SHELL - OFFICIAL STATEMENT RELEASED

[whyh]

Originally posted by hohosaint@Mar 5 2005, 11:31 PM

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.

It's ok to agree or disagree.

 

Measures that are senseless or insensible to you is already working in Singapore anyway.

 

Boycott if you must. If all Singapore petrol station enforce the same rule, you will need to boycott all.

 

Don't get me wrong too, but your company's dealings with Shell is none of my concern, and irrelevant.

[william_liu]

Originally posted by whyh@Mar 5 2005, 03:43 PM

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.

Sorry, have to clarify something.

 

A vehicle, whether motorcycle or car or bus do not have to topple over to explode when a flash fire occurs. The fire just has to spread into the petrol tank for it to happen.

 

The "welcome to reality" bit is really unnecessary.

[whyh]

Originally posted by william_liu@Mar 6 2005, 12:12 AM

Sorry, have to clarify something.

 

A vehicle, whether motorcycle or car or bus do not have to topple over to explode when a flash fire occurs. The fire just has to spread into the petrol tank for it to happen.

 

The "welcome to reality" bit is really unnecessary.

Sorry if you got offended because of the 'reality' which was cheek-in-tongue, and perhaps it was really unnecessary.

 

But explosion of vehicles? You may have had watched too many movies my friend.

 

I assure you fuel tank will not explode when you are refueling, even when there's a flash fire. It's a different story if your bike topples while refueling.

[william_liu]

No problem about that.

 

But why can't the flames spread to the petrol tank when a flash fire occurs? Is it technically impossible? Or just highly unlikely?

 

http://www.pei.org/static/fire_reports.htm

 

Historically cars have been "totalled" (burnt to the ground)

[whyh]

Originally posted by william_liu@Mar 6 2005, 12:42 AM

No problem about that.

 

But why can't the flames spread to the petrol tank when a flash fire occurs? Is it technically impossible? Or just highly unlikely?

 

http://www.pei.org/static/fire_reports.htm

 

Historically cars have been "totalled" (burnt to the ground)

Flames will burn where there is petrol, and very likely into the tank.

 

If bike is toppled, fire will spread very fast, very wide, and should it spread inside the tank by then, an explosion will occur.

 

However, explosion will not occur when there is a flash fire if you are refueling AND your vehicle is upright.

 

Then again, the 'reality' comment was probably of bad taste.

[william_liu]

Hey it's okay, no worries, you've already apologised.

 

Well, we're still not going to agree with each other (again!) so I think I'll leave it at this!

[rhema83]

This debate is getting nowhere. Nobody is wrong here. Dismounting the bike indeed allows the rider to escape more easily in the event of a fire. Dismounting the bike also does not decrease the chance of a fire starting. Discussing whether the bike will explode in the event of a fire is beside the point.

 

Our aim should be to make this policy a "recommendation" rather than a hard rule. Everybody is concerned about safety (except maybe the occasional idiot who talks on his cell phone at the pump). If you are so concerned about static discharges igniting the fire, you would dismount even if such a rule is not in place. For those who don't dismount, if they get burnt when a fire does occur, it's their own fault anyway.

 

By the way, in the USA, riders are not required to dismount while refuelling. However, they will ground themselves before refuelling. This is just common sense.

[Starfury]

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?

Then again " fuel attendants" are trained in refueling vechicles safely so dun you think They should refill our bikes too. While we walk a safe distance away from our bikes??

[rhema83]

Originally posted by Starfury@Mar 5 2005, 01:11 PM

Then again " fuel attendants" are trained in refueling vechicles safely so dun you think They should refill our bikes too. While we walk a safe distance away from our bikes??

Good point, but I wouldn't want some newbie attendant try to balance my $20k class 2 bike and scratch the paint in the process.

[teztay]

Thanks for the website :

http://www.pei.org/static/fire_reports.htm

 

Looking at the website

There were 5 cases of Static causing fires in 2004 in the whole of the USA?

(2002 31 cases, 2003 12 cases) Seems to be dropping also.

 

For the size of the US vehicle population, thought it would be a much larger number and thought it might be a larger issue

 

There are no reported bike cases (at least in the page; scanned the entire report) in the whole of the USA from the above website even though they have a sizable bike population.

 

Fires are always possible when handling something as flamable as Petrol. Whether the person is sitting on the bike or off the bike or in the car is totally a separate issue, don't think different positions can accumulate more static somehow.

 

Somehow I can't see the leap of logic to apply the above to just Bikes when it seems to be an overall Static issue.

Very Strange......... especially given the numbers involved

[Starfury]

Originally posted by rhema83@Mar 6 2005, 01:14 AM

Good point, but I wouldn't want some newbie attendant try to balance my $20k class 2 bike and scratch the paint in the process.

Differential treatment is what i want to put across.

[whyh]

Originally posted by william_liu@Mar 6 2005, 12:57 AM

Hey it's okay, no worries, you've already apologised.

 

Well, we're still not going to agree with each other (again!) so I think I'll leave it at this!

So be it.

[whyh]

Originally posted by rhema83@Mar 6 2005, 01:07 AM

This debate is getting nowhere. Nobody is wrong here. Dismounting the bike indeed allows the rider to escape more easily in the event of a fire. Dismounting the bike also does not decrease the chance of a fire starting. Discussing whether the bike will explode in the event of a fire is beside the point.

 

Our aim should be to make this policy a "recommendation" rather than a hard rule. Everybody is concerned about safety (except maybe the occasional idiot who talks on his cell phone at the pump). If you are so concerned about static discharges igniting the fire, you would dismount even if such a rule is not in place. For those who don't dismount, if they get burnt when a fire does occur, it's their own fault anyway.

 

By the way, in the USA, riders are not required to dismount while refuelling. However, they will ground themselves before refuelling. This is just common sense.

I beg to differ.

 

Dismounting means less chance of static developing into a flame, since static is generated when your butt is on the seat.

[Starfury]

Anyway point to add for this thread, i believe too much of the" fire, burning" stuff is said. As what was dissussed in the other threads, shell is not the only fuel operator in singapore, we can always find another friendly station.

 

If shell is really concern for us bikers, they would have special devices ( to hold the bike Upright while refilling. What make u all think that with sidestand/mainstand yur bikr wont topple?) and their attendants would be trained too to know our needs.

[Starfury]

Anyway point to add for this thread, i believe too much of the" fire, burning" stuff is said. As what was dissussed in the other threads, shell is not the only fuel operator in singapore, we can always find another friendly station.

 

If shell is really concern for us bikers, they would have special devices ( to hold the bike Upright while refilling. What make u all think that with sidestand/mainstand yur bikr wont topple?) and their attendants would be trained too to know our needs.

[whyh]

Originally posted by teztay@Mar 6 2005, 01:30 AM

Thanks for the website :

http://www.pei.org/static/fire_reports.htm

 

Looking at the website

There were 5 cases of Static causing fires in 2004 in the whole of the USA?

(2002 31 cases, 2003 12 cases) Seems to be dropping also.

 

For the size of the US vehicle population, thought it would be a much larger number and thought it might be a larger issue

 

There are no reported bike cases (at least in the page; scanned the entire report) in the whole of the USA from the above website even though they have a sizable bike population.

 

Fires are always possible when handling something as flamable as Petrol. Whether the person is sitting on the bike or off the bike or in the car is totally a separate issue, don't think different positions can accumulate more static somehow.

 

Somehow I can't see the leap of logic to apply the above to just Bikes when it seems to be an overall Static issue.

Very Strange......... especially given the numbers involved

Siting on a bike generates static - period.

[Starfury]

Originally posted by whyh@ Mar 6 2005, 01:43 AM

I beg to differ.

 

Dismounting means less chance of static developing into a flame, since static is generated when your butt is on the seat.

corrections on this part. Static is usually caused when the bike is moving, interactions between air and bike as well as wheels and road usually. Dis mounting from bike only removes "human " out from the static circuit. If the built up of static on yur bike is large enuff, it just takes the fuel nozzle to touch any part of your bike and guess what happens??

[whyh]

Originally posted by Starfury@Mar 6 2005, 02:02 AM

corrections on this part. Static is usually caused when the bike is moving, interactions between air and bike as well as wheels and road usually. Dis mounting from bike only removes "human " out from the static circuit. If the built up of static on yur bike is large enuff, it just takes the fuel nozzle to touch any part of your bike and guess what happens??

The static from the contact between your butt and the seat will add to the static already accumulated, probably making the static 'large enough' to cause a flame.

[Starfury]

Originally posted by whyh@Mar 6 2005, 01:46 AM

Siting on a bike generates static - period.

unless you are constantly rubbing yur butt on yur seat

[whyh]

Originally posted by Starfury@Mar 6 2005, 02:09 AM

unless you are constantly rubbing yur butt on yur seat

Your thigh also rubs against the bike while you try to balance it upright, and yes, I have seen bikers 'shaking' their bikes with their butt, as if that helps petrol to settle in.

 

Resting your bike on side stand will ground the static.

[Starfury]

Originally posted by whyh@Mar 6 2005, 02:13 AM

 

Resting your bike on side stand will ground the static.

Yup You are right about this .... that why our side stand/main stand are all make of conductive metal.. for grounding...

 

 

Sorry this part i am totally lost ....

Your thigh also rubs against the bike while you try to balance it upright,

unless you are rubbing it quite fast and long

 

 

And last of all i am not picking anything with u just correcting some of your misconceptions about static generation. And good night

[whyh]

Originally posted by Starfury@Mar 6 2005, 02:23 AM

Yup You are right about this .... that why our side stand/main stand are all make of conductive metal.. for grounding...

 

 

Sorry this part i am totally lost .... unless you are rubbing it quite fast and long

 

 

And last of all i am not picking anything with u just correcting some of your misconceptions about static production. And good night

I didn't feel like you were picking on me. I am also correcting misconceptions. No worries, and good night.

[MPeX]

Originally posted by whyh@Mar 6 2005, 02:25 AM

I didn't feel like you were picking with me. I am also correcting misconceptions. No worries, and good night.

Dude, I see sense in some of your arguements.

 

As the thread-starter and petition-starter, I've never discounted the possibility of a flash fire caused by static electricity. That has never been on my agenda.

 

Juz a lowdown on what I hope to achieve this coming Thursday during my meeting with Shell.

 

 

1) The policy should apply across the board. If riders dismount, drivers alight, period.

 

2) The tactfulness of the station staff in enforcing the policy is seriously lacking. That should change.

 

3) If point (1) isn't met, the policy should be scrapped and riders be held liable and responsible for their own safety if they remain straddled while refueling.

 

 

Everything we do on Earth carries a certain amount of risk. Putting a law or enforced ruling to every single thing ain't the way to go. We're already living in a police state as it is, let us, as human beings, be responsible for our own personal welfare.

[whyh]

Originally posted by MPeX@Mar 6 2005, 02:35 AM

Dude, I see sense in some of your arguements.

 

As the thread-starter and petition-starter, I've never discounted the possibility of a flash fire caused by static electricity. That has never been on my agenda.

 

Juz a lowdown on what I hope to achieve this coming Thursday during my meeting with Shell.

 

 

1) The policy should apply across the board. If riders dismount, drivers alight, period.

 

2) The tactfulness of the station staff in enforcing the policy is seriously lacking. That should change.

 

3) If point (1) isn't met, the policy should be scrapped and riders be held liable and responsible for their own safety if they remain straddled while refueling.

 

 

Everything we do on Earth carries a certain amount of risk. Putting a law or enforced ruling to every single thing ain't the way to go. We're already living in a police state as it is, let us, as human beings, be responsible for our own personal welfare.

Shell will have ample reasons to explain why it's more dangerous for bikers to be mounted on a bike, relative to passengers sitiing in a car, so I doubt you will find much success.

 

While one should be responsible for one's own actions, one may not be able to be responsible for the repurcussions of that action.

 

How many can pay for repairing or rebuilding a petrol station? A few cars? Replace a few sons or daughters, fathers, mothers...?

 

In addition, I am quite happy with laws like strict helmet laws and gun laws. Cannot imagine Singapore without these laws.

 

There will always be difference of opinion on any issue, but good sense will eventually prevail.

 

With this note, I wish you success in your attempt, and I admire your spirit in fighting for what you think is worth fighting for.

[w1n6]

hmm... looking at the accidents in http://www.pei.org/static/fire_reports.htm though no flash fire happen on motorcycle yet, it seem all the flash fire at the petrol kiosk are due to movement in and out of the vehicles. wondering is it a good idea or safer in term of static discharge for motorcyclist to dismount from the machine and pump or remain on the vehicle to pump thus preventing static discharge. anyway, to shell.