SHELL - OFFICIAL STATEMENT RELEASED

[Metalfyre]

Originally posted by whyh@Mar 5 2005, 01:54 AM

Precautions are... precautions.... to prevent something from happening. Old habits die hard, which is why good habits are introduced gradually through the years.

 

The good habits have to be introduced at one time or another, and it happens to be now.

 

If a refueling disaster should have happened last month, people will be complaining why Shell never implement this sooner.

 

Haiz.... Hao ren nan zuo.

Eh...if such a disaster happened, I don't think people will blame Shell for not implementing. Look at the number of advocates for boycotting Shell just because they implement.

[Metalfyre]

Originally posted by whyh@Mar 5 2005, 02:09 AM

Just put the nozzle in, squeeze the trigger and leave it la. No need to hold on to the handle, and stay away from the vapors rushing out from the fuel tank.

 

In any case, even if you hold on to the handle and a flame develops, you are still further away from the petrol tank than if you are mounted, and you have higher and faster mobility than if u are mounted.

 

No cases yet of anyone running away with the handle in hand.

leave it there? how to control the fuel flow then? it would be impossible to top up your tank fully. and even if you say that once the pump stops, you'll approach the pump and manually squeeze in the remainding litres into the tank, you are once again near the bike, petrol and fire hazard. There isn't a difference, is there?

[Metalfyre]

Originally posted by hohosaint@Mar 5 2005, 11:57 AM

I still can not find a acceptable and satisfactory answer which can convince or induce me from understanding the 'thoughtfulness' of dismounting whilst refuelling. Above debatings too. Being a purchaser or buyer in Company. I do not oversee that Buyer needs to match sales manager/engineer criteria when businesses are concluded. Application is comparable to shell safety precaution.

 

Implement something that will be beneficial to both parties in the shoe of customer will be better than initiating something prohibiting consumer conveniences. Example like existing having added services to driver which requires no execution. Refuelling, cleaning windshield and etc.

 

Anyway. I still evaluate that those who find it a hassle in refuelling must boycott shell to articulate our dissatisfaction until futher justification can be made or, revised.

Yep.

 

So far I've only been convinced that dismounting first would give a headstart on escaping in the event of a fire, chances of which are slim. Possible, but slim. And minutely lower the chances of toppling the bike.

[hohosaint]

Originally posted by Metalfyre@Mar 5 2005, 01:28 PM

Yep.

 

So far I've only been convinced that dismounting first would give a headstart on escaping in the event of a fire, chances of which are slim. Possible, but slim. And minutely lower the chances of toppling the bike.

It is an actuality that when mishap happens, the possibility to survive in an extremely flammable or combustible place will be tough. But, the event too applies to the circumstances.

 

Business services are meant to be improved. I do not supervise it as a dilemma to consumer than to shell. In reality, shell should be implementing equipments or alternative to permit riders to need not dismount from the bike or others contentment workable way. This allows consumer satisfaction and too, brings convenience to consumer.

 

As for the trigger of fire or explosion causes by weather had been brought up for numerous times ago. Experts had announced that the possibility of triggering a spark or fire was 90% not going to happen in Singapore. (Why saying 90% instead of 100%? Because of responsibility) Everybody knows that in such a dry and hot country, the spark or fire to be caused by humility is way unexpected. I do not see our gahment is neglecting these steps to endanger the lives of the members of public for so many years. And this can be regulated under the laws of Singapore way years ago.

[whyh]

Originally posted by hohosaint@Mar 5 2005, 11:57 AM

I still can not find a acceptable and satisfactory answer which can convince or induce me from understanding the 'thoughtfulness' of dismounting whilst refuelling. Above debatings too. Being a purchaser or buyer in Company. I do not oversee that Buyer needs to match sales manager/engineer criteria when businesses are concluded. Application is comparable to shell safety precaution.

 

Implement something that will be beneficial to both parties in the shoe of customer will be better than initiating something prohibiting consumer conveniences. Example like existing having added services to driver which requires no execution. Refuelling, cleaning windshield and etc.

 

Anyway. I still evaluate that those who find it a hassle in refuelling must boycott shell to articulate our dissatisfaction until futher justification can be made or, revised.

Well, that's the whole issue isn't it? Some thinks it's a good idea, and some fail to appreciate the benefits.

 

Anyway, this measure benefits ALL users of Shell station as a whole, not any particular group or individual. Some see it, some fail to see it.

 

If you still think there's someone in Shell or some invisible forces at work who is introducing this to discriminate against bikers, then dun patronise Shell lor.

 

As to date, Shell still requests that bikers dismount before refueling, and bikers are still pumping at Shell.

[william_liu]

I find that my bike (which only has a sidestand) is quite stable enough with:

 

1) Sidestand engaged as a precautionary measure

2) Both feet firmly planted on the ground

3) Bike is already upright, no need to spend any attention on keeping it level. All my concentration is the amount of petrol going into the tank and aiming the nozzle where it is supposed to go.

 

In any event, I don't think there is any empirical evidence that chances of dropping your bike/or a flash fire occurring is higher while sitting and refueling (by my method described above) as compared to standing, keeping your bike level and refueling.

 

Of course in the very, very unlikely event that a flash fire occurs, I concur that I would probably be able to escape a fraction quicker and safer if I was standing than sitting while refueling.

 

Similarly, I'm sure we can concur that by riding to work in the morning, in the unlikely event we were involved in an accident with a car, our chances of escaping serious injury or even death will be much lesser than if we were taking a bus to work.

 

But I still choose to ride to work, and I want to be able to make that choice for myself. This is why I feel that the ruling is unreasonable.

[hohosaint]

Originally posted by whyh@Mar 5 2005, 02:08 PM

Well, that's the whole issue isn't it? Some thinks it's a good idea, and some fail to appreciate the benefits.

 

Anyway, this measure benefits ALL users of Shell station as a whole, not any particular group or individual. Some see it, some fail to see it.

 

If you still think there's someone in Shell or some invisible forces at work who is introducing this to discriminate against bikers, then dun patronise Shell lor.

 

As to date, Shell still requests that bikers dismount before refueling, and bikers are still pumping at Shell.

I still insist that the precautionary methods are intended to be implemented by Shell. This implementation is to convenience riders and not creating inconveniences. Should they are really troubled or worried about the straddling matters that may initiate fire or explosion. Shell can easily purchase an extractable arm to let bikes rest in between whereby no stand or main stand is required. Nothing was recommended and everything was prearranged to consumer as a burden.

 

Like you mentioned. ‘Take it or leave it’. I chose to leave it and I have applied speedpass for future fuel refilling.

[whyh]

Originally posted by Metalfyre@Mar 5 2005, 01:14 PM

Eh...if such a disaster happened, I don't think people will blame Shell for not implementing. Look at the number of advocates for boycotting Shell just because they implement.

Does that imply that you are confident should there be a fatal mishap while a biker is refueling while mounted on a bike, no Singaporean will blame you for advocating the right to continue this dangerous practice?

 

I see the list, the numbers are not significant, and it's irrelevant to your point about finger pointing anyway.

[whyh]

Originally posted by Metalfyre@Mar 5 2005, 01:25 PM

leave it there? how to control the fuel flow then? it would be impossible to top up your tank fully. and even if you say that once the pump stops, you'll approach the pump and manually squeeze in the remainding litres into the tank, you are once again near the bike, petrol and fire hazard. There isn't a difference, is there?

Of course one will have to be near the bike at one time or another. Does common sense tell us that the less time one is near the fumes, the less chance of being ignited by the fumes?

 

No...?

[Metalfyre]

Originally posted by whyh@Mar 5 2005, 02:24 PM

Does that imply that you are confident should there be a fatal mishap while a biker is refueling while mounted on a bike, no Singaporean will blame you for advocating the right to continue this dangerous practice?

 

Yes I am.

[Metalfyre]

Originally posted by whyh@Mar 5 2005, 02:27 PM

Of course one will have to be near the bike at one time or another. Does common sense tell us that the less time one is near the fumes, the less chance of being ignited by the fumes?

 

No...?

Now it's fumes igniting. Weren't we talking about spillage of petrol? Fumes head up, and not down towards the hot exhaust and engine. Anything up there to ignite the fumes, that generally disperse in seconds?

[william_liu]

Originally posted by whyh@Mar 5 2005, 02:24 PM

Does that imply that you are confident should there be a fatal mishap while a biker is refueling while mounted on a bike, no Singaporean will blame you for advocating the right to continue this dangerous practice?

 

I see the list, the numbers are not significant, and it's irrelevant to your point about finger pointing anyway.

Actually, they can just advertise the risks involved, and not make it a compulsory ruling.

This way they would have done their part to promote safety, but if any rider is c0ck enough to engulf himself in flames and die while refueling seated on his bike (which is as likely to happen as a car exploding while refueling), the blame is solely on him because he chose to do it his "unsafe" way.

[whyh]

Originally posted by Metalfyre@Mar 5 2005, 01:28 PM

Yep.

 

So far I've only been convinced that dismounting first would give a headstart on escaping in the event of a fire, chances of which are slim. Possible, but slim. And minutely lower the chances of toppling the bike.

When you consider the magnitude of destruction from such disaster, a slight reduction in probability and possibility becomes very significant. Let's look at both sides of the equation.

 

After all that I have typed, you are ONLY convinced about benefits of headstart?!! Do you not even see the benefits to the pump users as a community?

 

Come'on bikers, let's learn how to live in peace with other pump users.

[william_liu]

Originally posted by whyh@Mar 5 2005, 02:36 PM

When you consider the magnitude of destruction from such disaster, a slight reduction in probability and possibility becomes very significant. Let's look at both sides of the equation.

 

After all that I have typed, you are ONLY convinced about benefits of headstart?!! Do you not even see the benefits to the pump users as a community?

 

Come'on bikers, let's learn how to live in peace with other pump users.

We are talking about minimising the injury to the rider him/herself, how does that involve other pump users?

 

Unless you're telling me that petrol has a higher chance of igniting if I sit on my bike while refueling? That riders sitting down makes the fumes more likely to ignite? Or the explosion will be greater if I was seated than standing?

 

Fact is, the chances of a flash fire occurring is THE SAME whether we are standing or sitting.

 

We're not talking about using mobilephones or smoking now..... these DEFINITELY increases the chance of a flash fire occurring.

[hohosaint]

Originally posted by whyh@Mar 5 2005, 02:36 PM

When you consider the magnitude of destruction from such disaster, a slight reduction in probability and possibility becomes very significant. Let's look at both sides of the equation.

 

After all that I have typed, you are ONLY convinced about benefits of headstart?!! Do you not even see the benefits to the pump users as a community?

 

Come'on bikers, let's learn how to live in peace with other pump users.

I come to agree that your replies are practical and very dedicated to the commuters. This applies to Metalfyre too. Both are right. Both speak for two differences commuters’ opinion and approach.

 

For a moment, the firestarter has to give resolution which does not suit the other commuters. This can be effortlessly settled without the professional or even local authority involvement.

[whyh]

Originally posted by hohosaint@Mar 5 2005, 01:48 PM

It is an actuality that when mishap happens, the possibility to survive in an extremely flammable or combustible place will be tough. But, the event too applies to the circumstances.

 

Business services are meant to be improved. I do not supervise it as a dilemma to consumer than to shell. In reality, shell should be implementing equipments or alternative to permit riders to need not dismount from the bike or others contentment workable way. This allows consumer satisfaction and too, brings convenience to consumer.

 

As for the trigger of fire or explosion causes by weather had been brought up for numerous times ago. Experts had announced that the possibility of triggering a spark or fire was 90% not going to happen in Singapore. (Why saying 90% instead of 100%? Because of responsibility) Everybody knows that in such a dry and hot country, the spark or fire to be caused by humility is way unexpected. I do not see our gahment is neglecting these steps to endanger the lives of the members of public for so many years. And this can be regulated under the laws of Singapore way years ago.

I dunno which expert you claimed said that it's unlikely to happen in our humid weather, but I do know petrol fumes is still highly combustible in our humid weather, and that is why it can power our bikes.

 

Question : Does it require more effort to produce a spark in humid Singapore, than in other less humid places? Haven't we experienced bush fires ourselves?

 

I would think if it makes business sense to install extra devices to allow refueling while mounted, we should see it in petrol stations soon.

[whyh]

Originally posted by Metalfyre@Mar 5 2005, 02:34 PM

Now it's fumes igniting. Weren't we talking about spillage of petrol? Fumes head up, and not down towards the hot exhaust and engine. Anything up there to ignite the fumes, that generally disperse in seconds?

Flames related issues have been discussed in this thread, not only fumes or petrol.

 

Static can ignite fumes.

[whyh]

Originally posted by william_liu@Mar 5 2005, 02:44 PM

We are talking about minimising the injury to the rider him/herself, how does that involve other pump users?

 

Unless you're telling me that petrol has a higher chance of igniting if I sit on my bike while refueling? That riders sitting down makes the fumes more likely to ignite? Or the explosion will be greater if I was seated than standing?

 

Fact is, the chances of a flash fire occurring is THE SAME whether we are standing or sitting.

 

We're not talking about using mobilephones or smoking now..... these DEFINITELY increases the chance of a flash fire occurring.

If riders can react quickly and safely, the chances of a disaster to everyone in the petrol station and it's vicinity is also reduced.

 

I have been addressing general safety for the community, and addressing a group or individual in the light of that.

[william_liu]

Originally posted by whyh@Mar 5 2005, 03:01 PM

If riders can react quickly and safely, the chances of a disaster to everyone in the petrol station and it's vicinity is also reduced.

 

I have been addressing general safety for the community, and addressing a group or individual in the light of that.

I'm sorry but I don't quite understand...

 

I know you're arguing for the safety of the community, but how does a rider refueling seated pose a danger to others?

 

Please let me know if you feel that petrol fumes or petrol has a higher chance of igniting if a rider is seated, compared to standing.

 

My present case is:

 

Leaving your engine on while refueling: Increases the chances of petrol ignition

 

Smoking while refueling: Increases the chances of petrol ignition

 

Using your handphone while refueling: Increases the chances of petrol ignition

 

Straddling the bike while refueling: DOES NOT increases the chances of petrol ignition

[hohosaint]

Originally posted by whyh@Mar 5 2005, 02:48 PM

I dunno which expert you claimed said that it's unlikely to happen in our humid weather, but I do know petrol fumes is still highly combustible in our humid weather, and that is why it can power our bikes.

 

Question : Does it require more effort to produce a spark in humid Singapore, than in other less humid places? Haven't we experienced bush fires ourselves?

 

I would think if it makes business sense to install extra devices to allow refueling while mounted, we should see it in petrol stations soon.

http://motoring.asiaone.com.sg/tips/tips_20040713_001.html

 

HEARD the one about the guy who burst into flames when the mobile phone in his trouser pocket rang while he was filling up his car?

 

Oil major Shell is not waiting to find out if that is fact or an urban legend. The company, which has 74 stations here, has come up with a comprehensive list of dos and don'ts when filling up and is distributing it as part of its regional Think Safe, Stay Safe campaign.

 

On the list, which addresses various concerns, is a recommendation that motorists do not use their cellphone at a petrol station. 'Dropping a mobile phone, switching it on or off, answering calls or sending messages may cause sparks. This may ignite petrol vapour,' one of the pointers reads.

 

A Shell spokesman added that any battery-powered equipment can pose a fire risk at the pumps.

 

The flyer devotes an entire section on a little-known danger: static electricity build-up, a phenomenon where an electrical charge is created when two surfaces rub against each other.

 

In a similar safety programme launched worldwide last year, rival ExxonMobil noted that over 100 refuelling fires that occurred in the United States between 1999 and 2002 appeared to have been due to static electricity.

 

One case captured by a security camera at an unknown location showed a woman wearing a woolly pullover re-entering her car while refuelling. The static created by her jumper rubbing against the car seat apparently started a fire.

 

Fortunately, no one was hurt.

 

'Do not re-enter your vehicle during refuelling - stay outside,' Shell advises, adding that if you must get back into your car, be sure to discharge any static that may have built up by touching any metallic surface - other than the fuel nozzle.

 

If a fire starts while refuelling, do not remove the nozzle from the car's tank, as it might cause the flames to spread.

 

And if you happen to spill some petrol on your clothes, pour water on the area, and remove the item slowly to prevent static building up.

 

Asked why it paid so much attention to static in the list when that occurs mostly in conditions with low humidity, Shell said that although Singapore is humid, it is better to be safe than sorry.

 

Said the spokesman: 'We believe that customers' ignorance contributes to unsafe refuelling practices at stations. These include smoking, refuelling with the engine running, motorcyclists refuelling while sitting on their bikes, and using cellphones while refuelling.'

 

National Safety Council president Milton Tan applauded the move to educate the public, especially on the little-publicised danger of static.

 

'The chances of static electricity causing a fire are very remote, but why take chances?' he said.

[whyh]

Originally posted by william_liu@Mar 5 2005, 03:07 PM

I'm sorry but I don't quite understand...

 

I know you're arguing for the safety of the community, but how does a rider refueling seated pose a danger to others?

 

Please let me know if you feel that petrol fumes or petrol has a higher chance of igniting if a rider is seated, compared to standing.

 

My present case is:

 

Leaving your engine on while refueling: Increases the chances of petrol ignition

 

Smoking while refueling: Increases the chances of petrol ignition

 

Using your handphone while refueling: Increases the chances of petrol ignition

 

Straddling the bike while refueling: DOES NOT increases the chances of petrol ignition

Please refer to earlier postings.

 

We are past debating about the chances of igniting already.

 

We are into the effects and events that have, and can developed upon ignition.

[william_liu]

I guess we have....

 

So if I did understand you correctly, your arguement is: Riders should not remain straddled while refueling because in even a fire occurs, there is a greater risk that they may topple their bike in panic and spread the petrol all over the floor?

 

If it is so, then what I can say to that is, to me personally it's similiar to justifying (for example) banning cars/buses from petrol stations because in the event of a flash fire and subsequent explosion, the magnitude of the damage is much greater because of their larger petrol tanks/capacity.

 

I think I'll leave it at that, we'll agree to disagree in this case then!

[whyh]

Originally posted by hohosaint@Mar 5 2005, 03:10 PM

http://motoring.asiaone.com.sg/tips/tips_20040713_001.html

 

HEARD the one about the guy who burst into flames when the mobile phone in his trouser pocket rang while he was filling up his car?

 

Oil major Shell is not waiting to find out if that is fact or an urban legend. The company, which has 74 stations here, has come up with a comprehensive list of dos and don'ts when filling up and is distributing it as part of its regional Think Safe, Stay Safe campaign.

 

On the list, which addresses various concerns, is a recommendation that motorists do not use their cellphone at a petrol station. 'Dropping a mobile phone, switching it on or off, answering calls or sending messages may cause sparks. This may ignite petrol vapour,' one of the pointers reads.

 

A Shell spokesman added that any battery-powered equipment can pose a fire risk at the pumps.

 

The flyer devotes an entire section on a little-known danger: static electricity build-up, a phenomenon where an electrical charge is created when two surfaces rub against each other.

 

In a similar safety programme launched worldwide last year, rival ExxonMobil noted that over 100 refuelling fires that occurred in the United States between 1999 and 2002 appeared to have been due to static electricity.

 

One case captured by a security camera at an unknown location showed a woman wearing a woolly pullover re-entering her car while refuelling. The static created by her jumper rubbing against the car seat apparently started a fire.

 

Fortunately, no one was hurt.

 

'Do not re-enter your vehicle during refuelling - stay outside,' Shell advises, adding that if you must get back into your car, be sure to discharge any static that may have built up by touching any metallic surface - other than the fuel nozzle.

 

If a fire starts while refuelling, do not remove the nozzle from the car's tank, as it might cause the flames to spread.

 

And if you happen to spill some petrol on your clothes, pour water on the area, and remove the item slowly to prevent static building up.

 

Asked why it paid so much attention to static in the list when that occurs mostly in conditions with low humidity, Shell said that although Singapore is humid, it is better to be safe than sorry.

 

Said the spokesman: 'We believe that customers' ignorance contributes to unsafe refuelling practices at stations. These include smoking, refuelling with the engine running, motorcyclists refuelling while sitting on their bikes, and using cellphones while refuelling.'

 

National Safety Council president Milton Tan applauded the move to educate the public, especially on the little-publicised danger of static.

 

'The chances of static electricity causing a fire are very remote, but why take chances?' he said.

I read that report before. It's static at work. Imagine the static you built up while your fabric is on and around your seat, and near where fumes are rushing out of the tank.

 

That article says the chances of static causing a fire is remote. The chances of it happening in US is very low too, but it has happened!

 

Case for thought : The likelihood of Singapore being hit by tsunami is more remote than a a fire developing in a petrol pump. IT HAS NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE.

 

However, we are a member of the tsunami warning system. Why? Because remote probability must be weighed against the magnitude of damage to get a fair appreciation of a situation. One must look at both sides of a coin to get a fair and unbiased assessment.

 

Anyway, Shell owns their petrol stations, so they can do what they like to protect their own property and their customer's property, including taking preventive measures.

[whyh]

Originally posted by william_liu@Mar 5 2005, 03:31 PM

I guess we have....

 

So if I did understand you correctly, your arguement is: Riders should not remain straddled while refueling because in even a fire occurs, there is a greater risk that they may topple their bike in panic and spread the petrol all over the floor?

 

If it is so, then what I can say to that is, to me personally it's similiar to justifying (for example) banning cars/buses from petrol stations because in the event of a flash fire and subsequent explosion, the magnitude of the damage is much greater because of their larger petrol tanks/capacity.

 

I think I'll leave it at that, we'll agree to disagree in this case then!

Quite an idea.... but will it work? Is it practical? Have you balanced the chance of bike toppling over against a 4 wheeler toppling over?

 

Welcome to reality.

[hohosaint]

Originally posted by whyh@Mar 5 2005, 03:41 PM

I read that report before. It's static at work. Imagine the static you built up while your fabric is on and around your seat, and near where fumes are rushing out of the tank.

 

That article says the chances of static causing a fire is remote.  The chances of it happening in US is very low too, but it has happened!

 

Case for thought : The likelihood of Singapore being hit by tsunami is more remote than a a fire developing in a petrol pump. IT HAS NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE.

 

However, we are a member of the tsunami warning system. Why? Because remote probability must be weighed against the magnitude of damage to get a fair appreciation of a situation. One must look at both sides of a coin to get a fair and unbiased assessment.

 

Anyway, Shell owns their petrol stations, so they can do what they like to protect their own property and their customer's property, including taking preventive measures.

Haha

 

I fully agree with the acticle... But not your reply.

 

What I have seen and following according to your replies are quite senseless. And I am not getting what I need. Anyway, I am boycotting them and getting more to join in. Do not get me wrong. My company has business transaction with shell too. Sometime they can be our Client but unpredictable times, we are their client.

 

So... Thats all folks. Need no debates. Its endless and, insensible reply.