I don’t have time to check out the links (time to get ready for work), but I will later.
Right. Gasoline vapurizes at a lower temperature than kerosene (Jet-A or JP-4), which means it’s more volatile.
Which is why I said I stand corrected above 
I took a closer look at the pump today and found the signs to read.
Warning - stop engine before refueling.
And
Warning it is unlawful to dispense gasoline into plastic containers blah, blah, static electricity blah, blah, blow yourself up.
The law seems to be more interested in the static electricity than running engines.
Also what about the engine starting up after refueling?
Does leaving the engine running cause more of a hazard than starting one up?
The gas fumes should be at the same concentration right?
If running engines were that big a concern wouldn’t we have to shut them off and push the cars in/out of the fume danger zone?
People are filling up right now with their engines running in your town.
They have been doing it for decades.
Why hasn’t your local gas station blown up?
**
Ah man, I don’t get any better than that weak sarcasm? And you even had to backtrack a little. (Of course stating that you rely on random wind to keep you safe didn’t help your stance much.) I mean come on! The topic is gasoline here! Flames should be all over this thread! Course you’re the one trying to imitate a charcoal briquette.
Sure, you’ve done it for years and still have all your skin. You’d probably have good odds of survival while working on a metal ladder in a thunderstorm too. But why risk it?
For more fun Gasoline facts I refer this thread to this here link:
http://www.ameriburn.org/Prevention/Public%20Education%20Materials.pdf
I took a closer look at the pump today and found the signs to read.
Warning - stop engine before refueling.
And
Warning it is unlawful to dispense gasoline into plastic containers blah, blah, static electricity blah, blah, blow yourself up.
The law seems to be more interested in the static electricity than running engines.
Also what about the engine starting up after refueling?
Does leaving the engine running cause more of a hazard than starting one up?
The gas fumes should be at the same concentration right?
If running engines were that big a concern wouldn’t we have to shut them off and push the cars in/out of the fume danger zone?
People are filling up right now with their engines running in your town.
They have been doing it for decades.
Why hasn’t your local gas station blown up?
As for Canada does the sign read unlawful or warning concerning the engine running?
When I was in Canada most of the signs just had pictures is it a picture of a guy in handcuffs filling the engine of a running car?
That walk/don’t walk sign you have up there cracks me up. It reminds me of that groovy keep on truckin cartoon from the 60’s. It’s like a groove/don’t groove sign.
As a matter of fact I did get gas in Canada.
I can’t remember if I turned off the engine.
Nah, I just don’t arbitrarily flame people I don’t know.
If the gas stations you frequent are in the habit of having pools of gasoline around the pump then I would suggest you try a different station.
Show me a cite of ONE gas station exploding due to someone leaving their car running while smoking a cigarette. Then show me what the odds are of this happening. If the odds are that high then I’ll retract everything I’ve said. :rolleyes:
Not really a case of a car running, but interesting:
http://www.esdjournal.com/static/explode/flames.htm
And also this stupid notion:
http://www.urbanlegends.about.com/science/urbanlegends/library/weekly/aa062399.htm
Well Farmer, the first link seems to be talking about static starting the fire. At least judging from the title anyway.
You’re right about the second link though. I ALWAYS see sparks fly when using my cell phone. :rolleyes:
XPLODER – I think your logic is faulty, and I’ll try to explain why: The question is whether or not smoking a cigarette while dispensing gasoline is safe or not. You say:
So you are counting on the breeze to dissipate volatile fumes before they reach you. Fine by me. But this goes more to assumption of risk than it does to the question of whether it is safe (and you are smart) to smoke while refueling.
Surely you can see that if you see a thousand people doing something dangerous and/or stupid, that in no way answers the question of whether the activity in question IS dangerous and/or stupid.
Actually, there were lots of them, though admittedly most I have seen (during a cursory search of case law) occurred in the early days of automobiles, when gasoline was not dispensed so safely and people were not so adept at handling it. (And by early I mean the 1930s and previous.) But the general rule that smoking while refueling is not a good idea did not arise out of nowhere; it was a response to repeated fires caused when refueling cars.
You can see that the warning on peanuts and the warning on a gas pump are not the same. One warns of an obvious danger – don’t eat the shells – the other of a danger that is not so obvious. If you consider them to be the same, and you are a man who smokes while refueling becuase you think the warning is stupid, then you must be the type of person who eats the shells off peanuts, not because you like them but because you’ve been told not to.
I love this reasoning! SURFACE IS HOT! DO NOT TOUCH! “Well, that couldn’t be there because the surface is hot and they don’t want us to touch it; that would be way too obvious. It must be to prevent lawsuits.” Of course they’re there to prevent lawsuits; they prevent lawsuits by advising fools not to do stupid things. The question is how to prevent fools from doing stupid things when they read the warning but think it doesn’t apply to them.
Again, we’re talking about assumption of risk. If people want to smoke while fueling, IMO that’s up to them. And they can pay the cost of the burn treatment in the (admittedly unlikely event) of a mishap, as well. But it makes no sense to say: (1) The danger doesn’t exist at all (it does, at least theoretically); (2) Other people do it (other people do lots of stupid things); (3) I’ve never seen it happen so therefore it could never happen (which obviously does not follow; or (4) signs that warn “this is a really bad idea” don’t really mean it’s a bad idea and can be comfortably ignored (which is as dangerous as a general proposition as it is silly).
WAXTEETH –
That’s apparently because there is MORE danger from the static electricity problem than from a running engine. Again, this does not necessarily mean there is NO danger from a running engine, though I will concede it appears that danger is low. But if there is ANY danger, then why do it?
XPLODER –
One red-hot citation, coming up: Terry v. Phillips 66, 591 So.2d 33 (Ala.1991). The Plaintiff alleged that the gas station attendant caused gas fumes to ignite by smoking while filling up her (the Plaintiff’s) car and the Plaintiff’s daughter was killed in the resulting fire. (I note, however, that the validity of these factual claims were never decided, since the Plaintiff sued the gas station under the theory of respondeat superior (vicarious responsibility for the actions of your agents or employees), and the suit was dismissed on summary judgment after the court found that this legal theory did not apply.
See, here’s the thing: It’s not a question of whether the odds are “high” or not. It’s a question of whether there is a chance that it could happen, even as an extraordinary event, when you could prevent it by taking very minor, nonintrusive precautions. I don’t get the reasoning that says “I will continue to do something that may be very dangerous unless you can show me that it is, beyond any doubt, very dangerous – even if avoiding that hypothetical danger would be extremely easy to do.”
Again, I don’t care if people want to smoke while refueling if they are willing to pay the costs associated with causing a fire. I’d just like to see people admit that what they are doing is assuming a risk – maybe a small one, but a risk nonetheless – as opposed to rationalizing their actions as something they are not, such as smart.
Well Jodi, I really do appreciate your response. For the record though, I never said that there was NO risk of a fire or explosion. I’m quite aware that the law of probabilities will eventually cause something like this to happen. My point was that the probability is so negligible that it makes no difference to me.
To imply that I’m a fool because of this doesn’t make a lot of sense.
If the validity of the factual claims were never decided then how is this a valid cite?
I risk dying every time I take a shower due to the possibility of a slip and fall accident. Does this mean I’m going to stop taking showers? Of course not. The odds are much greater of me dying in a bathtub accident than while refueling my car.
To back up just a bit, I was being mildly sarcastic in my comments about refueling outside as opposed to inside. I never said that smoking a cigarette while filling up my car was safe.
Forgive me if this seems rather incoherent…I have a terrible sinus headache.
WAXTEETH –
quote:
The law seems to be more interested in the static electricity than running engines.
“That’s apparently because there is MORE danger from the static electricity problem than from a running engine. Again, this does not necessarily mean there is NO danger from a running engine, though I will concede it appears that danger is low. But if there is ANY danger, then why do it?”
Jodi
Why do it is just regular old risk vs. reward.
When the climate outside is more uncomfortable than my perceived danger of an explosion I might risk it.
Perception is everything you know.
XPLODER –
With respect, this is not what you said. You said “I see others do it,” and “I’ve never heard of anything bad happening because of it,” and “I think warning labels are largely superfluous.” Like I said, if you want to assume the risk, that’s fine by me, but that’s a different thing than the rationales you were listing before.
I did not intend to imply you were a fool. I intended to state that I personally find it foolish for a person to refrain from undertaking extremely simple, nonintrusive steps to ensure his or her own safety.
Because it is a case in which it was alleged that the exact behavior in question here caused the exact result under discussion here. In other words, it is an actual, factual situation where it was at least asserted that this occurred. So now neither you nor anyone else can say they’ve never heard of it happening.
Again you have made a jump in reasoning. There is a way to refuel your car while minimizing the danger to you, and at very little inconvenience to you. If there was a similar way to easily minimize the danger of slipping and falling in the tub – by, say, flipping a switch – why wouldn’t you do it? The point is not that dangers of varying degrees exist everywhere, but that if very easy methods of minimizing those dangers exist, it would appear to make sense that people would take advantage of those methods.
And for my part, I have never said it was outrageously dangerous. My only point is that if people want to do it, I’d prefer to hear “I know I’m taking a risk and I accept that, but I judge it to be a small one, and I’ll pay for any damage if I’m wrong,” rather than “Everyone else does it” – which doesn’t indicate much independent thought going into the problem of whether it’s a good idea or not.
Sorry about your headache; drink lots of water to flush your sinuses out. 
WAXTEETH –
And as I have said, I have no problem with this so long as you realize you are knowingly assuming that risk, however small it might be.
IMO, it is not, and this is a perfect example of why it should not be. Going back to the risk of explosion from refueling a gas can in the back of a truck lined with a plastic bed liner: There is a very real risk of fire and/or explosion from the combination of gas fumes and the spark of static electricity under such circumstances. But I feel comfortable in saying that it is a risk that (a) is not obvious (without knowing about the buildup of static electricity under the circumstances, there is no reason to think a sparking agent even exists) and that (b) most people are unaware of. So here you have an activity that might well be objectively perceived to be safe (“Of course it won’t explode; how could it explode? There’s no spark.”) but that in reality is not. If a warning was posted under such circumstances (as increasingly they are), you apparently would trust your own perception of safety over a stated warning that danger exists. I’m afraid this just doesn’t make any sense to me.
Xploder,
You have my sympathy for the sinus headache. Those are the bane of my existence.
I offer links that may or may not be relevant because my head hurts too.
Here’s a static electricity one:
http://www.andalusiastarnews.com/news/1999/12/30/1230gasfire.html
Just for coverage sake here’s Snopes on cell phones
I can’t find that many links to gas station fires at all. Perhaps the risk is small. Perhaps such news simply does not reach the internet. Perhaps it’s too hard to find as it is buried underneath of a mass of so many cigarette smokers doing stupid things to set themselves on fire. (SAFETY TIP: Never smoke in an oxygen tent.)
As far as the dreary “I could die in my bathtub…” whatever. My response is Why add more risk when not necessary? Why endanger others? And burns really suck. Being set on fire is a bad way to go. Even if the risk is less than 1%, it would really hurt.
But the nicotine addicted seem to have a rather fatalistic attitude.
Continuing form Blackclaw’s post:
Or perhaps, just perhaps, the vast majority of people know better than to carry burning tobacco in one hand and highly flammable and volatile liquid in another.
I’m going to attempt to respond but my temperature is up over 100 and my head is pounding so please bear with me
You’re correct Jodi, and my apologies for not properly re-reading what I had said before replying to you.
Looking back at this, from the perspective of what you wrote here, I see what you mean. Again, I blame it on being sick and being somewhat dizzy which is still not a good excuse but at least it’s something
If I recall correctly, I asked for a cite where a fire was started while the car was running and someone was smoking. This is extremely close to that and I see where you’re coming from.
My point was what I said. There being a much greater risk of me dying from a slip and fall accident in my bathroom than from an explosion caused by refueling my car while it’s running and I’m smoking does not mean that I’m going to stop taking showers. To reiterate, (sort of), I consider the risk of a vehicle explosion caused by what I just said to be so minimal as to be close to non-existant. I act accordingly. Would I willingly and knowingly do so if there was a substantial chance that it might cause injury to someone? Of course not.
I understand completely (this in the pit?) and again, I agree with everything you’re saying. Then again, while I may have implied that it was okay to do because “everyone else does it”, that was NOT what I meant!
Thanks most kindly. I’ve actually been inhaling steam in the shower as well as drinking hot tea. There’s hope for me yet.
Thanks and I also sympathize with you. The first link deals with a complete idiot who checks the level of his gasoline tanker truck with a cigarette lighter. I need say no more. The second deals with static electricity, which I know to be a cause for explosions in fuel fires. As for the third,
all I can say is I’m not overly surprised. Thanks for the links too
As someone who has been severely burned, I understand your point. I still stand by my assertion that the risk of a fire caused by smoking a cigarette while refueling my car which is still running is infinitessimal at best.
I don’t particularly agree with this statement but everyone is entitled to his/her opinion and far be it from me to try and impress my attitude on anyone.
Again, thanks for the insights. They’ve given me a lot to think about. Now I need to go stand in the steam again…
As stated before Andros, dropping a lit cigarette into a pool of gas will cause the cigarette to go out, not cause an explosion. Then again, I was talking about filling my car up, not carrying a can of gas around.
Now I’m really off to the shower…
Yeah. And as stated before, JP-4 is more volatile than gasoline. Which it isn’t.
The fact is that under certain circumstances a cigarette can ignite liquid gasoline. Rather, it can ignite the immediate surface vapours. It’s unlikely, but it CAN happen.
You do accept that gasoline vapours can be ignited by a lit ciggie, right? That’s what’s at issue, not the idea of your accidentally dropping a lit butt into your gas tank. If you’ve been around refueling stations as much as you say, you know that fumes can do wierd things. Gas fumes sink and accumulate, and occasionally, errant gusts of wind can whip fairly concentrated fumes around. Again, it’s extremely unlikely that a cigarette will ever ignite any fumes. But damn–why take any risk at all?
Sorry, I was in a hurry at the time and misread your post.
I said that JP-4 is less volatile than gasoline, which it is. Xploder disagreed, but came up with his own cites and posted a correction. Just to make it clear, JP-4 and Jet-A are jet fuels, which are basically kerosene. Gasoline is more volatile than kerosene.
Go back and re-read the first page where I retracted that statement.
I agree that it is a possibility.
Again, I agree that it’s a possibility that a cigarette will ignite fuel vapours. You’re the one that said something to the effect of carrying burning vegetation in one hand and a volatile substance in the other, hence my comment. Yes, I have been around a lot of refueling stations both in the Military and in civilian life and as I said before, it doesn’t seem to me, particularly since it’s outside, that the concentration of vapours would accumulate to the point of flash. If they were to accumulate to that point, you would have more of a fuel-air explosion situation.
I’m not trying to do the old “I’m right and you’re wrong” thing here and I don’t think either one of us is going to change the others position but, as I said before, these responses have given me a great deal to think about. As for why take any risk at all? Again, I feel that the risk is so negligible as to be close to non-existent.
Okay, not entirely off topic, but about the “excuse me” thing.
When I was at the hospital and in a bit of a daze since my son was just hit by a car, I was in the waiting room telling family what was going on and trying to call my husband since he had stopped at home between hospitals to change out of his filthy work clothes.
Anyway, I was trying to use a cell phone. I am not too good with them and therefore don’t have one, but borrowed a friends since I had no change.
A woman in the waiting room said “excuse me you can’t use that in here”
I went off! Big time. About who in the hell was she to tell me what I could and couldn’t do. They don’t allow you to use them on the room floors next to the equipement but I am in the waiting room trying to figure out if my son is going to live or die, and you are worried about my using a cell phone? I swore alot and then finally broke down, only after throwing my full unopened can of soda that my sister had just gotten me.
Why did I go off? I think that it was because when she said “excuse me” it sounded snobby and condesending.
It was later told to me that the woman apologised and what she meant was that I couldn’t use it in the hospital since I would get no reception in there.
Oops. I did feel a bit better after that mini rant. See, when I was told he was hit I had shut down any emotion to show him I wasn’t scared and he would be okay. So the first sign of confrontation and I snapped hard core.
I really do feel that “excuse me” no matter what tone, carries the stigmata of sarcasm or being condensending anymore. What a bunch of jaded peoples we have become.
In the situation with the cell phone, just saying “You can’t use that in here” would sound very abrupt and impolite to me. Is there some other phrase you use just to catch someone’s ear and let them know you’re talking to them?