SHELL - OFFICIAL STATEMENT RELEASED

[w1n6]

Originally posted by whyh@Mar 9 2005, 01:02 AM

I'm sorry, but I am not sure what you mean, but I assume you mean refueling while straddling?

 

I have been doing it since I was riding small bikes for many years, but stopped doing it after I saw a bike topple onto the pump when the rider dismount to pay at cashier after he finished refueling.

 

Although confident I won't make such a mistake, I decided to take precaution anyway.

than i better stop riding motorcycle, have seen too many accident. just kidding. anyway, petrol kiosk can be quite slipperly at times... whether mount or dismount, before or after filling-up... motorcycle toppled can say quie common. my foots have slipped a few times and i myself have toppled the motorcycle once or maybe two times. so beware.

[STi]

Originally posted by whyh@Mar 8 2005, 10:44 PM

There may be people who have something relevant and substantial to contribute. Why in a hurry to close this thread?

 

Debates never get anywhere with personal attack, and much less with nothing more than mass opinion to back it up.

From static to bike toppling...... Wat next???

Honestly it does not really affect me cos I seldom ride except weekends. Even so i pump in our neighbouring country where i get 50% discount and no such dos and don'ts there.... But I feel that it is just simply unfair to impliment such rule as they still do not justify thier reason for doing so. Maybe just afraid that some bikers will ride off after they pump without paying??? At least that reason is till acceptable......

Accidents do occur everywhere... Bike catching fire is extremly rare locally. So Bikers suffer the highest fatality in accident rates so should they Ban bikes??

It will lead to nowhere...

Bottom line is some of us find it comfortable pumping while on the bike and fear of the bike toppling if pumping while dismounted.

Some pple like yourself find that dismounting comfortable and fear of the bike toppling (strangly same reason) if still on the bike.

To each his own.

Yes i agree with u that static will cause spark and fire but is rare esp here. but i see no reason to impliment such rule.

so Gambling harms family and the society But I can see that our Govt will 80% go ahead with the initial plan to build a casino......

Riding has a higher fatality rate in traffic accidents but there are still bikes around... But i still choose to ride cos i just love riding....

So bottom line is all of us have a choice to do what we seem comfortable or like as long as we know our litmits. If Sh*t happens, we bear our own consequences.

Anyway Aplogies for the harsh tone i use But i'm a person that speaks my mind and i tat that time I type my mesg, i was piss off by the way u argue and dun see others point of view. I admitted I slapped my self cos u have yr point of view so do others like my self..... Once again Aplogies offered.....

 

Cheers anyway to all.....

[rhema83]

Whether you think it's safer and therefore dismount, or feel that it's unnecessary and patronize other petrol stations, it's all up to the individual.

 

I don't pump at Shell except in Malaysia, because I have a SpeedPass, which eliminates the need to queue at the counter. That is also why I am against the policy, because if it becomes a law or gets implemented by ExxonMobil, it will be a hassle.

 

To answer whyh, when you dismount, you get charged up. When your bike is on sidestand, the bike is discharged, but not you. Get it?

 

Anyway I was just making a point that dismounting is not safer, but quite the opposite, and providing MPEX with ammunition to shoot back at the Shell engineers and safety specialists.

 

IMO handphones and cigarettes pose much greater threats!

[STi]

Originally posted by rhema83@Mar 9 2005, 03:22 AM

Whether you think it's safer and therefore dismount, or feel that it's unnecessary and patronize other petrol stations, it's all up to the individual.

 

I don't pump at Shell except in Malaysia, because I have a SpeedPass, which eliminates the need to queue at the counter. That is also why I am against the policy, because if it becomes a law or gets implemented by ExxonMobil, it will be a hassle.

 

To answer whyh, when you dismount, you get charged up. When your bike is on sidestand, the bike is discharged, but not you. Get it?

 

Anyway I was just making a point that dismounting is not safer, but quite the opposite, and providing MPEX with ammunition to shoot back at the Shell engineers and safety specialists.

 

IMO handphones and cigarettes pose much greater threats!

kekeke...

Wat I'm actually more worried is one day they say drivers and passengers must get out of the car as well!!!!!! :cheeky:

If they start on bikes, who knows when will be drivers turn??? :sweat:

 

Tat's why i support Mplex and appluad him for standing up bor the vast majority!!!

[hohosaint]

Whether you think it's safer and therefore dismount, or feel that it's unnecessary and patronize other petrol stations, it's all up to the individual.

 

I don't pump at Shell except in Malaysia, because I have a SpeedPass, which eliminates the need to queue at the counter. That is also why I am against the policy, because if it becomes a law or gets implemented by ExxonMobil, it will be a hassle.

 

To answer whyh, when you dismount, you get charged up. When your bike is on sidestand, the bike is discharged, but not you. Get it?

 

Anyway I was just making a point that dismounting is not safer, but quite the opposite, and providing MPEX with ammunition to shoot back at the Shell engineers and safety specialists.

 

IMO handphones and cigarettes pose much greater threats!

 

That’s what I deem it’s about. Judging by Shell dismounting policy, it only decreases the spillage causes fire likelihood and it does not lower down the risk of static at work.

[whyh]

Originally posted by rhema83@Mar 9 2005, 03:22 AM

To answer whyh, when you dismount, you get charged up. When your bike is on sidestand, the bike is discharged, but not you. Get it?

 

Anyway I was just making a point that dismounting is not safer, but quite the opposite, and providing MPEX with ammunition to shoot back at the Shell engineers and safety specialists.

So I think I understood correctly, but haven't quite comprehend the reasoning, So I will ask more questions.

 

My contention is this : If you should discharge to the bike AFTER you have grounded the bike, and when you are opening the fuel cap (That's BEFORE fumes escape from the tank), how does that result in higher risk compared to refueling while mounted, where the potential for difference is greatest between the pump nozzle and your tank, AFTER you have opened the fuel cap?

[whyh]

Originally posted by hohosaint@Mar 9 2005, 08:46 AM

That’s what I deem it’s about. Judging by Shell dismounting policy, it only decreases the spillage causes fire likelihood and it does not lower down the risk of static at work.

Thanks for seeing merit in the measure, although some will argue dismounting doesn't help in reducing spillage which causes fire.

 

I am still waiting for the reply on how one's bike gets toppled by the weight of the petrol tube and handle, after it is on side stand.

 

I am also trying to determine if it DOES lower the risk from static at work, as the question just before this post will show.

 

Let's keep an open and unbiased mind.

[MPeX]

Petition will be printed out and officially submitted personally to Shell Eastern Petrolum (Pte) Ltd later today at 3.30pm.

 

Any1 who hasn't signed the petition and still wish to do so can click on the below URL. It's your one and only chance to bring your comments/feedback/criticism/opinions across to Shell.

 

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

 

Dialogue session with Shell

Place : West Coast McDonalds

Date : 10 March 2005 (today!!)

Time : 3.30pm

 

Contact MPeX @ 96801978 if interested.

[roger]

Originally posted by MPeX@Mar 10 2005, 01:35 AM

Petition will be printed out and officially submitted personally to Shell Eastern Petrolum (Pte) Ltd later today at 3.30pm.

 

Any1 who hasn't signed the petition and still wish to do so can click on the below URL. It's your one and only chance to bring your comments/feedback/criticism/opinions across to Shell.

 

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

 

Dialogue session with Shell

Place : West Coast McDonalds

Date : 10 March 2005 (today!!)

Time : 3.30pm

 

Contact MPeX @ 96801978 if interested.

So... what's the verdict?!

[standlee]

Originally posted by roger@Mar 10 2005, 03:05 AM

So... what's the verdict?!

hmmm, veryinterested to know the outcome oso leh.. well, aft so much discussions, tat is....

[MPeX]

Originally posted by roger@Mar 10 2005, 03:05 AM

So... what's the verdict?!

We haven't met them yet... so no verdict (yet)...

[suzuki13]

Originally posted by MPeX@Mar 10 2005, 04:16 AM

We haven't met them yet... so no verdict (yet)...

they decided to go resturant to maken isizzz no more happy meal...

[rhema83]

Originally posted by whyh@Mar 8 2005, 09:15 PM

So I think I understood correctly, but haven't quite comprehend the reasoning, So I will ask more questions.

 

My contention is this : If you should discharge to the bike AFTER you have grounded the bike, and when you are opening the fuel cap (That's BEFORE fumes escape from the tank), how does that result in higher risk compared to refueling while mounted, where the potential for difference is greatest between the pump nozzle and your tank, AFTER you have opened the fuel cap?

I see your point. I indeed overlooked the fact that in the first case the fuel tank is not open and in the second case the fuel tank is open.

 

I would like to highlight the fact that due to the large amount of metal and fluids contained in the bike, it's potential is practically zero. That is why we have the term "grounded to chassis". Our main source of danger here is the rider. I believe it's a safe assumption to dismiss the potential difference between the bike and the pump. What makes a difference is whether the rider is grounded or not.

 

To reiterate, your point is valid.

 

I am starting to doubt that the point I am making is applicable in Singapore due to the high humidity. Moreover, the "dangerous" clothing items (wool, fur) are very rarely worn by riders. I would rather attribute fire risk to handphone users and smokers.

 

I feel that I am awfully

[MPeX]

To be honest, u guys lost me in this "potential" chat pages ago... i won't be bringing this to Shell later coz i dun understand most of it...

 

Btw, u studying this as a subject or ur speciality?

[william_liu]

Once the formula stuff came out I also "holland" liao......

 

[whyh]

Originally posted by rhema83@Mar 10 2005, 12:42 PM

I see your point. I indeed overlooked the fact that in the first case the fuel tank is not open and in the second case the fuel tank is open.

 

I would like to highlight the fact that due to the large amount of metal and fluids contained in the bike, it's potential is practically zero. That is why we have the term "grounded to chassis". Our main source of danger here is the rider. I believe it's a safe assumption to dismiss the potential difference between the bike and the pump. What makes a difference is whether the rider is grounded or not.

 

To reiterate, your point is valid.

 

I am starting to doubt that the point I am making is applicable in Singapore due to the high humidity. Moreover, the "dangerous" clothing items (wool, fur) are very rarely worn by riders. I would rather attribute fire risk to handphone users and smokers.

 

I feel that I am awfully

Surprising to find you posting at this time of the night?!!

 

Glad that we can have a rational discussion here.

 

One purpose of this measure is to PREVENT static from causing havoc, although it is remotely possible.

 

BTW, your post is not really off topic. Nylon, among other 'dangerous' materials, is widely used in fabrics here, although it is remotely possible that static can cause havoc in humid climate like Singapore's.

 

On the other hand, cell phones igniting fumes are also remotely possible, but precautions are taken anyway. Isn't that what precaution is about?

 

In fact, the fire in the story used to back the global ban for cell phones in petrol pumps, was later found to be caused by static, and not cell phone.

 

http://www.snopes.com/autos/hazards/gasvapor.asp

 

Funny, no cell phone users complains of being discriminated.

[w1n6]

Originally posted by MPeX@Mar 10 2005, 04:16 AM

We haven't met them yet... so no verdict (yet)...

for the meeting.

[roger]

Originally posted by MPeX@Mar 10 2005, 04:16 AM

We haven't met them yet... so no verdict (yet)...

i saw the date wrongly...

[william_liu]

No news yet... a bit puzzling.....

 

[danieltanboonhuat]

ya.... got kidnaped by them?

[MPeX]

Apologies, i just got home.

 

The 2 hour meeting had some kind of outcome. Gimme a day, i'll compile the "minutes of meeting" and release a statement.

[rhema83]

Originally posted by MPeX@Mar 10 2005, 02:19 PM

Apologies, i just got home.

 

The 2 hour meeting had some kind of outcome. Gimme a day, i'll compile the "minutes of meeting" and release a statement.

Good work!

 

whyh, I post at weird times because I'm in the US now. However I am still concerned about the things that are happening back home.

[whyh]

Originally posted by rhema83@Mar 11 2005, 06:31 AM

Good work!

 

whyh, I post at weird times because I'm in the US now. However I am still concerned about the things that are happening back home.

I found it wierd because the time for that post was 1242pm Singapore time... what was your local time then?

[w1n6]

Originally posted by whyh@Mar 11 2005, 09:54 AM

I found it wierd because the time for that post was 1242pm Singapore time... what was your local time then?

now i find you weird...

[whyh]

Originally posted by w1n6@Mar 11 2005, 12:30 PM

now i find you weird...

Meeting with shell over la... relak abit...

 

I find the timing wierd cos US local time can be 12 hours behind ours, depending on which state one is in.

 

So he could be posting at 1242 AM in the States. Note that I described his post as 'this time of the NIGHT' when it's 1242 pm in Singapore.... that's our lunch hour...

 

Cheers+++