Refuelling whilst still mounted

[Lurch]

The difference is damage has been done - there is an injured (is dead injured?) party.

What is the injury caused by me filling my bike while sitting on it?

Genius! The guys who crashed the planes into the Twin Towers weren't guilty of terrorism until AFTER they impacted. lol

[BoristheBiter]

Genius! The guys who crashed the planes into the Twin Towers weren't guilty of terrorism until AFTER they did it. lol

and with kwaka_crasher's way of thinking the terroists weren't terroists because they think it is a dumb law.

[kwaka_crasher]

Where do you stand on seeing people on cell phones and smoking on the forecourt of petrol stations?

I wouldn't do either. I'm too busy preventing petrol from pouring into my lap...

Cigarette is a real potential ignition source for the fumes so you'd have to be pretty silly to do that. Even under ideal conditions it'd still be a freak occurance that you'd get a cellphone to trigger an explosion so I have no problem with that.

I don't have a problem with people talking on cellphones while driving either as long they fulfill their driving obligations to other road users. Some people can manage it, some can't.

Beat me too it but i would have changed "dickhead" with kwaka_crasher

Baaaaaa baaaaaaa... we need a sheep emoticon...

I expect most things 'beat' you.

[kwaka_crasher]

Genius! The guys who crashed the planes into the Twin Towers weren't guilty of terrorism until AFTER they impacted. lol

Intent is a key element. You can look the words up if you like - I won't think any less of you.

[kwaka_crasher]

and with kwaka_crasher's way of thinking the terroists weren't terroists because they think it is a dumb law.

Dumb laws are made for dumb people. No wonder you have no problem with them.

[Lurch]

Intent is a key element. You can look the words up if you like - I won't think any less of you.

Laws/Rules are sometimes created to keep stupid people from hurting themselves/others and also to keep people from doing so on private property where the gubbermint would fuck them and or their business over for having let them be idiots.

[blackdog]

Even under ideal conditions it'd still be a freak occurance that you'd get a cellphone to trigger an explosion so I have no problem with that.

re tutu post

static that can ignite fuel when refuelling astride your bike is a very real threat (albeit a miniscule one)

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

cellphones not so much

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

[pritch]

Wow! Some hereabout need to get some fresh air.

Possibly they should also worry a little less about what other people are doing. F'rinstance someone might espouse the view that it is entirely the prerogative of the rider to wear whatever they wish while riding, regardless of how inappropriate that may appear to others. The rationale presumably being that protective clothing, or the lack thereof, is entirely the business of the rider.

For a person holding the former view to then dismiss anyone who fills the bike while seated as a wanker is at best inconsistent. That there are risks in filling the tank while seated is evident, but surely it is again up to the rider to do their own risk assesment. Or not?

I used to do the filling while seated thing when I had the Hornet because by doing that I could make it to Nauruwahia before the reserve light came on. That was preferable to having the light come on at some indeterminate point in the middle of nowhere which tended to induce an unwanted frisson of tension.

The VFR had a centre stand - problem solved.

I don't do it on the Ducati because the tank is a bitch to fill at the best of times so I try to keep it simple.


NB None of the foregoing should be interpreted as an indication that I'm likely to be any less inconsistent than anybody else hereabout.

[swbarnett]

Not when the customer is placing them selves and others at risk....

The trouble is that what is risky is very subjective and the current climate has gone way too far the wrong way IMO. Really, what are the odds of this sort of accident happening? Also, the rider is the one primarily at risk so they should be the one to judge the risk and what they are willing to accept.

[swbarnett]

I get the impression that a number of people in this thread are the kind that if staying as a guest in your house and were asked not to shit in their bed, would propmtly go to bed, shit in it and then fuck your wife. Just because they are too cool to listen to the rules of the establishment.

Please remember the destinction between guest and paying customer. Besides, we're talking about personal risk, not willfull damage. Sitting while refuelling hurts noone.

[peasea]

someone might espouse the view that it is entirely the prerogative of the rider to wear whatever they wish while riding, regardless of how inappropriate that may appear to others. The rationale presumably being that protective clothing, or the lack thereof, is entirely the business of the rider.

I actually agree with the sentiment. How does it go? "Let those who ride decide." I wear a helmet mainly coz I have to, sometimes it's fun to go without but not because it's my rebel side coming out, it's just fun, it feels good. But I only do it occasionally and on back roads with little, if any, traffic.

There's a guy who rides around Nelson in shorts and another in gum boots but if I got sprung I'd be the one getting the ticket. Weird place, NZ.

[Lurch]

Please remember the destinction between guest and paying customer.

AHAH! Here is the problem in peoples attitudes!

Although the business owner might not be someone you like, and may in fact be someone you find repulsive due to their Jabba the Hut extravagant riches you are still a guest on their property and they are providing a service to you that most times you should be grateful for.

[swbarnett]

It's that adage that has fucked many businesses for way too long.

And it's this attitude that's responsible for the demise of "service" in the service industries. How is pleasing the customer bad for business?

In many cases customers have no idea what they want, so how can they be right?

Agreed, part of my job is to tell the customer what they need (irrespective of what they want). However, in the end, even if I think it's not the best solution, if I can't convince them otherwise, what they want, they get. This is the secret of return business.

[swbarnett]

AHAH! Here is the problem in peoples attitudes!

Although the business owner might not be someone you like, and may in fact be someone you find repulsive due to their Jabba the Hut extravagant riches you are still a guest on their property and they are providing a service to you that most times you should be grateful for.

Yes, I am a guest on their premises. Also, they are a guest in my wallet. What is required is mutual respect. I respect them for providing the go juice for my passion. In return I expect respect from them for allowing them to take money in return. Telling me to get off my bike while refuelling is not respectful. It's base on flawed logic and a prediction of an event that has less chance of ocurring than being hit by a meteor. You don't see forecourts with meteor-proof roofs so why try and mitigate a lesser risk?

BTW: I am grateful for the service that they offer (even if there's not much "service" left).

[Toaster]

i dont think they would be wankers any more should any spilt fuel were to ignite in their lap

goodness gracious great balls of fire!!!!!