Shell own law, very conceited

[TeePeePhobe]

Originally posted by Demon@Feb 28 2005, 12:05 PM

whoever states that you can't generate static in singapore high humidity condition is dead wrong. Ask any car driver, how many experience static shock when in contact with the car metal body when leaving the car.

I said that. Apparently u managed to contradicted yourself in 1 paragraph, "high humidity" and "car" (==air con) Duh

[MPeX]

Guys and gals,

 

I need your feedback, voice and opinions regarding Shell's latest "Dismount-or-no-pump" campaign. To help me to help you, please proceed to the following thread.

 

http://www.singaporebikes.com/forum/index....dpost&p=1548672

[Demon]

Originally posted by TeePeePhobe@Feb 28 2005, 07:20 PM

I said that. Apparently u managed to contradicted yourself in 1 paragraph, "high humidity" and "car" (==air con) Duh

How did you add "high humidity" and "car" =air con ?? Please educate me

[DeusExMachina]

Originally posted by Demon@Feb 28 2005, 08:00 PM

How did you add "high humidity" and "car" =air con ?? Please educate me

 

Refer to my earlier reply to you.

 

I dare say that over 90% of the cars here use their air con when on the move. Can't help it. Our climate seeee peeeehhhh hot and humid.

 

Now in the dry cool comfort of the car.... rub your naked hands sexily over the seat... nice soft cushion... plush plush... ooooohh yeahh baby.

 

 

Can you say.... zzzzt zzzzzzzt zzzzzzzzt? :P

[MPeX]

Members who support this cause, please go to the below URL and sign the online petition. Make yourself heard, every signature counts!

 

http://www.petitiononline.com/shellsg/petition.html

 

Please forward the URL to any of your friends who may be interested as well.

[ultimax]

as an aside, for anyone who wants to see static electricity starting a fire while gas is being pumped into a vehicle, visit this link:

 

http://www.compfused.com/directlink/330/

[william_liu]

Methink it points out that one shouldn't move around (or in and out of your vehicle) while refueling your vehicle. Bikers who refuel while seated/stradling should not have this problem.

[cabal]

any company wouldn't want to tarnish their image because of any accidents occuring within their premises, esp like petrol kiosks where the public customers come and go all the time.

 

if you hate the law so much, convince them about the non-neccessity of all.

 

by then we should just got to accept it or leave it. got to understand them.

 

plus, it's like as if we don't have any freedom to choose.

 

Launch of the Shell Nationwide Safety Awareness Drive at the Singapore Science Centre - Speech By Assoc Prof Ho Peng Kee, Senior Minister of State for Law and Home Affairs, 17 February 2005

 

Safety is everyone's business

 

3. We should not wait for an incident to occur at a petrol station to be reminded that safety at petrol stations cannot be taken for granted. Motorists have a key interest in observing safety measures at petrol stations. If a fire breaks out, the petrol station may lose its business. But the more critical point is that the lives of motorists', their loved ones who are travelling as passengers in their vehicles, employees at the petrol station and other innocent bystanders could be at stake. We should not allow the careless and irresponsible behaviour of a minority of motorists affect the general motoring public.

http://www2.mha.gov.sg/mha/detailed.jsp?ar...&parent=0&cat=0

[lunloon]

personally i think it's a small issue made big...

how to pay while straddle on bike? when u are alone?

 

anyway i ride scooter so i dismount to pump. easier also.

[spy622]

I wonder y is ther such a big hoo-haa on this....

 

Shell is trying to create a safety awareness champian as a private company doing itz part to educate ppl out there to keep everyone safe....

 

if it is so troublesome to dismount n pump at shell then go to switch to some other petrol station n do ur top up....saying dat itz diffcult to top up when the bike is tilted is just another excuse and if u cherish ur life more by doin the extra bit to dismount it cause no harm...

 

so wat if passengers in cars r actually causing more static bulid up, if anything happen then let the passengers in the car die 1st lah serving themselves right for staying in the car..

 

so lets look at this with a clearer mind set...who will get the last laugh if 1 fine day REALLY something happen to the rider who is topping up halfway while mounted on the bike????......

 

 

Before I end juz 1 more simple question, no 1 smokes in a petrol station in Spore BUT once we r across the causeway for example at GP Esso ther r sure some riders or drivers happily smoking away while waiting for the groups to form up...so we all kno itz dangerous BUT y r we still doing this????

[william_liu]

Originally posted by cabal@Mar 1 2005, 08:03 PM

any company wouldn't want to tarnish their image because of any accidents occuring within their premises, esp like petrol kiosks where the public customers come and go all the time.

 

if you hate the law so much, convince them about the non-neccessity of all.

 

by then we should just got to accept it or leave it. got to understand them.

 

plus, it's like as if we don't have any freedom to choose.

 

 

http://www2.mha.gov.sg/mha/detailed.jsp?ar...&parent=0&cat=0

It is NOT the law..... yet.

 

As for increased risk by sitting and stradling while refueling, I don't see how it can increase the risk of a fire breaking out. Has there been any historical facts and figures of this, or has any scientific reserach been carried out?

 

Increased potential for injury (to rider) SHOULD a fire break out, yes, I agree. So does wearing open-faces, not wearing full riding gear and riding in general compared to public transport increase the potential of injury to a rider. Where do we draw a line, and take responsibility for our our own actions?

 

If we want to talk about ZERO tolerance to the dangers, how about mobilephones? Do you switch it off presently before entering a petrol kiosk? Passengers remaining inside a vehicle while it is being refueled, are they not at risk compared to a rider sitting on his motorcycle while refueling?

 

We still have the freedom to choose, by going to other petrol stations. The question is whether we should speak out against such a ruling now... before it may be too late.

[william_liu]

Originally posted by spy622@Mar 1 2005, 08:47 PM

I wonder y is ther such a big hoo-haa on this....

 

Shell is trying to create a safety awareness champian as a private company doing itz part to educate ppl out there to keep everyone safe....

 

if it is so troublesome to dismount n pump at shell then go to switch to some other petrol station n do ur top up....saying dat itz diffcult to top up when the bike is tilted is just another excuse and if u cherish ur life more by doin the extra bit to dismount it cause no harm...

 

so wat if passengers in cars r actually causing more static bulid up, if anything happen then let the passengers in the car die 1st lah serving themselves right for staying in the car..

 

so lets look at this with a clearer mind set...who will get the last laugh if 1 fine day REALLY something happen to the rider who is topping up halfway while mounted on the bike????......

 

 

Before I end juz 1 more simple question, no 1 smokes in a petrol station in Spore BUT once we r across the causeway for example at GP Esso ther r sure some riders or drivers happily smoking away while waiting for the groups to form up...so we all kno itz dangerous BUT y r we still doing this????

I think the big hoo-ha is over the freedom to choose bro....

 

As for the smoking example, a lit cigeratte is much more likely to ignite the petrol than an unlit cigeratte, no question about that.

 

Whether you sit and pump or stand and pump, the chances of a fire happening is the SAME. Only the potential injury to the rider is arguably greater.

[lunloon]

i can simply imagine, while straddling and pumping petrol... some toot disturbs the pump and fire burn... the center of the person...

[DM]

http://www.singaporebikes.com/forum/index....showtopic=66437

[william_liu]

Originally posted by Pierrot@Mar 1 2005, 09:02 PM

http://www.singaporebikes.com/forum/index....showtopic=66437

So friend, I suppose you always go out riding in full riding gear everytime you ride then?

 

After all, full leathers can save your skin from nasty abrasion (severe road-rash ain't a pretty sight), proper riding boots can protect your ankles and toes, gloves protect your hands and digits and a full-face helmet can protect your chin and nice set of teeth from getting smashed....

 

Now, we would want to avoid all that don't we?

[DM]

i just posted a link, didn't even say anything.

[william_liu]

Just being an "airhead"

[ultimax]

Originally posted by william_liu@Mar 1 2005, 08:57 PM

I think the big hoo-ha is over the freedom to choose bro....

 

yes, but you're on private property so they have every right to determine their own rules. It's not like you're pumping gas at a HDB void deck, which is public space.

 

Besides, you do have freedom to choose. You can choose to go to another petrol station, right?

 

Also, I really don't think we should argue abt the logic behind Shell's new rule. The freedom of choice works both ways - they should have the freedom to set their own rules too, and if its based on reasoning that we disagree with, then so be it. Some of the responses here are also quite "conceited" and self-interested if you ask me, so who are we to say Shell is wrong in the way it's enforcing its new rule. Makes sense?

 

Some battles are worth fighting, others are not. By the looks of it, it seems that most people are against Shell's new ruling because it's 1. insulting 2. an attack on their ego (They do not have control over their own actions, in this case, the pumping of petrol, so they feel powerless and belittled). I personally think getting worked up over this is simply not worth the energy expended. People, companies, organisations insult me, directly and indirectly, regularly and I probably do likewise. Such is life. Get used to it and move on

[DM]

Originally posted by ultimax@Mar 1 2005, 09:17 PM

yes, but you're on private property so they have every right to determine their own rules. It's not like you're pumping gas at a HDB .....his case, the pumping of petrol, so they feel powerless and belittled). I personally think getting worked up over this is simply not worth the energy expended. People insult me, directly and indirectly, regularly and I probably do likewise. Such is life. Get used to it and move on

WHOAHOHOHOHO !!1 BUUURN !!!

[william_liu]

Originally posted by ultimax@Mar 1 2005, 09:17 PM

yes, but you're on private property so they have every right to determine their own rules. It's not like you're pumping gas at a HDB void deck, which is public space.

 

Besides, you do have freedom to choose. You can choose to go to another petrol station, right?

 

Also, I really don't think we should argue abt the logical reasoning behind Shell's new rule. The freedom of choice works both ways - they should have the freedom to set their own rules too, and if its based on reasoning that we disagree with, then so be it. Some of the responses here are also quite "conceited" and self-interested if you ask me, so who are we to say Shell is wrong in enforcing its new rule. Makes sense?

 

Some battles are worth fighting, others are not. By the looks of it, it seems that most people are against Shell's new ruling because it's 1. insulting 2. an attack on their ego (They do not have control over their own actions, in this case, the pumping of petrol, so they feel powerless and belittled). I personally think getting worked up over this is simply not worth the energy expended. People insult me, directly and indirectly, regularly and I probably do likewise. Such is life. Get used to it and move on

I'm not (and neither can I) denying them the right to set their rules. But we can still voice out our unhappiness over their ruling, can't we?

 

Case in point, recently a Brazilian restaurant was in the news over their perceived preferential treatment over foreigners over locals. Let's presume that in fact that is the truth. Does that mean people (locals who are snubbed) should not voice out their unhappiness over the establishment, just because it is located on private property and has the right to do so? And those unaffected (foreigners/locals who do not frequent the restaurant in this example) should tell those to keep quiet and just live with it, move on to another restaurant?

 

Yes, I agree that what you find to be reasonable may not be for me, and vice versa. I don't think anyone is "forcing" or "coercing" those who don't find the ruling unreasonable to agree on putting their name to the petition. The whole point of this "hoo-ha" and petition is to let those who have been affected voice out what they think.

 

Your mountain may be my molehill, and my molehill may be your mountain, let us rage about our own mountains yes?

[ultimax]

Originally posted by william_liu@Mar 1 2005, 09:36 PM

Your mountain may be my molehill, and my molehill may be your mountain, let us rage about our own mountains yes?

yes indeed.

 

My post was just an attempt to bring some balance to the entire debate. I wasn't telling you guys to stop. By all means continue if you think its a cause worthy of pursuit. I was just pointing out the problem with the logic you guys have adopted to further your argument, namely that it all comes down to being able to have a say over your actions, thus freedom of choice.

 

You want it, but so does Shell. Both sides have valid arguments. But since the pumps are on private property, and it can set whatever rules it wants, Shell has the advantage in this case.

 

I just think that life is full of situations like this, where differing opinions can never be reconciled, and that we should just accpet them and move on. I suppose I'm a realist in this case - far too much energy is wasted in trivial causes (stuff that really doesn't impact your life greatly) which are fought for "the principle of it", and while it's important to keep this democratic spirit alive, we should reserve our energy for the larger contentious issues that affect us more directly and severely.

 

But that's how I live my life, and you may think otherwise. Like I said, I'm just sharing my opinion, not forcing anyone's hand.

[josean]

kopi tiam chicken rice stall says that u MUST bring ur own utensils to eat their chicken rice else cannot eat. say.. this partitular stall is the best tasting chicken rice is the best in the www (whole wide world)

 

so what u do?

 

either u

 

1. lan lan bring ur own cutlery or

2. eat somewhere else.

 

 

similarly, for Shell to have such a policy is their own corporate policy and not some regulation passed by the gahmen.

 

same 2 choices.

 

1. follow it by dismounting OR

2. pump somewhere else

 

 

ps: im doing no.2

[TeePeePhobe]

Originally posted by Pierrot@Mar 1 2005, 09:02 PM

http://www.singaporebikes.com/forum/index....showtopic=66437

it is a textbook example of conjecture and unsubstantiated speculation on an incident you did not even witness. Think critically: What is the real issue here? That's right: Enough petrol dribbling down to form a POOL on the floor. The scenario is also one sided. The rider in this case could not have sat on the bike to pump petrol even if he wanted, so by virtue that he escaped that makes what he has done.....right? You have to be stupid and clumsy enough to spill a pool of petrol in the first place. For a regular bike that weighs 200+kg with a high CG fuel tank, what's the best option not to spill any petrol in the 1st place? Think man, think!

[DeusExMachina]

Originally posted by ultimax@Mar 1 2005, 09:17 PM

yes, but you're on private property so they have every right to determine their own rules. It's not like you're pumping gas at a HDB void deck, which is public space.

 

Besides, you do have freedom to choose. You can choose to go to another petrol station, right?

 

 

Yes. That is all there is to it.

 

Unhappy with new rule, complain and petition.

No change, all move to another brand.

 

Everyone is currently doing the first. I'm waiting to see the second.

[william_liu]

I didn't wait for the first..... First I tried to visit the other Shells that didn't bother me. Then these "safe havens" gradually started to enforce the ruling as well.

 

I had already applied for the Mobil card but I wanted to "give chance" to them. Anyway finally switched over to Esso/Mobil two months back after getting told to get off rudely and attendent stabbing his finger at the signboard showing the regulation.

 

I think quite a few others have switched brands so far... have to wait and see if there's enough to make an impact on their figures.