end does it serve by saying the car wasn't smoking if it was?
the beer revolu wrote: » ............. We have a reliable report that it was not smoking on entering (not bullet proof evidence, granted)........................
