Petrol Station Forecourts and Mobile Phones

[cazna52]

With the mobile phones while fueling issue though I think the risks outweigh the rewards, and also the risks threaten people other than the person using the phone.

How important is it to make that call at that point in time?

Would it be terribly inconvenient to wait 10 minutes?

I wouldn't mind so much if you thought that gossiping with your girlfriend was worth risking your life but what if I am standing at the next pump?

Also it is pretty safe to smoke while fueling, there is only a small chance of starting a fire. Do you mind if I smoke while I fuel my car beside you?

[MPx]

With the mobile phones while fueling issue though I think the risks outweigh the rewards, and also the risks threaten people other than the person using the phone.

Well those that agree with you are obviously in charge so you must feel good about that.

How important is it to make that call at that point in time?

May or may not be - my judgement of the risk/reward balance

Would it be terribly inconvenient to wait 10 minutes?

Sometimes no, sometimes yes, impossible to generalise

I wouldn't mind so much if you thought that gossiping with your girlfriend was worth risking your life but what if I am standing at the next pump?

I'd expect you to judge the risk to you for yourself. If you found the risk unacceptable I'd expect you to mitigate it - perhaps by moving away from the area until you felt it safe to approach.

Also it is pretty safe to smoke while fueling, there is only a small chance of starting a fire. Do you mind if I smoke while I fuel my car beside you?

It may be pretty safe, but my guess is that it would be much more risky (factors of 10) to smoke while filling than using a mobile phone. Maybe somebody has the data to correct that (mis?)conception? Whatever, in the absence of better data or expereince that would be my judgement....and I would consider it to be the action of one of the worlds twats...so two things to do. I'd move away from the area til the smoker goes away and I feel safe. Report to plod that we've got a probable twat to deal with under the dangerous living act for smoking while using a fuel pump. Plod could correct me if that is in fact considered a sensible way to carry on.

[cazna52]

I think they should legalize smoking in petrol stations. By legislating against miniscule risk taking, the authorities are attempting to achieve to a zero risk. "But if it saves one life...." No....zero risk means not doing anything at all ever.

Is it that important for me to have a smoke right then? May or may not be - my judgement of the risk/reward balance.

Could I wait 10 minutes? Sometimes no, sometimes yes, impossible to generalise.

I also think they should make it ok to urinate while grocery shopping, it is a terrible imposition to expect me to finish my shopping then find a urinal before taking a leak. The risks associated with urination in a supermarket are actually quite small.

Of course this is all crazy talk and comparing it to using a mobile phone while pumping fuel is a huge exaggeration but if everyone were to use their mobile phones while filling their cars eventually one or more people would die. We survived for thousands of years without mobile phones so I think it is possible to go 10 minutes without using one. It may be a small chance that anything would go wrong but if you use your mobile while pumping fuel and you buy lottery tickets you probably have a better chance of blowing up yourself and the innocent young mother with her infant daughter beside you than you have of winning the grand prize on the lottery. I think most of us would have wasted the cost of a lottery ticket for the chance of a win, why would you take about the same chance and risk your life and the lives of those around you just to save a few minutes so that you can make a phone call that probably didn't matter that much anyway?

[USAndretti42]

I have to disagree with you, Jeremy and Justin. If you guys are so intend in avoiding risks that small, you shouldn't be driving to the petrol stations in the first place.

I don't know anyone who turns off their cellphone while refuelling their car. I would think that there are millions of instances every year of people refuelling their cars while their phones are on and in their pockets or somewhere local to the fuel pump and there have been several years of this being the case. Yet there has been no recorded instances of a cellphone starting a fire through sparking. So we know that the chance is less than one in several million.

You are more likely to die from cancer caused by breathing the petrol fumes.

[cazna52]

Having a mobile phone on while filling your car is a fair bit less risky than actually using the phone while filling your car. The power levels from a mobile phone increase when on a call. This is why if you put your phone near your computer speakers you will hear interference through the speakers only when you get a call. It is also how those flashing key ring things I mentioned before work only when you have a call.

It isn't so much the risk that annoys me. I know the risk is fairly small. The two main things that annoy me is people being ignorant enough to quote Myth Busters as proof that a phone can't cause a spark and the fact that people are arrogant enough to place their convenience before the safety of others.

It may be almost entirely safe to drive through a red light after stopping and looking both ways but I would still consider anyone who did that to be a wanker.

Also while you are on property owned by the petrol station you are obliged to follow their rules.

I have a good friend who was until recently a manager at a petrol station. He had many times where he had asked people to stop using their phones while filling up where they would be quite rude to him. They would say "Myth Busters proved that it is totally safe so bugger off" and things like "who are you to tell me what to do?". Rude, ignorant and arrogant people. I would be quite happy if they blew themselves up in the interests of natural selection but I would be very disappointed if anyone else were to be injured or killed.

[mayevora]

It may be almost entirely safe to drive through a red light after stopping and looking both ways but I would still consider anyone who did that to be a wanker.

Thats alot of cyclist here in the UK. Same people that don't use cycle lanes and hold traffic up as well, but that's another thread altogether.

We've got a definate 'in the red corner and in the blue corner' with this petrol station/phone topic. Guess it's a risk/reward scenario. Do I however, want my gentlemans ornaments to spontainously combust if my phone rings within pocket while refuling even if I do have more chance or a lottery win? Still the answer is, maybe not.

Always going to be some debate as oposed to a straight Yes/No here, but some good points. I have over the years come accross many burnt out cars or cars (newish RX7 couple of weeks ago) actually melting the Tarmac, but never a car on fire in a petrol station as yet. But due to the location, there is obviously increased risks and potential for a fire risk. Bit like I've never seen a Shell or Esso Petrol Tanker on fire but there will no doubt have been cases.

The 'rules' as such are there for all to see then. It will now be known as the "if it saves just 1 life" rule lol.

Wonder how the Legal side to these so called few documented cases have worked out. Was the individual able to sue the Petrol Station? Was the Petrol Station able to sue the Individual for the ensuring BBQ where No Using Mobiles signs were displayed?

Edited November 26, 2010 by mayesprit

[Simon350S]

Does that include those who drive through the stupid roadworks traffic lights that hold you up for hours that mostly serve no useful purpose especially early hours of the morning when your the only person on the road?

If so that would 'possibly' make me one of those wanky type people you mentioned.

Driving through red lights is perfectly legal in some countries and positively encouraged in others for safety reasons.

Are they all wanky people too?

This topic is becoming awfully heated....

See what I did there? Heated.... Fire....

God I should be a comedian!

A wanky one at best though

[Advantage]

Nope sorry. It isn't a viable risk. There's more danger of being run over on the forecourt than a phone causing an explosion. There's more chance of a lottery winner being hit by a meteor while being struck by lightning - twice, than a phone causing an explosion.

I'd watch some more Mythbusters episodes, but the batteries in the TV remote might leak and cause me a nasty skin burn. I'd wrap myself in cotton wool, but I may suffocate.

[mayevora]

If so that would 'possibly' make me one of those wanky type people you mentioned.

What d'you mean 'possibly'?

[Bibs]

Has anyone ever actually blown up a petrol station with a mobile phone?

[Simon350S]

Me, I confess I blew up a petrol station last week, flammable gas explosion whilst using my mobile...

Oh hang on, it was the toilet I blew up not the petrol station, same issue, flammable gas n all!

Thinking about it, I was in such a rush to get home to use said toilet that I may have ran a Red, oopsy!

Maybe it was god punishing me!

Edited November 26, 2010 by Simon350S

[wookiecj]

Has anyone ever actually blown up a petrol station with a mobile phone?

I eagerly await the Youtube clip depicting your attempt.........

In the meantime, if anyone's life is is busy that they can't fuel their car without using their mobile I would suggest that they find a way of calming things down a bit and enjoy contemplating how many more calls they could take with their increased life span........ or, just get off my planet!

[Advantage]

It gets more hysterical than that. We had the pump switched off and the tannoy blaring out dire warnings when I was filling up the wagon a while ago, simply because Louise was sitting in the car talking on the phone. Absolutely common denominator madness.

(yes I do know what a Farady Cage is)

[lrg_machine]

I have to disagree with you, Jeremy and Justin. If you guys are so intend in avoiding risks that small, you shouldn't be driving to the petrol stations in the first place.

So I guess you're the person on the transatlantic flight using their mobile phone in the toilet while smoking, do mobiles affect aircraft, unlikely, highly unlikely. Have all mobile models been tested against all flight equipment, No, simple solution...... turn the f*#king things off. Same thing at petrol stations.

I'm not intent on wrapping everyone in cotton wool and removing all risk from life, the OP asked a question I attempted to answer it, to reiterate it's not the general use of a mobile it's the static discharge that is the issue.

one point in the original post was

"Don't re-enter your vehicle during fuelling."

This HAS been the cause of accidents involving static discharge at fuel pumps, people, mainly women, getting back into their cars to do whatever, answer that oh so important call etc. then getting back out and touching the car. Spark, fumes, whoooshhh !

So if you want to live dangerously

remember your filling up kit next time you visit the petrol station

Nice bit of nylon carpet to walk up and down on

Big balloon to rub on your jumper (sweater for the Americans)

and a dog to pat while you comb your hair

[Advantage]

the OP asked a question I attempted to answer it, to reiterate it's not the general use of a mobile it's the static discharge that is the issue.

So we're agreed that mobile phones don't cause petrol station fires? There needs to be other contributing factors too.

[Bibs]

Maybe it would be more effective to actually stop the cause of the fires and tell people they can't get back into their cars while it's fuelling?

[mayevora]

There is still one petrol station I know where little man runs out and fills you up 1960's style while you stay in your car.

[Bibs]

There used to be one of those where I grew up. It was quiet a bit more expensive but just too cool to have him fill up and clean your screen

[Simon350S]

Did he let go of the pump to clean the screen?

Did he not think of the static discharge?

He could have killed someone the inconsiderate git!

They don't fill the cars up for you any more as they are too busy sat in the warm on their mobile phones calling or texting their mates whilst completely ignoring you trying to make payment!

I'm supprised the petrol station attendants ever notice anyone on their phones, its difficult a lot of the time even getting them to authorise your pump for use as they are chatting the the spotty cock sat on the till next to them.....

[USAndretti42]

So I guess you're the person on the transatlantic flight using their mobile phone in the toilet while smoking, do mobiles affect aircraft, unlikely, highly unlikely. Have all mobile models been tested against all flight equipment, No, simple solution...... turn the f*#king things off. Same thing at petrol stations.

.

Frankly, I find that response insulting. I don't smoke for several reasons. The evidence of the damage it does to you is overwhelming. I don't like the taste. I watched me dad die from lung cancer after a life of smoking. I always turn of my mobile on a plane. When I was working in NASCAR, I often flew on private planes where the rules regarding phones were not strongly enforced but I always turned mine off as I know they can affect electronics.

However, my sensitivities aside, your reply emphasises the very point I was trying to make. The risk of a mobile phone causing a fire at a filling station is tiny. The risks of driving are way greater and people know that but it doesn't stop them driving. Just because someone ignores a tiny risk, one too small to put a number to, it doesn't mean that they ignore all risks.

I'm still not sure what the mechanism for causing the fire to start is. Do modern, low-power phones cause sparks? I could believe the old ones did as thy used to be higher-powered to deal with the lack of cell towers but not with the newer ones. If sparks are such a concern what about the car next to you starting up. I'm sure the starter motor, relays, alternator are sources of sparks and, if it has a distributor, the rotor arm definitely causes a spark as it passes each pole or there is no feed to the plug lead.

Just because someone thinks something could cause a problem everyone has to stop doing it. Doesn't make sense to me. Everyone is inconvenienced for no reason. I read some time ago an article by one who surmised that the main reason for the ban was that the the petrol companies were concerned the phones would affect the electronics in the pumps and stop them charging customers the correct amount.

The reason people object to others using mobile phones on forecourts was because they don't like others using their mobile phones around them.

[cazna52]

I'm still not sure what the mechanism for causing the fire to start is. Do modern, low-power phones cause sparks? I could believe the old ones did as thy used to be higher-powered to deal with the lack of cell towers but not with the newer ones. If sparks are such a concern what about the car next to you starting up. I'm sure the starter motor, relays, alternator are sources of sparks and, if it has a distributor, the rotor arm definitely causes a spark as it passes each pole or there is no feed to the plug lead.

Modern cell phones do emit less power than older ones but it can still be a significant amount of power. GSM900 phones emit up to 2 watts of power, that is enough to run some laptops if you were able to capture all the power. Most phones will reduce the power if they have full signal but I am guessing most people here are aware of how rare full signal is.

That 2 watts of power is being emitted as microwaves, not dissimilar to those used by a household microwave oven. If you place any metal in a microwave oven you will get sparks, go try it now and see for yourself. Thats the kind of effect that 600+ watts of power has on any metal, 2 watts has far less effect but it is still possible under optimal conditions that it could cause a spark.

I don't know how large a spark you could cause with power harvested from a mobile phones emissions and I don't know how large a spark you need to ignite a fuel vapor fire. If I had a bit more spare time I would love to do an experiment and make a receiver using only metal and see if I can start a fuel vapor fire but ironically I am too busy fixing a leaking fuel tank.

Those other sources of possible sparks you mentioned are far more likely to cause a spark but they are usually some distance from the fuel filler. Generally you would not be starting your own car while filling so it would be the next closest car which would be at least a few meters away from the fuel filler. A spark that could be caused by radio/microwave emissions can occur anywhere, even in a gap between the fuel nozzle and the filler port on your car. In this location even a small spark could cause some problems.

The chances of causing a spark are quite low, and I can see I am in the minority in thinking that waiting 10 minutes to make a call isn't too hard. I guess the other people are far more important than me and have very important calls to make. I am an administrator of a trading platform which if there are any problems it is quite plausible that over a million dollars US could be lost in 10 minutes, but if I am filling my car I still will not use my mobile phone. If everyone else has more important calls to make then I can see why the small risk of explosion is justifiable. It brings me some reassurance to know that if I am blown up by someone using a mobile phone beside me in a petrol station that it will have been for a good cause.

[Iconic Ride]

It is the beauty of Evolution that, with time, all problems are sorted. If a person reenters their vehicle whilst fueling and, upon exit to remove the nozzle, ignites the area, they are removed from the gene pool and the chance of passing on any genetic behavioral predisposition to engage in this practice to the next generation is eliminated. Mind, the term "with time" must be understood to be "geologic" in scale. Given enough time (and assuming a non zero statistical effect from the deletion of the offending gene's behavioral influence, however rare the actual fatal occurrences it causes may be) the "problem" eventually goes away.

However, regarding the specific topic in question, there appears to exist (anecdotally for certain, and possibly in truth) a sexual bias to the mathematical outcome ultimately achieved, that being the belief that petrol station "events" of this nature tend to be proximally caused at greater frequency levels by the female of the species. Over time this will, of course, create a significant imbalance in the overall genetic scheme of things. Competition for suitable mating opportunities will increase, possibly at exponential levels, as the ratio of males to female becomes larger. The existing "social contract" will begin to decay into total sexual anarchy, and civilisation as we now know it will cease.

For this reason alone, I would suggest that mobile phone usage at the pump be severly curtailed, if not by men, then certainly by women---in the interests of the continuance of the species in harmonic balance. In fact, I would further encourage investigation into methods of reversing the above trend, that is to say, find ways of decreasing the male side of the equation in an effort to bring about a more satisfying satisfactory mating ratio. All in the interest of preservation of the species, of course. As an example of the regulatory possibilites that might be employed in this endeavour, may I put forth the suggestion that every other male patron at all petrol stations be required to light up a fag whenever in the process of refueling his vehicle. Naturally, certain individuals would be exempt from this legal requisite to ensure a viable population of surviving males for propagational duty. I nominate, for example, the caveat that surnames beginning with the 8th letter of the alphabet be exempted.

[MPx]

Sorry if we seem to be ganging up Justin, I just dont think you've quite taken on the main point yet so I'm going to have another try. Its all about setting risk into context. You appear to be defending the view that an avoidable risk NO MATTER HOW SMALL should be avoided, even though you'd probably agree that that avoidance will carry some degree of cost (again, no matter how small). Its a risk/premium judgement, very difficult to do at the margin and always subjective, so likely to expose differing values.

Lets expose some other marginal cases: Mobile phones might fry your brains. Not proven but plausible given the microwave power you've told us about. No known cases but expounded loudly by the worried well - and we lived OK for years without using mobile phones....so you and your family presumably dont use mobile phones just in case.

The CJD scare of the '80s was never competely bottomed out - though it was mitigated through limiting the age of beef on the hoof in the food chain. So there is still some risk that we could all be in danger of loosing our marbles and worse through eating dodgey beef. But there's plenty of other things to eat so I guess you and you're family are not eating beef....or eggs (salmanella)...or any dairy(clogging the arteries)...or any saturated fats(heart desease)...etc

There's a risk in fixing your car that there will be an accident, be it minor skinned knuckle to a disastrous collapsed jack, battery spark to fuel, whatever. You dont have to do that yourself - there are trained professionals to remove those risks from your life - so you let them do it, right?

From previous posts I think you choose to take on some of those risks, presumably believing that the risk x cost of materialisation isnt high enough against the inconvenience x constraints x benefits of not doing what you want - however trivial some of those are.

The mobile/fuel filling thing we are discussing here is agreed as an extremely unlikely event - an event which we suspect has never occured despite millions (possibly billions?) of potential events as filling stations typically have a constant stream of custom, few if any of who actually turn off their mobile phone and some (if only a few) would coincidentally have received or even made a call while filling. So the judgement of many on here is that the risk isn't worth worrying about - despite the potential consequences being quite severe if it did materialise.

Obviously if we do ever get any new data to suggest otherwise there will be a very quick change of tack and I'll be being pilloried over here on my own as some suicidal nutter. But in the meantime, go on .... live dangerously

[USAndretti42]

Generally you would not be starting your own car while filling so it would be the next closest car which would be at least a few meters away from the fuel filler.

True but, with the way the Esprit used to spit back fuel, I wold often start the Esprit with it stood in a small pool of petrol.

But, from what you say, you would agree that there is certainly no justification for an attendant to come rushing out of his hut and to start berating a passenger for using their phone while say in a car being refuelled.

[cazna52]

You are right, the risk is very small and I can understand why many people would dismiss the risk.

I will still not use my phone in a petrol station even if only to reduce the amount of stress for the poor attendants.

I also feel a few people don't really believe that mobile phones are capable of starting a fuel vapor fire. Perhaps they have too much faith in the scientific abilities of the Myth Busters. I was able to find a very basic experiment showing a mobile phone igniting petrol vapor on youtube.

This isn't a particularly accurate experiment but it shows how without too precise a set of conditions a phone can start a fire. He is using his phone very close though so in practice it would not be quite so likely to start a fire if you were slightly further away, but certainly there is some risk.