SHELL - OFFICIAL STATEMENT RELEASED

[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

[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.

[vfrT]

I wonder at the sincerity of this belated solicitation. With all due respect, you've already started shooting off and condemning Shell in the name of Sgbiker members (in several other of this forum threads) days ago.

 

Dear Shell, this chap does not speak for me.

 

As quoted, there are 15,000 Sgbikers members, but to date only 0.009% of the registered member showed their support in the petition. Reason being the vast majority are more rational and know that Shell's dismount policy is aimed at safety. Distorting Shell's intention and getting emotionally charged because of your bad experience with some rude kiosk attendant is different than the issue here.

 

Not that that is going to dissuade you in your crusade .. so..

 

My contrarian voice to those who would listen ..

 

1. This Shell policy is also implement in many other countries such as New Zealand, so its not just us in little Singapore.

2. Facts and experience has shown that there is a liklihood that spilled fuel in a motorcycle may catch fire. This is the underlying reason why the CMRA 2005 endurance race regulation require riders off thier bike and refuel only into a dead engine or face instant disqualification.

3. Like bikers, there are drivers and people who follows and other who flout Shell's policy. Selective citing of bad drivers habit for comparison and equate it as discrimination issue is misleading.

4. Bikers can up their standing by supporting Shell's policy - it shows we are a thinking lot.

 

So if any souls wish to join this misguided crusade - please do some logical and objective reasoning and research on why this is so, before more ham is done to bikers.

[mahuberani]

Originally posted by vfrT@Mar 2 2005, 05:00 PM

I wonder at the sincerity of this belated solicitation. With all due respect, you've already started shooting off and condemning Shell in the name of Sgbiker members (in several other of this forum threads) days ago.

 

Dear Shell, this chap does not speak for me.

 

As quoted, there are 15,000 Sgbikers members, but to date only 0.009% of the registered member showed their support in the petition. Reason being the vast majority are more rational and know that Shell's dismount policy is aimed at safety. Distorting Shell's intention and getting emotionally charged because of your bad experience with some rude kiosk attendant is different than the issue here.

 

Not that that is going to dissuade you in your crusade .. so..

 

My contrarian voice to those who would listen ..

 

1. This Shell policy is also implement in many other countries such as New Zealand, so its not just us in little Singapore.

2. Facts and experience has shown that there is a liklihood that spilled fuel in a motorcycle may catch fire. This is the underlying reason why the CMRA 2005 endurance race regulation require riders off thier bike and refuel only into a dead engine or face instant disqualification.

3. Like bikers, there are drivers and people who follows and other who flout Shell's policy. Selective citing of bad drivers habit for comparison and equate it as discrimination issue is misleading.

4. Bikers can up their standing by supporting Shell's policy - it shows we are a thinking lot.

 

So if any souls wish to join this misguided crusade - please do some logical and objective reasoning and research on why this is so, before more ham is done to bikers.

If you think it that way, how about cars with passengers inside. I think they have to alight before fuel being pump. It is to be fair if you think it that way. Furthermore, cars have bigger tank than bikes. If fire get caught, it will definitely be bigger than bike. I agree with your reason but the passengers in the car have to alight too if you think in a bigger picture. And how about fuel attendant who would only pump for cars but not bikes???

[DM]

this petition has nothing to do with fuel attendants choosing to help which vehicles to refuel. this safety measure is for prevention. you don't put on a condom after you got your partner pregnant, do you?

[MrLau]

Originally posted by vfrT@Mar 2 2005, 05:00 PM

1. This Shell policy is also implement in many other countries such as New Zealand, so its not just us in little Singapore.

 

We dont bother whether it is implement world wide.

 

 

2. Facts and experience has shown that there is a liklihood that spilled fuel in a motorcycle may catch fire. This is the underlying reason why the CMRA 2005 endurance race regulation require riders off thier bike and refuel only into a dead engine or face instant disqualification.

 

You think we bother ? Who is CMRA ? Are you sure they know about riding bike ?

 

 

3. Like bikers, there are drivers and people who follows and other who flout Shell's policy. Selective citing of bad drivers habit for comparison and equate it as discrimination issue is misleading.

 

Shell should not ask us to do something that we dont like.... regardless of the objective....

 

We dont like, we will boycott..!!

[hohosaint]

As quoted, there are 15,000 Sgbikers members, but to date only 0.009% of the registered member showed their support in the petition. Reason being the vast majority are more rational and know that Shell's dismount policy is aimed at safety. Distorting Shell's intention and getting emotionally charged because of your bad experience with some rude kiosk attendant is different than the issue here.

 

Singapore residents 4 millions of people. Actual facts and figures can not be thoroughly measured by evaluating sgbike members registration figures. Safety policies always created for different people and different countries. Similar application for ISO standards. Should this "ISSUE" has been intensively monitored and verified by the "Professionals" that refuelling whilst straddling at bike can cause major mishaps or others in Singapore. This can be regulated under the enviromental within and, visibly publicise it to the members of public.

 

1. This Shell policy is also implement in many other countries such as New Zealand, so its not just us in little Singapore.

 

We do not compare jupiter with earth. It is the same like sun with moon. It has different elements, providence and others. Singapore and New Zealand can not be compared and, surroundingly analysis with. Why Singapore can not grow strawberry (down-on-earth way) but Australia ables?

 

2. Facts and experience has shown that there is a liklihood that spilled fuel in a motorcycle may catch fire. This is the underlying reason why the CMRA 2005 endurance race regulation require riders off thier bike and refuel only into a dead engine or face instant disqualification.

 

Any spilled petrol can cause fire or even explosion. Example like motorcycle, cars, armoured vehicle, tanker, helicopter or any which requires petrol.

 

3. Like bikers, there are drivers and people who follows and other who flout Shell's policy. Selective citing of bad drivers habit for comparison and equate it as discrimination issue is misleading.

 

As a consumer. I do not mind the policy is sensible and realistically proven or certified by any of the local governalised authority. Not traffic police.

 

4. Bikers can up their standing by supporting Shell's policy - it shows we are a thinking lot.

 

Policy is admendable. And it could lead to many unforesee discrepancy. It does not mean a policy is perfect and flareless when it has been launched. Especially safety.

 

So if any souls wish to join this misguided crusade - please do some logical and objective reasoning and research on why this is so, before more ham is done to bikers.

 

There are too many conditions when applying filteration. There are no rights and wrongs. How can you justified people as ignorant when you yourself is not in the shoe of considering it is thoroughly and scientifically Proven only in "Singapore".

[MrLau]

Originally posted by hohosaint@Mar 2 2005, 07:22 PM

There are too many conditions when applying filteration. There are no rights and wrongs. How can you justified people as ignorant when you yourself is not in the shoe of considering it is thoroughly and scientifically Proven only in "Singapore".

 

Why need so many reasons ? Why need proof ?

 

We dont like, we will boycott !!! Simple !!!

[MPeX]

Originally posted by vfrT@Mar 2 2005, 05:00 PM

I wonder at the sincerity of this belated solicitation. With all due respect, you've already started shooting off and condemning Shell in the name of Sgbiker members (in several other of this forum threads) days ago.

 

Dear Shell, this chap does not speak for me.

I never mentioned before that I speak for 15,000 bikers. Please find me the exact line that indicates as such, and I will gladly withdraw the petition with immediate effect.

 

Petitions are as such - if u agree u sign, if u dun agree u dun sign.

[william_liu]

Originally posted by Pierrot@Mar 2 2005, 06:01 PM

this petition has nothing to do with fuel attendants choosing to help which vehicles to refuel. this safety measure is for prevention. you don't put on a condom after you got your partner pregnant, do you?

Please tell me how standing and refueling will PREVENT a fire from starting, compared to sitting/straddling and pumping.

 

I eagerly await your answer!

[quick789]

Dun waste time... the policy will remain.

Anyway, I'd switch to Caltex!

[MPeX]

Originally posted by quick789@Mar 3 2005, 12:55 AM

Dun waste time... the policy will remain.

Anyway, I'd switch to Caltex!

U will make a difference.

 

Let me try. If end of the day the policy remains, then at least i can tell u guys i tried. So help me to help every1?

[ketten hunde]

Originally posted by quick789@Mar 3 2005, 12:55 AM

Dun waste time... the policy will remain.

Anyway, I'd switch to Caltex!

gd choice.

[MiCmAsTa]

MOBIL 8000

[DM]

Originally posted by william_liu@Mar 2 2005, 11:33 PM

Please tell me how standing and refueling will PREVENT a fire from starting, compared to sitting/straddling and pumping.

 

I eagerly await your answer!

when i said prevention, i didn't mean as in to cause a fire.

standing and refueling is a prevention.

a prevention of what? u ask

to prevent a rider from not having enough time to dismount the motorcycle when fire creeps down his pants

as for supplying proof that petroleum vapors can be ignited by static electricity, pls do take into consideration the other factors that can cause a fire. in dry weather, even a plant can ignite and everyone knows that bushes are definitely less likely to combust compared to fuel. it seems that it is impossible to convince you that this safety measure is not ridiculous and i have given up on trying to rationalise. if any of you don't like my explanation, simply don't. i couldn't care less.

[william_liu]

Glad you clarified that. So we agree that the risk of a fire starting is the same regardless of whether a rider is sitting/straddling or standing.

 

But I have to bring back my previous query, which is: Do you wear full riding gear whenever you go out riding? Would you like to be "forced" to do so? (after all, it's for your own safety)

 

As for static electricity, I for one do not (have never in previous replies) discount the possiblity of that happening either.

 

Since we both agree that flash fire may occur at anytime, one wonders who is more at risk and which will take more time to escape: 1) the rider sitting on his bike in the open 2) 2 or 3 passengers (often children, maybe elderly) playing or remaining in their cars (which mostly comes with child-safety locks and other security gadgets). So where should the emphasis be on?

 

It seems equally hard to convince some of you that the crux of the matter now is not arguing whether this ruling will make it safer or not for us. This ruling would be reasonable to me if they can show a correlation that sitting/straddling the increases the risk of a fire occurring, but I don’t think they can.

 

It is about the right to make the choice for ourselves. If we want to be truly rational, then none of us would be riding. Riding, by its nature, is potentially more dangerous for a person (when an accident happens) compared to other forms of transportation.

[danieltanboonhuat]

Originally posted by vfrT@Mar 2 2005, 05:00 PM

 

As quoted, there are 15,000 Sgbikers members, but to date only 0.009% of the registered member showed their support in the petition.

Hmm... seems to me most of the population is other not viewing or offline . consider amongst the majority of the people who are online. Looks like your views and those that agree is practically non existant

[w1n6]

maybe i can answer some of the question... the main reason for shell to request motorcyclist to dismount while filling up is due to the fact that there are cases whereby motorcycles toppled and spilling the fuel onto the floor when filling up. and its a true fact.

[standlee]

have anyone questioned oneself as to wat Shell has to gain by discriminating riders?? entice more to switch to driving hence increase in petrol sales?? even if their services r biased towards drivers, it's ethnically wrong but if u were to own ur own businesses, wouldn't u provide betta services to ur premium customers?? or customers who ll potentially spends more?? the oppressed may protest in rage but hey, everything around us is eventually down to dollars & cents & such phenomenons is happening everywhere in all corners of this unjust world. its unfair but at the same time, its oso a capitalist world & these r the cons tat comes with it.

 

from a pyschological point of view, many drivers ll find riders a nuisance & vice cersa. Y is tat so?? is it bcos subconsiously we knew tat it costs more to own a car?? & tat a bike is a poor man's transport?? (for those who intends to quote ducati, there r oso ferraris around). bear in mind tat we r speaking from a very general point of view. a view tat reflects the majority tat juz ride or juz drive & not both. so wat can we draw from this simple analogy?? tat many drivers belittles riders on the road bcos we cost less in the material sense?? or tat many riders feels inferior & gets real sensitive easily at issues like the one we r experiencing from Shell?? u decide which is which, but not forgetting the general attitude of the majority & not the exceptional views of oneself.

 

i m a rider myself & i hv never owned a car but i m observant enuff to notice details of everyday's happenings, be it on the road, malls or juz in a coffeshop. my post is not aimed at supplementing anyone's views/voices or taking sides. all the questions tat i have posted is for everyone to lay back, ponder about it, analyse if such is really happening in the real world & to bring everyone away from arguing to justify the petition. always look from a top view.

[MrLau]

Originally posted by w1n6@Mar 4 2005, 01:11 AM

maybe i can answer some of the question... the main reason for shell to request motorcyclist to dismount while filling up is due to the fact that there are cases whereby motorcycles toppled and spilling the fuel onto the floor when filling up. and its a true fact.

hey.. u back...

 

The question is we cannot pump "Full Tank"...!!

 

Dropping bike, spill, fire is not the issue..... appearently, you didnt read the all the previous post....

 

Shell should not tell us to do thing we dont like,

We dont like, we boycott !!!

[w1n6]

Originally posted by MrLau@Mar 4 2005, 11:07 AM

hey.. u back...

 

The question is we cannot pump "Full Tank"...!!

 

Dropping bike, spill, fire is not the issue..... appearently, you didnt read the all the previous post....

 

Shell should not tell us to do thing we dont like,

We dont like, we boycott !!!

than you shall not go to pulau bukom coz helmet, fire retard clothes, goggles, ear plugs and steel toe boots are the regulation. hmm... haven't try filling to 'fulltank' on sidestand yet, will let you know once i try.

[whyh]

Originally posted by MrLau@Mar 4 2005, 11:07 AM

hey.. u back...

 

The question is we cannot pump "Full Tank"...!!

 

Dropping bike, spill, fire is not the issue..... appearently, you didnt read the all the previous post....

 

Shell should not tell us to do thing we dont like, 

We dont like, we boycott !!! 

er.... use main stand? If no main stand then patronise another brand that allows pumping without dismount lor...

 

Anyway, the main objective of this exercise is to prevent situation where riders get caught in a fire because of direct exposure to petrol fume, or worse, if the bike should fall before sealing of the fuel cap.

 

Having passengers in cars during refueling is less dangerous than having bikers on bikes, because they are not exposed directly to the combustible fume, although one can argue it's dangerous too nevertheless.

 

Anyway, the use of side or mainstand aside, it is less dangerous for bikers to dismount before refueling - period.

[william_liu]

How do you feel about:

 

1) Compulsory dismounting to refuel: Less dangerous for riders

 

2) Compulsory for riders to wear Full-face Helmets: Less dangerous for riders

 

3) Compulsory Gloves: Less dangerous for riders

 

4) Compulsory Riding Boots: Less dangerous for riders

 

5) Compulsory Armored Jackets: Less dangerous for riders

 

6) Compulsory speedlimiter to 90km/hr for roadbikes: Less dangerous for riders

 

All the points above can be argued to be "less dangerous for riders", but I'm sure most of us will find most, if not all of them unacceptable.

[whyh]

Originally posted by william_liu@Mar 4 2005, 01:52 PM

How do you feel about:

 

1) Compulsory dismounting to refuel: Less dangerous for riders

 

2) Compulsory for riders to wear Full-face Helmets: Less dangerous for riders

 

3) Compulsory Gloves: Less dangerous for riders

 

4) Compulsory Riding Boots: Less dangerous for riders

 

5) Compulsory Armored Jackets: Less dangerous for riders

 

6) Compulsory speedlimiter to 90km/hr for roadbikes: Less dangerous for riders

 

All the points above can be argued to be "less dangerous for riders", but I'm sure most of us will find most, if not all of them unacceptable.

I am not sure most will find them unacceptable, but most certainly don't like to be forced into doing it, whether in a petrol station or not.

 

The pump station is ALSO considering safety of other pump users, people in the station's vicinity, and the premise's safety.

 

The way I see it? It's dangerous to pump before dismounting in the 1st place, so this requirement is actually just stating and requiring the obvious, just like the requirement to wear helmet. People in the states are still argueing that there's no need to wear helmet. Go figure.

 

Anyway, perhaps someone can provide precise measurement about this 'unable to pump full tank' issue? How much less fuel is pumped if the bike is on side stand? Is it significant enough to justify the need to pump while mounted?

[william_liu]

When you mentioned the safety of other petrol station users, I can agree that it is a valid point. I don't have a problem with the no usage of handphone, smoking or switching off the engines ruling. These are very reasonable rulings.

 

However, I don't really see how the risk of an accident occurring is increased regardless of whether one is standing or sitting down. As our friend Metalfyre pointed out (in another thread) that when you force people to refuel in a manner they are uncomfortable with, the chances of spillage, bike toppling and flash fire occurring are in fact increased. This is the primary point to note I feel.

 

For my TA200, I did not record the exact figures, but I have tried refueling with my bike on the side stand first, and when it appeared to be full, I straightened (very very awkwardly) the bike and managed to pump in approximately another liter. This figure will differ for different bikes, perhaps the next time I refuel I will note down the exact difference.