LPG Discussion Forum

I am drawn to this thread like a moth to a flame......
It contains all the buzzwords, safety, injury, MOT, E number, regulation, EU, restrict, govern, mandatory, compulsory and many more.
But in my simple world, I sit here and wonder how many people suffer from death or injury every year in Great Britain because they owned a vehicle with a badly fitted LPG system and keep coming up with the same answer...NO WHERE NEAR ENOUGH TO VALIDATE THE DRIBBLE in so many of the previous posts. !
There will soon be more people dying from ebola per week in this Country than die in ten years of lpg conversion related incidents. We stand a greater chance of being killed through terrorist related incidents in the UK than LPG conversion related ones. Hope certain posters will be gearing themselves up to protect us from these .

rossko wrote:LPGC wrote:
The requirements would be, on the one hand, the need to ensure the test wasn't too far removed from an MOT that at least customers would still think of it as an MOT and DOT wouldn't need to throw lots of money at it
Ah now, there's the nub at last.
Why do customers need to think of it as an MoT?? Hoops are hoops to jump, call em what you like.

Still a hoop to jump through, but a universal, mandatory, easy to understand, easy (for the customer) to do hoop. Customers will think of it as an MOT if it is done at their local MOT garage by the usual MOT man.. Imagine the conversation - Customer 'Following my conversion I need to take my car for an MOT now don't I?'. Installer 'In a word, Yes, the long version is that it will seem just like any other MOT to you but during this test the MOT man may pay a bit more attention to the gas system and will have to do the emission test while your car is running on gas. If it passes (and I'm sure it will, or we will have to put it right and pay for your retest) he may change the fuel type on the logbook for you to petrol/LPG, and then insurers and the fire brigade will know it has had the check and has passed'. All installers would be advising customers the same thing regards who has the final say on safety instead of the current situation where different installers advise different, sometimes contradictory things - This will give some customers more confidence in the industry.

rossko wrote:I'm not a complete fool and do understand why you'd prefer it that way, for political ends. Thats by the by. But you make a huge rod for your back.

I could argue we may all have political ends - some of those that are currently members of UKLPG will be those that 'advise' customers that only members can safely convert vehicles, they might not all welcome losing this apparent sales talk advantage. One political outcome that would benefit the whole industry would be the new clarity of the situation that I mentioned above.

rossko wrote:Example: when faced with "we ought to check everything is E-marked" - "not possible in MoT environment" - "um, well thats not important, just details". Really?

This is the subject of compromise that we've discussed recently. I did ask the question 'when was the last time you saw an install with parts fitted that were not E marked'. Correct me if I'm wrong but bulbs need to be E marked although MOT man will never get to check bulbs - so what is the point of MOT man knowing bulbs need to be E marked? I suggest MOT man should check for presence of E marks where he can without dismantling - orange BBQ hose isn't E marked, the pipe run is a good length where he should be able to see E marks at some point along the length if they are present, as with Faro pipe. He can probably see all around the reducer, if stickers or stamps are present on injectors they should have E marks, he will know the difference between a Calor bottle and a purpose built tank. You may argue on some points, like copper pipe won't have E marks.. MOT man will know this is copper pipe so won't need E marks.. You could go on copper pipe should be plastic coated / sleeved.. Entirely necessary, since replacement copper brake pipes are not plastic sleeved? Compromises, compromises... but in the meantime we have what I suggest is a greater compromise in that only 1/3 of converted vehicles are subjected to any check whilst this check would apply to 100% of converted vehicles. Yes MOT man eventually gets to check all vehicles and currently some, I would agree with you most, of these vehicles currently pass the MOT regardless of LPG issues. But if MOT man were to be involved in commissioning LPG installs as safe, the knock on effect could be that in future he becomes more aware of LPG related issues and pays more attention to LPG systems during normal MOT checks - we may start to see more MOT failures down the line on older LPG system installs.

Gilbertd wrote:It appears fairly clear that DoT aren't willing to amend the existing requirements by any appreciable amount so that is out of the window

We don't know what exactly was suggested to DOT but yes it seems they're not willing to change the test by a lot. Maybe not out of the window though, maybe they would go for a less specific test as mentioned above..

Gilbertd wrote:Why should I take it for an MoT when it isn't due for another 8 months? In fact, if I do take it for an MoT the first thing that happens is that the computer says it isn't due yet (I know this as my wife lost the MoT certificate for her car and as the tax was due I assumed the MoT would be too so booked it in and sent her down to get it tested. The tester phoned me to say that it isn't due for another 6 months why has it been booked in?). OK, so the computer system is amended so there is a tick box to say it's an interim test due to a change in fuel type. That, on a bespoke system that was written for DoT a few years ago, won't be cheap for starters. How would it be enforced? When was the last time you were stopped by the police while driving down the road? How would a police officer, on the rare occasion he has nothing better to do, know that your car has recently been converted but not recently MoT'd and needs a check? What mechanism is there to flag up that the car needs to have an MoT? There isn't one as far as I can see.

In my suggestion the computer wouldn't flag up that the vehicle might need a test due to a change of fuel type.. The owner arrives for test and tells the MOT man he wants the test following the conversion (Maybe MOT man can facilitate the change of fuel type). We could argue over the need for mechanisms - until relatively recent years the only way police could know if a vehicle was taxed / tested/ insured was to stop the driver to check documents. One mechanism, this wouldn't be driven by law - owner advises insurers vehicle has been converted, insurer says ' does it say petrol/LPG fuel type on logbook, No? In that case you will need to take it for an MOT to facilitate the change'. Just a reminder - right now there is no mechanism implying converted vehicles need any check whatsoever, no mechanism that converted vehicles have correct fuel types on logbooks.

Gilbertd wrote:Then we get to the test itself. As Mike Chapman has told you, the no dismantling is sacrosanct so how does a tester even look at a toroidal tank in a spare wheel well? He'd have to lift the cover, which he currently isn't allowed to do, then he'd have to undo the wing bolts holding the plate over the multivalve , which he also isn't allowed to do, to check the date on the tank

The obvious reply - You're arguing against a compulsory (100% vehicle covering) test by an MOT man, who granted isn't able to check stamps on tanks... in favour of a system which doesn't check 66% of converted vehicles at all?
I know you don't think that because you wrote

Gilbertd wrote:I actually agree with your arguments that some sort of test on all installs has got to be better than a more comprehensive check on only some, but at the moment it looks like that test is still some way off.

Gilbertd wrote:Fuel pipes must be secure, so attaching them to existing fuel or brake pipes with a couple of tie wraps or a bit of tape would be fine

Is that the same for brake pipes? Which would we prefer, unsecure brake pipes or LPG pipes? Update MOT man appropriately, simples!

Gilbertd wrote: In fact, a bit of orange barbecue hose would be fine, it's marked for LPG use after all

I said above, MOT man can see at least some of the long length of fuel pipe, where he can see he can check for E67, simples again.

Gilbertd wrote:s Ross has said, you've come up with an answer and are now trying to make the circumstances fit but they don't.

I've come up with a concept which you seem to agree with.. Short enough to post again - some sort of test on all installs has got to be better than a more comprehensive check on only some. Correct, I am now trying to make the circumstances fit the concept.. and I believe they can, because at the most basic level a standard MOT gets the vehicle looked over by someone used to checking vehicles, parts security, fuel systems, etc.

Dave K wrote:But in my simple world, I sit here and wonder how many people suffer from death or injury every year in Great Britain because they owned a vehicle with a badly fitted LPG system and keep coming up with the same answer...NO WHERE NEAR ENOUGH TO VALIDATE THE DRIBBLE in so many of the previous posts

Rosko has recently mentioned political (in the LPG trade sense) points. He pointed out I don't like UKLPG because it doesn't have a positive effect on my business. I pointed out that UKLPG started all the talk on safety issues, give the impression that none member installs might not be safe, this message can only have a negative effect on none member business.. We are all agreed that LPG vehicle conversions are intrinsically safe (if fitted with a bit of common sense), but with the rise in numbers of DIY installs that might not continue to be the case.

Simon

LPGC wrote:owner advises insurers vehicle has been converted, insurer says ' does it say petrol/LPG fuel type on logbook, No? In that case you will need to take it for an MOT to facilitate the change'. Just a reminder - right now there is no mechanism implying converted vehicles need any check whatsoever, no mechanism that converted vehicles have correct fuel types on logbooks.

Or, owner gets it converted/converts it himself and, as I suspect in many cases, doesn't realise that he even needs to tell his insurers. Or, I buy a cheap spares or repair petrol Range Rover, sort out the problems, bung an old single point system I have laying around in the garage on it because I know it will attract a higher price when I sell it and take it for an MoT. There's nothing to tell the MoT man that this is it's first test since being converted so he does his standard test. I then sell it. New owner insures it and might think to tell his insurers that it is running on LPG so is asked, what does the fuel type say in the V5, no idea, I've just bought it and it hasn't come through from DVLA yet. Well has it been MoT'd since it was converted, well, it's got 12 months MoT on it so I assume so......

LPGC wrote:

Gilbertd wrote:Then we get to the test itself. As Mike Chapman has told you, the no dismantling is sacrosanct so how does a tester even look at a toroidal tank in a spare wheel well? He'd have to lift the cover, which he currently isn't allowed to do, then he'd have to undo the wing bolts holding the plate over the multivalve , which he also isn't allowed to do, to check the date on the tank

The obvious reply - You're arguing against a compulsory (100% vehicle covering) test by an MOT man, who granted isn't able to check stamps on tanks... in favour of a system which doesn't check 66% of converted vehicles at all?
I know you don't think that because you wrote

Gilbertd wrote:I actually agree with your arguments that some sort of test on all installs has got to be better than a more comprehensive check on only some, but at the moment it looks like that test is still some way off.

Yes, I do agree that some sort of test on all installs is better but I don't think the MoT test is appropriate or practical.

LPGC wrote:

Gilbertd wrote:Fuel pipes must be secure, so attaching them to existing fuel or brake pipes with a couple of tie wraps or a bit of tape would be fine

Is that the same for brake pipes? Which would we prefer, unsecure brake pipes or LPG pipes? Update MOT man appropriately, simples!

Gilbertd wrote: In fact, a bit of orange barbecue hose would be fine, it's marked for LPG use after all

I said above, MOT man can see at least some of the long length of fuel pipe, where he can see he can check for E67, simples again.

There's nothing in the manual to say that brake pipes much be secured but it is a failure if "a rigid pipe is inadequately clipped or otherwise supported". Many cars have brake pipes that run the width and length of the car and if that pipe has ever been changed it almost certainly won't be clipped as the clips will have broken off or rusted away. I tend to put a tie wrap or two if it is a long run and I've never had a fail because of it So if it is good enough for brake pipes, it must be good enough for fuel lines surely?

I don't think the MoT test is appropriate with or without amendments as the amendments would need to be altered too much and I don't fully agree with a compulsory test of any sort as where does it end? A compulsory test after any work has been carried out on the brakes? Or the suspension? Or a complete ban on owner maintenance? As I said, I agree that a cursory test on all converted vehicles is better than a comprehensive test on a minority but all cars get a compulsory test for safety every 12 months anyway. It's called an MoT.

Gilbert, I can see and agree with your reasoning behind the majority of your points.

Gilbertd wrote:Or, owner gets it converted/converts it himself and, as I suspect in many cases, doesn't realise that he even needs to tell his insurers

Owners should be aware that they need to tell insurers.. Insurance forms usually have an 'any modifications' section.

Gilbertd wrote:There's nothing to tell the MoT man that this is it's first test since being converted so he does his standard test

I can phone a parts supplier, or have a quick look on the internet and find the fuel type of a vehicle ('Sell a car' section in Ebay just one example). I haven't been the only person to suggest that since MOT man can see number of seats, colour, chasssis number etc on his computer already it wouldn't be difficult at all to include a field so MOT man can see fuel type. If fuel type is logged as petrol and the vehicle arrives for MOT with an LPG system fitted, he should consider that this MOT should be for purpose of checking the LPG system..

Gilbertd wrote:New owner insures it and might think to tell his insurers that it is running on LPG so is asked, what does the fuel type say in the V5, no idea, I've just bought it and it hasn't come through from DVLA yet

Ditto above, insurers can also see vehicle details on computers. Or try to insure a car giving the insurer incorrect details.. Hmm sir, our system says that car is a different colour / engine size/ fuel type / etc.

Gilbertd wrote:I tend to put a tie wrap or two if it is a long run and I've never had a fail because of it So if it is good enough for brake pipes, it must be good enough for fuel lines surely?

Not sure which way you're approaching this point mate.. but I would agree with the 'good enough' point totally. To clarify what you meant / implied - Wouldn't you rather have your LPG feed pipe come off rather than one of your brake pipes? LPG tank valve will cut off flow and you will continue your journey on petrol. Compared to likely immediately losing braking on one or two wheels and eventually losing braking efficiency on all wheels when the fluid has been pumped out / air locks introduced into the other braking circuits... I don't think we will have any argument on this - You either think tie-wraps are good enough for brake pipes and therefore good enough for fuel pipes, or you think they're not good enough for either. You must believe tie-wraps are good enough for brake pipes (you fit em), so you think COP11 goes OTT in requiring LPG pipes are secured with specialist clips at pre-determined intervals?

Gilbertd wrote:I don't think the MoT test is appropriate with or without amendments as the amendments would need to be altered too much

Hmm, erm 'With or without amendments?', but ahh yes you continued 'as the amendments would need to be altered too much'. So, why when we agree 'some sort of check on 100% of vehicles is better than a thorough check on 33% of vehicles' do you reckon the Mot as it stands isn't good enough? What would need to be changed to make it good enough? I know you touched on this but I'm asking for specific points.. I think these points could be discussed and a compromise agreed on.

Gilbertd wrote: and I don't fully agree with a compulsory test of any sort as where does it end?

Agreed, neither do I! I hate red tape, especially where unnecessary. Yet here we are, all installers seem to agree there is need for a safety system (particularly with the increase in DIYers), most UKLPG members use membership as a means to sell themselves as 'safer' and also sell on the insurance issue. Logically a safety scheme needs to be meaningful, when UKLPG members disadvantage none members by hyping their safety / insurance scheme, none members have every right to point out the untruths, at least uncertainties, in that claim. Any safety scheme in this trade may or may not be meaningful by default - as Dave K said, there are no LPG incidents anyway, and this is despite UKLPG penetration of only 33%... yet as said, we agree there should be a safety scheme. If we are concerned enough to think we need a safety scheme then it should cover all vehicles (not forgetting the most likely installs to be unsafe are the most likely never to be seen by a member of UKLPG).

You ask 'If we have compulsory testing where does this end'. I would hope this would end with new LPG installs requiring an MOT, not a specialist or IVA test, and certainly not extend to preventing DIYers fitting their own brake parts. But I suppose this may depend on whether we see a new type of 'Kwick Fit'... independent shops specialising in fitting brakes, which join a trade body, which spreads the word that only brakes fitted by their members are safe, which invents their own code of practice and has members checking their work against this code of practice and registering new brakes fitted on their own database, the trade body advising insurers to only accept insuring vehicles where after-market brakes have been fitted by their members, their members advising the public that only they can safely fit brakes..

Simon

Please please please... somebody tell me how many lives will be saved in the UK every year by extra legislation, more controlling bodies and stricter mot's for lpg vehicles ??

Dave K wrote:Please please please... somebody tell me how many lives will be saved in the UK every year by extra legislation, more controlling bodies and stricter mot's for lpg vehicles ??

The same number, maybe plus one (maybe a DIYer's) at some point in the future, compared to those that will be saved by UKLPGs scheme mate. Agreed the initial number is none and I fully see your point. Now look at UKLPG members websites and see why some very good installers like myself are a little narked with the messages that UKLPG members send out. From my point, the reason for this discussion is not just about safety (which is of course a very good point in itself), it is also about correcting the misinformation which is aimed at making UKLPG members look superior in the eyes of customers, that is broadcast by members, verbally and on their websites. This may be of no interest to you because (I'm not sure but I don't think you are) you are not a pro LPG installer, but this is a forum dedicated to vehicle LPG conversions, pros and customers frequent this forum, and this discussion is relevant to both. We now have the gaffer of UKLPG, Mike, agreeing UKLPG sees only 1/3 of converted vehicles and still we have no fatalities... Not only do I dislike red tape, I even more dislike bulls**t, especially bull which disadvantages me - From my point of view, this is an anti-bulls**t discussion, which my points are winning...

You have noticed there have been no LPG fatalities, agreed. Now, given the info that a trade body sees only 1/3 of vehicles and 2/3 of vehicles have no check at all, if you were a pro in the industry you would be faced with a choice - lose business, or join the trade body which boats of being responsible for the zero fatalities even though it sees only 1/3 of vehicles (with the vehicles which are least likely to be presented for the trade body check likely being the vehicles with the most faults). You would have to pay the trade body to be a member but you know the trade body scheme is bolx... Do you pay up or do you speak up? What trade are you in? How about I invent a trade body relevant to your trade that says that unless you are a member of my trade body, your work might be dangerous... Would you pay me, maybe against your principles, and then go on to repeat the bolx info, or would you speak up?

I speak up, but others seem afraid to do so - perhaps because they are so afraid to seem in disagreement against an organisation that makes claims about safety etc...

Simon

You carry on LPGC.
As for the continued inference from this trade body that they have rode in to town on a white charger to save lives and protect us all.... your bull routine is well known. Create fear, exaggerate the consequences, tell the sheeple that only you can save and protect them...collect money for doing so.

Dave K wrote:You carry on LPGC.
As for the continued inference from this trade body that they have rode in to town on a white charger to save lives and protect us all.... your bull routine is well known. Create fear, exaggerate the consequences, tell the sheeple that only you can save and protect them...collect money for doing so.

I think you can see my point but your post could still be interpreted in different ways... Sorry to ask, could you clarify your point a bit mate? Simon.

You are right, I do see your point. My point is that some one has seen the way to make a few bob by spreading fear and alarm. They are suggesting their sole aim is the safety of LPG users who would be dying in their dozens in the UK if they don't seize control of the LPG trade and make it ultra safe. Problem is, it is safe and I base my view point on the fact that yes, there are @!## installations but we aren't stepping over bodies and haven't been in the ten years I've owned gas converted vehicles

Cheers Dave.
Now I've got to be fair... Firstly, Mike from UKLPG says the UKLPG scheme doesn't actually make any money, it loses money but is subsidised by gas supply company's like Calor etc.. Mike says UKLPG are not about making money at all.... I did point out that I have worked for a chamber of commerce that said the same things publicly, but in the boardroom it was a different matter!

Secondly, UKLPG (then LPGA) pre-exists LPG vehicle conversions... If LPGA hadn't existed when vehicle conversions were first done, if LPGA hadn't assured the government that they had a scheme that would keep the industry and vehicles safe, then the government might have taken radical measures like insisting on compulsory IVA testing on converted vehicles... So it might be that we should thank UKLPG/LPGA for existing back then and preventing this from happening, such a situation would have involved a layer of expensive red tape to installers / customers and would have severely handicapped the LPG vehicle conversion industry from developing... But who could have blamed government for taking that stance in the lack of LPGA / UKLPG and taking safety measures too far... After all, we are talking about gas, which everyone seems to be afraid of and which might have meant we'd see a lot of incidents etc.

But these days LPG conversions have been done for years and there have been no incidents. Though we should probably all be thankful that LPGA / UKLPG existed in the past, only members will be pleased at their continued existence (because they get to talk the sales / safety / insurance talk), none members are only disadvantaged in comparison because they cannot repeat the same hyped sales talk.

I think we see things the same way mate!

Simon

LPGC wrote:... and then insurers and the fire brigade will know it has had the check and has passed

IMO, there's a case for not alerting the fire brigade (or Fire and Rescue Service as I believe they are now called) that you are driving around in "a bomb".
I saw a report in the paper a few years ago, and felt strongly enough to write to the local division to query it. The answer I got back was, roughly, "if the vehicle has LPG then they won't go near it and will just leave it to burn itself out" Apparently all LPG vehicle are expected to "explode" sooner or later so they won't go near them. I complained that of all people, the Fire Brigade should now the difference between a non-explosive conflagration which is what they were describing ("it blew the doors off" comes to mind) and an explosion.

Just a side point here - if its has already been mentioned I apologies, when it comes to alerting the fire brigade/ police when an accident occurs with an LPG vehicle in Australia they have a little red diamond on the front and rear numberplates, New Zealand has a ruddy great big bumper sticker front and rear.

I would think it would be more likely for the fire brigade to notice something like that than spend time running the reg number through a computer to find out if it may be gas powered. I made some up similar to the Australian ones for our LPG vehicles years ago from red reflective vinyl with LPG in the centre.

Anyway carry on as you were.

edit - couldn't get picture working

DodgeRover wrote:edit - couldn't get picture working

It's been mentioned that the forum ran out of it's space allowance a long time ago. SO you have to post your piccies elsewhere and link to them.

SimonHobson wrote:IMO, there's a case for not alerting the fire brigade

Can see your point mate but you, like me, can see that the fire brigade (the one that you spoke to anyway) attitude to LPG converted vehicles (bombs) doesn't make sense.. A sorry state of affairs if we have to second guess emergency service policies and withhold information which might be useful. Fire brigades will usually put out fires on petrol powered cars, even though petrol tanks are much more likely to explode than LPG tanks, they will put out fires at garages that contain oxy/acetylene welding bottles - but the info regarding presence of such bottles is useful to them.. I suspect this was a local fire brigade policy, not a national one?

DodgeRover wrote: in Australia they have a little red diamond on the front and rear numberplates, New Zealand has a ruddy great big bumper sticker front and rear.

This would work too... we could have number plate diamonds and logbook details. The fire brigade being able to look up logbook fuel type details was pointed out as a parallel benefit of having correct fuel type shown on logbooks, the other parallel being that insurers would know that the vehicle had passed a government endorsed test and they could confidently insure the vehicle without requiring the customer to jump through hoops. Of course the following could be changed but I expect if I were to propose a change others would say 'not possible, too much of a change in legislation would be needed'... The only markings we're supposed to have on number plates in the UK are the actual licence number, written in a specific font, specific size, specific spacing, sometimes with a marking to show EU country of registration. I'm not sure I would want compulsory markings on vehicles, bad for the trade...

Recent comments have focused on side points / benefits, really; If we don't take SimonH suggestion too literally (that it might be better to withhold info from the fire brigade bloomin-eck, that's like stopping a copper on the street to tell him you've just seen a mugging but not pointing out to the copper that the mugger had a knife in case the copper decided not to chase the mugger) then nothing said recently implies a worse situation if the MOT scheme that I suggest is implemented. Which leaves the main point still to be discussed... There has been a bit of 'padding' in the discussion since the main point was last discussed... I have recently explained to Dave K why the safety aspect isn't the only aspect to be considered, anti-bulls**t is another aspect... Without the bull and with a government endorsed mandatory and easy to understand safety system in place some customers will have more confidence in the industry. On the main point my most recent post answered Gilbert's post, where Gilbert set out his reasons for thinking the MoT scheme could/would not be suitable for purpose.

Simon

LPGC wrote:

SimonHobson wrote:IMO, there's a case for not alerting the fire brigade

Can see your point mate but you, like me, can see that the fire brigade (the one that you spoke to anyway) attitude to LPG converted vehicles (bombs) doesn't make sense.. A sorry state of affairs if we have to second guess emergency service policies and withhold information which might be useful. Fire brigades will usually put out fires on petrol powered cars, even though petrol tanks are much more likely to explode than LPG tanks, they will put out fires at garages that contain oxy/acetylene welding bottles - but the info regarding presence of such bottles is useful to them.. I suspect this was a local fire brigade policy, not a national one?

I can't find the original article online, but I can find some emails from the time (Oct 2006). In my "letter to the editor" I complained about the sensationalised quotes attributed to "a spokesman for Barrow Fire Service" and further make mention of "ticking time bomb" so I think they probably described it as such because it had LPG.

I also wrote to the local divisional headquarters and got this reply :

I can confirm that Fire and Rescue Services deal with this type of incident in the same way as dealing with an LPG cylinder, as the risk of fire and explosion are the same. I consider the comments made were not intended to be misleading or sensationalist but were based on fact, that
A LPG cylinder involved in fire without any intervention is liable to explode.

He also included a document stated to represent national policy on the matter :

Health & Safety LPG Fuelled Vehicles
The Service has received a copy of the Accident Investigation report regarding the ‘fireball’ incident when a firefighter was engulfed in flames from an exploding LPG cylinder fitted in a builder’s van, which had been deliberately ignited.
The following points are significant and should be noted by all operational staff, as an interim before our policies are reviewed as a result of the findings of this report.
• The vehicle was not marked or identifiable in any way as LPG fuelled, (this has been communicated to the ODPM) and vehicle manufacturers.
• The LPG installation was probably a DIY job, there was no relief valve fitted to prevent over pressurisation of the cylinder.
• The firefighter who suffered facial burns was wearing full fire kit, gloves and helmet with the visor down, but no flash hood. He was positioned 7 metres from the rear doors of the van and using a hose reel jet.
• There was no warning that a catastrophic event would occur.
The immediate implications for all vehicle fires, until confirmation is gained that LPG is not the fuel system used in the vehicle, or that the Incident Commander must include in his/her dynamic risk assessment the possibility that an LPG cylinder failure could occur.
• The positioning and proximity of firefighters must be considered.
• Firefighters must wear their flash hoods and gloves as part of full fire kit.
• The use of Breathing Apparatus must be considered.
The toxicity of the products of combustion demands respiratory protection, as well as the effects and heat released from an LPG explosion.

The latter is different to the quotes in the article which (IIRC) made it clear that the local brigade would "just stand well back" from any vehicle fire if they had any idea that LPG was present. I do wonder however if there have been any incidents of a similar nature involving petrol - I strongly suspect there have been (what happens to a "jerry can" in a fire ?)
I note that they specifically state that the installation had no PRV, but also don't appear to include the chance that any builder's van (whether LPG, petrol, or diesel) could be carrying an LPG cylinder.


Still disturbing that a professional in the Fire Service should be unable to differentiate between "explode" and "burst".

But this simply cannot be so; its all inherently safe, every tank has a PRV so there's no need to check, no-one would ever use a non-automotive tank so they needn't be checked etc etc.

Approved installers are required to mark their efforts, but this usually takes the form of a placcy window sticker. Many customers remove this as quick as possible, not wanting to be marked out, whether as penny pinchers or arson targets I don't know. It has been debated before.

To be honest I've just installed a kit to my car. Not done the UKlpg thing yet. Reading over the last year makes me wonder if its even worth it.

I know its safe. Its probably not as good an install as those that do it here daily as their jobs. But its a good standard that I am happy with.
The latest multivalves and fillers and Multipoint systems as far as I can tell look much more robust than the petrol tank and lines I've seen on most cars.

Although there is a safety switch on the petrol should a certain G force happen.

The LPG has those all over the tank. Solenoids front and back of the car between lines. A safety valve. A tank that weighs more than the flimsy petrol tank.
To be honest even with my none engineering eyes I can see that you get a lot for your money on lpg in terms of safety features.
Maybe on old systems or people hooking up gas bottles is out right dangerous.
But the new kits you'd have to be a right muppet to bodge it together.

scottyf wrote:To be honest I've just installed a kit to my car.
...
I know its safe. Its probably not as good an install as those that do it here daily as their jobs. But its a good standard that I am happy with.

Without seeing it I can't comment, but some DIY jobs are far better than the bulk of commercial jobs (particularly those "done in a day" ones). For the DIYer, it's your car and so you tend to care much more about the details - and more importantly you don't have the same time pressures that apply to a comemercial install.

The latest multivalves and fillers and Multipoint systems as far as I can tell look much more robust than the petrol tank and lines I've seen on most cars.

They are !

Maybe on old systems or people hooking up gas bottles is out right dangerous.
But the new kits you'd have to be a right muppet to bodge it together.

Never underestimate the abilities of muppets For example, if Mr Muppet can't be bothered running cables to the tank, he can always unscrew the solenoid valve stem and take the plunger out
I recall my mates Range Rover. Had a tank in the back when he got it - lovely neat job with the tank frame welded to the floor with some really tidy beads of weld. It truly was neat welding. I can almost hear some people thinking "isn't the RR boot floor aluminium ?" - and yes it was. There was one bead of weld on the steel section at the side, the rest had less hold than chewing gum.

I think pretty well all the safety features have been standard for quite a while - just looking back, I think I did my first install back in 2000 and solenoid valves in the tanks were standard even by then.

From some fire brigade's point of view, putting out any fire that isn't causing risk to the public, that is going to remain isolated in that it cannot spread, that isn't going to cause much in the way of financial or infrastructure loss/damage might be deemed not viable from a risk/benefit point of view. When it comes to a vehicle burning at the side of the road, out in the open away from infrastructure and people, their view might be why bother risking putting it out - it's only a vehicle, it's already likely a write-off, it does contain at least flammable liquids, there is always the risk of some kind of explosion or sudden flare-ups (flammable liquids) and it will give off toxic fumes as it burns.. They might never know what is in the boot or on the back seat of a burning vehicle - from jerry cans full of petrol, through aerosols e.g. hairspray that might come flying out the window, to bbq gas bottles, etc... But if that same vehicle was on fire on a narrow and busy shopping area street outside a firework shop (this time of year eh), the risk/benefit analysis might be different. Come bonfire night, many of us will be lighting fireworks... Suppose a box of fireworks is stupidly left on a wall next to where fireworks are going off, say a simple traffic light (a firework that doesn't shoot or flare up much).. none of us would consider rushing over to put out the traffic light that might ignite the full box if the worst that could happen was the box of fireworks would light and be wasted... We would all stand back. But if in the box there rockets which seemed to be aimed at the thatched roof or into the dogs kennel where Wolfy was trying to sleep, some people might consider it a calculated risk to approach the traffic light using a piece of board as a shield and armed with a fire extinguisher...

rossko wrote:But this simply cannot be so; its all inherently safe, every tank has a PRV so there's no need to check, no-one would ever use a non-automotive tank so they needn't be checked etc etc.

PRV's are very likely to prevent an explosion but of course only if they work, there is no reason to think they won't work but the only real proof would be in the pudding... Like my son said when he crashed his Corsa (other thread) 'I always wondered if the airbag would really work' None of us check PRV operation, we can at best check for presence... On an automotive tank, PRV presence is going to be pretty much 100%. The current situation with UKLPGs scheme is that only 33% of vehicles have any sort of check whatsoever, never mind checking that an automotive tank (and therefore likely a PRV) is fitted.

rossko wrote:Approved installers are required to mark their efforts, but this usually takes the form of a placcy window sticker. Many customers remove this as quick as possible, not wanting to be marked out, whether as penny pinchers or arson targets I don't know. It has been debated before.

All well and good putting a sticker in a window if the window remains unbroken during the crash/fire. Some people, myself included, think windows are there to allow a view outside... granted not a big deal having stickers in the window but they don't look neat and can restrict view a bit, even causing an extra hassle when it comes to cleaning the windows..

scottyf wrote:To be honest I've just installed a kit to my car. Not done the UKlpg thing yet. Reading over the last year makes me wonder if its even worth it.
I know its safe. Its probably not as good an install as those that do it here daily as their jobs. But its a good standard that I am happy with.
The latest multivalves and fillers and Multipoint systems as far as I can tell look much more robust than the petrol tank and lines I've seen on most cars.
To be honest even with my none engineering eyes I can see that you get a lot for your money on lpg in terms of safety features.
Maybe on old systems or people hooking up gas bottles is out right dangerous.
But the new kits you'd have to be a right muppet to bodge it together.

Hi Scotty, well done mate! This is certainly not having a go at you, just a point for my arguments in the general discussion... You are a DIYer, you might not take your car far a UKLPG check.. Couldn't blame you, you are not legally obliged to do so, you seem clued up and you're confident it is safe... From what I gather about your attitude I expect you have done a good job of install.. But another DIYer might not do so good a job and either aware or unaware of this they most likely will decide not to go for the UKLPG check.. If we have 33% of all installs being checked by UKLPG then the figure for DIYers is likely to be lower than 33% - and DIY installs are most likely to be unsafe... To put this another way in an exaggerated example - UKLPG get to check 33% of what might be expected to be safe installs but get to check none of the installs which might be expected to be unsafe..

Granted someone would have to be a muppet to bodge it so wrong for it to be dangerous - this is perhaps why there are no incidents related to LPG - but there are muppets out there, we wouldn't expect in the same concentration between pros and DIYers but muppets of both types exist.. It is perhaps muppet installs that are most likely never going to be UKLPG checked... But then again if someone isn't a total muppet and is simply more reckless, they may be aware of how they should have fitted an LPG system but decided to cut corners anyway.. and still decide not to present their vehicle for a test because they realise it would fail.

The MOT scheme I suggested would force pro and DIY installs alike to be put through a test by an un-involved/unbiased person and, though not as thorough as a UKLPG check, is likely to find more problems with DIY installs than UKLPG checks when UKLPG checks are applied to rather less than 33% of DIY installs. Pro, DIY, muppet and reckless installs would all have to go through the same simple check process... the decision on whether to take the vehicle for a check, or not, would already be made for everyone.

Agreed with your points too SimonHobson, our posts crossed over but we've implied some of the same things.

Simon

LPGC wrote:From some fire brigade's point of view, putting out any fire that isn't causing risk to the public, that is going to remain isolated in that it cannot spread, that isn't going to cause much in the way of financial or infrastructure loss/damage might be deemed not viable from a risk/benefit point of view.

That's the way they treat all car fires. If it's out on the hard shoulder of a motorway where the only place the fire can spread to is the grass alongside, let it burn itself out and sweep the bits up afterwards. If it's in a built up are, try to put it out, irrespective of what type of fuel it uses.

LPGC wrote:All well and good putting a sticker in a window if the window remains unbroken during the crash/fire. Some people, myself included, think windows are there to allow a view outside... granted not a big deal having stickers in the window but they don't look neat and can restrict view a bit, even causing an extra hassle when it comes to cleaning the windows.

My objection is how much is the person putting the sticker in my window going to pay me for the advertising space? It's like when someone buys a new car. They get charged for the number plates and the dealer then puts his name on the bottom, my view is that if I'm paying for them I'll have what I want on them (and before anyone says anything, I know that the plate supplier must put his postcode on the bottom of the plate but it doesn't have to be almost as big as the number itself!)

LPGC wrote:UKLPG get to check 33% of what might be expected to be safe installs but get to check none of the installs which might be expected to be unsafe.

But 100% of them get the check that you are proposing as the alternative within 12 months, an MoT.