If a kid was in a baby seat in there, it would have been awful.
And for god's sake don't pull the nozzle out once the tank ignites. That makes a fireball.
In short, it's common enough that warnings about it show up on daytime television.
edit: That said, charging batteries burn often enough that every high-power charging device I've ever had said not to leave it unattended while charging. When you're pumping that much energy into something that quickly, things can happen.
Most of the time, no. Not every pump handle has a functioning hold-open mechanism, but the vast majority of them do.
> ...filling up the tank until it magically knows the tank is full?
It's not magic, it's simple application of physics. [0] I would be shocked if this wasn't a feature of every nozzle that was usable by members of the public... nozzles in the UK included. :)
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_dispenser#Automatic_cut-o...
It varies--based on state I believe. There's a little catch that can be used at some pumps to fill without holding onto the pump handle. It actually does shut off quite reliably when the gas reaches the nozzle. It uses a venturi mechanism. [1]
You're supposed to stay there and keep your eye on it but it's pretty reliable. Only once in my life have I seen this not work as it was supposed to.
She had the presence of mind to close the filler cap before running from the car, which probably starved the fire sufficiently to prevent anything more interesting from showing up on the video. That said, I'm not entirely certain that a fuel filler fire would overtake the entire car. It may just burn out the remaining fuel via the fuel door, so long as the components of the fuel system are sufficiently fire-retardant (no guarantee).
When new Ferraris burn themselves down in seconds (happens a lot), I believe it tends to be because something has allowed the fuel pump to continue operating after the line has ruptured, and so the pump is pushing a constant stream on high-pressure flammable liquid onto a hot engine. As long as there's still electricity, the fire will get bigger and bigger.
U.S. fire departments responded to an estimated average of 152,300 automobile fires per year in 2006-2010. These fires caused an average of 209 civilian deaths, 764 civilian injuries, and $536 million in direct property damage.
Facts and Figures Automobile fires were involved in 10% of reported U.S. fires, 6% of U.S. fire deaths. On average, 17 automobile fires were reported per hour. These fires killed an average of four people every week.
http://www.nfpa.org/safety-information/for-consumers/vehicle...
That being said, there are a lot less EVs on the road than ICE, and the number of Teslas on the road is only a fraction of that. In 2014 there were 30k Teslas sold and 4 of them were involved in a fire, which is .013%. From what I read, all investigating authorities cleared Tesla of any fault. In most cases, it was the result of some road debris puncturing a battery.
I'm not saying this fire isn't a result of a defect in a Tesla component or design. But so far Tesla has a good track record on safety and also seems dedicated to keeping it that way.
It's certainly not comparable to all automobile fires and it's not really comparable to a spark during refueling fire, either. This would be more like if your car caught on fire in the garage at night, or while parked.
> In 2003-2007, U.S. fire departments responded to an average of 287,000 vehicle fires per year. These fires caused an average of 480 civilian deaths, 1,525 civilian injuries, and $1.3 billion in direct property damage annually.
http://www.nfpa.org/research/reports-and-statistics/vehicle-...
Fire is only one component of vehicle safety. My main personal concern with vehicle safety is how the vehicle performs in an accident and Tesla seems to have an excellent record when it comes to building vehicles that hold up very, very well in collisions.