Petrol Station Argument - Sitting on the Bike?
Discussion
Trabi601 said:
hey pretend it's legislation to avoid the abuse they get from customers who think they know better when filling up from a pump that's located directly above 100k litres of flammable liquid.
You may fancy your chances - but for the safety of the employees, other customers and local residents, please comply.
(In case you missed it - it isn't just the other side of the planet - it happened in NI, too - the type of pump is a moot point, as an overfill or clumsy spillage isn't equipment dependant - it's user error)
It's only relatively rare in the UK / Europe as most fills are done off the bike.
Can you explain why standing up reduces the risk of fire from overfilling? You may fancy your chances - but for the safety of the employees, other customers and local residents, please comply.
(In case you missed it - it isn't just the other side of the planet - it happened in NI, too - the type of pump is a moot point, as an overfill or clumsy spillage isn't equipment dependant - it's user error)
It's only relatively rare in the UK / Europe as most fills are done off the bike.
Can you provide any evidence, beyond anecdotes, to support the claim that standing up helps?
Prof Prolapse said:
Trabi601 said:
hey pretend it's legislation to avoid the abuse they get from customers who think they know better when filling up from a pump that's located directly above 100k litres of flammable liquid.
You may fancy your chances - but for the safety of the employees, other customers and local residents, please comply.
(In case you missed it - it isn't just the other side of the planet - it happened in NI, too - the type of pump is a moot point, as an overfill or clumsy spillage isn't equipment dependant - it's user error)
It's only relatively rare in the UK / Europe as most fills are done off the bike.
Can you explain why standing up reduces the risk of fire from overfilling? You may fancy your chances - but for the safety of the employees, other customers and local residents, please comply.
(In case you missed it - it isn't just the other side of the planet - it happened in NI, too - the type of pump is a moot point, as an overfill or clumsy spillage isn't equipment dependant - it's user error)
It's only relatively rare in the UK / Europe as most fills are done off the bike.
Can you provide any evidence, beyond anecdotes, to support the claim that standing up helps?
Open tank, hot exhaust and engine, do I really need to join the dots for you? 
Prof Prolapse said:
Can you explain why standing up reduces the risk of fire from overfilling?
Can you provide any evidence, beyond anecdotes, to support the claim that standing up helps?
You're approaching this from the wrong angle.Can you provide any evidence, beyond anecdotes, to support the claim that standing up helps?
You aren't minimising the risk of fire. You're minimising the consequences of the fire. ie. you don't have a burning biker trapped between pump and bike. If you think you can think rationally and escape from the bike in a safe manner when your b
ks are on fire, then you'd be wrong. Even if *you* escape, your natural reaction is to throw the bike towards the pump, which further increases the consequence of the fire.Standing up helps because you have a clear escape route, without worrying about which way the bike will fall - and it removes the chances of you losing footing and dropping the bike. Even without a fire, a dropped bike pinning you between the pump and bike is painful - and getting your clothes soaked with unleaded hurts, too, as it burns the skin.
- You* may think it's an acceptable risk, for the sake of other customers and staff, the industry thinks it's not acceptable.
boxxob said:
Trabi601 said:
Sorry, but that's rubbish!
Why do motorcyclists always try to circumvent health and safety policy? It's there for a reason, please just respect it.
Meh, not the best counter argument and reasoning skills I have ever received. Do you have an independent thought are do you follow every stricture that's written out for you, most of which will never cover each and every eventuality, and are about as evidence-based as my exit direction musings.Why do motorcyclists always try to circumvent health and safety policy? It's there for a reason, please just respect it.
I did, however, get helmet policy changed from 'remove' to 'lift visor' - so I can and will challenge anything that really is a bit silly.
Edited by Trabi601 on Tuesday 28th June 10:13
Trabi601 said:
You're approaching this from the wrong angle.
You aren't minimising the risk of fire. You're minimising the consequences of the fire. ie. you don't have a burning biker trapped between pump and bike. If you think you can think rationally and escape from the bike in a safe manner when your bks are on fire, then you'd be wrong. Even if *you* escape, your natural reaction is to throw the bike towards the pump, which further increases the consequence of the fire.
Standing up helps because you have a clear escape route, without worrying about which way the bike will fall - and it removes the chances of you losing footing and dropping the bike. Even without a fire, a dropped bike pinning you between the pump and bike is painful - and getting your clothes soaked with unleaded hurts, too, as it burns the skin.
No, you're not approaching this from a rational perspective you're just regurgitating what you've been told.You aren't minimising the risk of fire. You're minimising the consequences of the fire. ie. you don't have a burning biker trapped between pump and bike. If you think you can think rationally and escape from the bike in a safe manner when your b
ks are on fire, then you'd be wrong. Even if *you* escape, your natural reaction is to throw the bike towards the pump, which further increases the consequence of the fire.Standing up helps because you have a clear escape route, without worrying about which way the bike will fall - and it removes the chances of you losing footing and dropping the bike. Even without a fire, a dropped bike pinning you between the pump and bike is painful - and getting your clothes soaked with unleaded hurts, too, as it burns the skin.
- You* may think it's an acceptable risk, for the sake of other customers and staff, the industry thinks it's not acceptable.
Firstly lets do it properly and finish separating hazard and risk as you've attempted to. Your claim is the size of the hazard is reduced, not the risk of fire. You'll never prove it but I accept your reasoning that someone who is about to catch fire can be somewhat inconsiderate of their surroundings.
Then to the risk. The probability of the scenario arriving in the first place. What is the risk of this happening? In hundreds of millions of fill ups how often has it occurred? I would wage very few, and in every instance the root cause was user error. Not being sat on the bike, this only potentially contributed to the size of the hazard not the chances of the incident occurring.
Now the root cause, you can't demonstrate human error can be mitigated by doing this, "stupid is as stupid does". It is also impossible to estimate the potential risk of a standing up retard vs. a sitting down one.
Finally, you have provided no evidence so we'll assume I'm correct and there's none. So you are working with about, what, 5 anecdotal incidents? Maybe? In millions of uneventful ones? How can you possibly say with confidence you are reducing a hazard so much you can p
s off potentially masses of customers? If you're response is along the lines of "because safety", then you sod off, because you've not proven it, in reality it's because "my boss said so".You know what. It's not worth arguing the point.
Most people have listened, considered and decided that, actually, the rule is there to help protect them and will happily comply.
You get the odd one who wants to argue with the person on the forecourt who is there to protect their safety - that isn't fine. If you aren't happy with the rule, you are free to exercise choice and go elsewhere.
Most people have listened, considered and decided that, actually, the rule is there to help protect them and will happily comply.
You get the odd one who wants to argue with the person on the forecourt who is there to protect their safety - that isn't fine. If you aren't happy with the rule, you are free to exercise choice and go elsewhere.
Prof Prolapse said:
Trabi601 said:
You're approaching this from the wrong angle.
You aren't minimising the risk of fire. You're minimising the consequences of the fire. ie. you don't have a burning biker trapped between pump and bike. If you think you can think rationally and escape from the bike in a safe manner when your bks are on fire, then you'd be wrong. Even if *you* escape, your natural reaction is to throw the bike towards the pump, which further increases the consequence of the fire.
Standing up helps because you have a clear escape route, without worrying about which way the bike will fall - and it removes the chances of you losing footing and dropping the bike. Even without a fire, a dropped bike pinning you between the pump and bike is painful - and getting your clothes soaked with unleaded hurts, too, as it burns the skin.
No, you're not approaching this from a rational perspective you're just regurgitating what you've been told.You aren't minimising the risk of fire. You're minimising the consequences of the fire. ie. you don't have a burning biker trapped between pump and bike. If you think you can think rationally and escape from the bike in a safe manner when your b
ks are on fire, then you'd be wrong. Even if *you* escape, your natural reaction is to throw the bike towards the pump, which further increases the consequence of the fire.Standing up helps because you have a clear escape route, without worrying about which way the bike will fall - and it removes the chances of you losing footing and dropping the bike. Even without a fire, a dropped bike pinning you between the pump and bike is painful - and getting your clothes soaked with unleaded hurts, too, as it burns the skin.
- You* may think it's an acceptable risk, for the sake of other customers and staff, the industry thinks it's not acceptable.
Firstly lets do it properly and finish separating hazard and risk as you've attempted to. Your claim is the size of the hazard is reduced, not the risk of fire. You'll never prove it but I accept your reasoning that someone who is about to catch fire can be somewhat inconsiderate of their surroundings.
Then to the risk. The probability of the scenario arriving in the first place. What is the risk of this happening? In hundreds of millions of fill ups how often has it occurred? I would wage very few, and in every instance the root cause was user error. Not being sat on the bike, this only potentially contributed to the size of the hazard not the chances of the incident occurring.
Now the root cause, you can't demonstrate human error can be mitigated by doing this, "stupid is as stupid does". It is also impossible to estimate the potential risk of a standing up retard vs. a sitting down one.
Finally, you have provided no evidence so we'll assume I'm correct and there's none. So you are working with about, what, 5 anecdotal incidents? Maybe? In millions of uneventful ones? How can you possibly say with confidence you are reducing a hazard so much you can p
s off potentially masses of customers? If you're response is along the lines of "because safety", then you sod off, because you've not proven it, in reality it's because "my boss said so".ks? It stings like a bd and that's before it's ignited.No biker has ever had problems with diesel in the history of biking, nope, not ever. There's loads of the b
d stuff all over the forecourt and bike boots aren't the grippiest things in the world. If you're gonna lose your footing while holding the bike it's more likely to happen on a slippery surface.And yes, I actually managed to crash a CB750F1 on a forecourt thanks to diesel
WinstonWolf said:
Ever had petrol on your bks? It stings like a bd and that's before it's ignited.
No biker has ever had problems with diesel in the history of biking, nope, not ever. There's loads of the bd stuff all over the forecourt and bike boots aren't the grippiest things in the world. If you're gonna lose your footing while holding the bike it's more likely to happen on a slippery surface.
And yes, I actually managed to crash a CB750F1 on a forecourt thanks to diesel
Yes actually I have, but the "rule" isn't there to save you getting chemical balls on your scrotum, so it's moot. I also don't understand your second point. Whether you're on or off the bike your feet are on the floor?ks? It stings like a bd and that's before it's ignited.No biker has ever had problems with diesel in the history of biking, nope, not ever. There's loads of the b
d stuff all over the forecourt and bike boots aren't the grippiest things in the world. If you're gonna lose your footing while holding the bike it's more likely to happen on a slippery surface.And yes, I actually managed to crash a CB750F1 on a forecourt thanks to diesel
You've said you've done it, but that is just an anecdote, and doesn't further the discussion.
Look, my only argument is that it's bulls
t to pretend it's a propotional response to a legitimate safety concern. I actually said from the start I get off the bike, and believe anyone with an issue should just sod off to another supplier. How the petrol station wish to run their forecourt is their concern after all. But I won't be "fed bullst and told it's ice cream", so to speak.Prof Prolapse said:
WinstonWolf said:
Ever had petrol on your bks? It stings like a bd and that's before it's ignited.
No biker has ever had problems with diesel in the history of biking, nope, not ever. There's loads of the bd stuff all over the forecourt and bike boots aren't the grippiest things in the world. If you're gonna lose your footing while holding the bike it's more likely to happen on a slippery surface.
And yes, I actually managed to crash a CB750F1 on a forecourt thanks to diesel
Yes actually I have, but the "rule" isn't there to save you getting chemical balls on your scrotum, so it's moot. I also don't understand your second point. Whether you're on or off the bike your feet are on the floor?ks? It stings like a bd and that's before it's ignited.No biker has ever had problems with diesel in the history of biking, nope, not ever. There's loads of the b
d stuff all over the forecourt and bike boots aren't the grippiest things in the world. If you're gonna lose your footing while holding the bike it's more likely to happen on a slippery surface.And yes, I actually managed to crash a CB750F1 on a forecourt thanks to diesel
You've said you've done it, but that is just an anecdote, and doesn't further the discussion.
Look, my only argument is that it's bulls
t to pretend it's a propotional response to a legitimate safety concern. I actually said from the start I get off the bike, and believe anyone with an issue should just sod off to another supplier. How the petrol station wish to run their forecourt is their concern after all. But I won't be "fed bullst and told it's ice cream", so to speak.But do they not require us to get off our bikes becaue.......
there's attended service?
the water goes the other way around down the plug hole??
Bottom line it's a rule introduced for no other reason than someone's opinion. No base, no facts, no reason. Subjective, pure and simple.
graham22 said:
The safety factor here is so obvious it worries me what sort of person is disputing it:
It's the kind of person who confuses the plural of anecdote with data ... It's the kind of person who thinks rules are for others , they are exceptional becasue they are mummy's special little soldier ...
Steve Bass said:
If BP in the UK require you to get off your bike when filling due to some unmentioned risk or hazard, why don't BP here require me to do the same?? Are the risks or hazards any less here??
But do they not require us to get off our bikes becaue.......
there's attended service?
the water goes the other way around down the plug hole??
Bottom line it's a rule introduced for no other reason than someone's opinion. No base, no facts, no reason. Subjective, pure and simple.
BP sites in S. Africa are independently owned businesses - I'm not sure what legal framework exists for ensuring an independent operator is complying with company policy out there, but it can be a very murky area.But do they not require us to get off our bikes becaue.......
there's attended service?
the water goes the other way around down the plug hole??
Bottom line it's a rule introduced for no other reason than someone's opinion. No base, no facts, no reason. Subjective, pure and simple.
Prof Prolapse said:
WinstonWolf said:
Ever had petrol on your bks? It stings like a bd and that's before it's ignited.
No biker has ever had problems with diesel in the history of biking, nope, not ever. There's loads of the bd stuff all over the forecourt and bike boots aren't the grippiest things in the world. If you're gonna lose your footing while holding the bike it's more likely to happen on a slippery surface.
And yes, I actually managed to crash a CB750F1 on a forecourt thanks to diesel
Yes actually I have, but the "rule" isn't there to save you getting chemical balls on your scrotum, so it's moot. I also don't understand your second point. Whether you're on or off the bike your feet are on the floor?ks? It stings like a bd and that's before it's ignited.No biker has ever had problems with diesel in the history of biking, nope, not ever. There's loads of the b
d stuff all over the forecourt and bike boots aren't the grippiest things in the world. If you're gonna lose your footing while holding the bike it's more likely to happen on a slippery surface.And yes, I actually managed to crash a CB750F1 on a forecourt thanks to diesel
You've said you've done it, but that is just an anecdote, and doesn't further the discussion.
Look, my only argument is that it's bulls
t to pretend it's a propotional response to a legitimate safety concern. I actually said from the start I get off the bike, and believe anyone with an issue should just sod off to another supplier. How the petrol station wish to run their forecourt is their concern after all. But I won't be "fed bullst and told it's ice cream", so to speak.ks (we both know this DOES happen) above a source of ignition and you still can't figure out what can go wrong???The bike starts to slip as your feet are on diesel, you have a petrol nozzle in one hand and an open tank of fuel. How many hands do you have free to control the situation?
This must be the first time my opinion has been changed by a post on the 'net but it does happen, I can see how things could escalate quickly in the wrong circumstances.
mph1977 said:
graham22 said:
The safety factor here is so obvious it worries me what sort of person is disputing it:
It's the kind of person who confuses the plural of anecdote with data ... It's the kind of person who thinks rules are for others , they are exceptional becasue they are mummy's special little soldier ...
"Rules are for the guidance of wise men and the obedience of fools" – Douglas Bader
Trabi601 said:
boxxob said:
Sitting on the bike may actually be safer, since you can escape away from the pump in 180 degrees of direction away from the pump station. Standing and filling the bike whilst on its side stand, you are effectively corralled between the bike, the pump housing and the dangling hose, and the only clear exit is in the direction of the rear of the bike.
Sorry, but that's rubbish!Why do motorcyclists always try to circumvent health and safety policy? It's there for a reason, please just respect it.
- speedlimits
- solid white lines
- advanced stop lines
- refuelling good practice
and , elephant in the room time, how much of the extra morbidity and mortality is due to their risk taking rather than poor practice by other road users ?
Steve Bass said:
If BP in the UK require you to get off your bike when filling due to some unmentioned risk or hazard, why don't BP here require me to do the same?? Are the risks or hazards any less here??
But do they not require us to get off our bikes becaue.......
there's attended service?
the water goes the other way around down the plug hole??
Bottom line it's a rule introduced for no other reason than someone's opinion. No base, no facts, no reason. Subjective, pure and simple.
In Mexico I had to get out of a taxi whilst it was filling up...in the pissing rain I might add. Regulations.But do they not require us to get off our bikes becaue.......
there's attended service?
the water goes the other way around down the plug hole??
Bottom line it's a rule introduced for no other reason than someone's opinion. No base, no facts, no reason. Subjective, pure and simple.
Anyway, if that's what they want at that garage and the OP doesn't like it then he has a couple simple choices, a third being engage the internet
yonex said:
Steve Bass said:
If BP in the UK require you to get off your bike when filling due to some unmentioned risk or hazard, why don't BP here require me to do the same?? Are the risks or hazards any less here??
But do they not require us to get off our bikes becaue.......
there's attended service?
the water goes the other way around down the plug hole??
Bottom line it's a rule introduced for no other reason than someone's opinion. No base, no facts, no reason. Subjective, pure and simple.
In Mexico I had to get out of a taxi whilst it was filling up...in the pissing rain I might add. Regulations.But do they not require us to get off our bikes becaue.......
there's attended service?
the water goes the other way around down the plug hole??
Bottom line it's a rule introduced for no other reason than someone's opinion. No base, no facts, no reason. Subjective, pure and simple.
Anyway, if that's what they want at that garage and the OP doesn't like it then he has a couple simple choices, a third being engage the internet
At no point did anyone offer me a helmet or a walky talky so I say it's all madnness.
The above may/may not assist in anyones argument but you're free to use it as anecdotal evidence...
Gassing Station | Biker Banter | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff