I generally leave the engine running at the petrol station while I refuel so the adult passengers can sit in comfort with the air conditioning. Are there any risks with this?
Leaving Engine Running While Refueling
Stoozer on 24/02/2019 - 10:05
Comments
243 reported incidents of fires breaking out at petrol stations … None as a result of mobile phones igniting
Great logic leap there. I'm sure none of the fires were started by fire jugglers or baked-bean arse rockets either. Doesn't mean they are safe 'activities' for a petrol station.
Mobile phones of a specific brand were even proven to spontaneously combust a few years ago, so better to be safe following the rules, than risk horrible injury or multiple deaths just to 'stick it to the man' IMHO…
@papachris: Stories about lithium batteries in Samsung mobile phones malfunctioning and alleged ESD from mobile phones igniting petrol are unrelated. There is no scientific evidence that support the claim that mobile phones cause petrol to ignite.
@whooah1979: Why would we both discussing scientific evidence when you don't even know what Flash Point is?
@papachris: Mythbusters attempted to spark a petrol fire with a mobile phone. Unsuccessful no matter how hard they tried.
@papachris: While they don't seem to know how to analyse quality of evidence, I think their argument is ultimately sound.
Basic common sense tells us that using a phone in a petrol station is never going to cause a fire. In fact, some petrol stations encourage you to scan barcodes on your phone screen etc.
@papachris: That isn't a logical leap at all. Plenty of people use their mobiles around petrol stations despite the warnings. In a whole year of incident data it didn't cause one of the 243 problems that did occur. That is a solid finding given the prevalence of mobile phones. Your reductio ad absurdum nonsense about "fire jugglers or baked-bean arse rockets " is just that: nonsense. I don't know many people who visit petrol stations carrying either in their pockets or handbags.
If your mobile phone explodes ala Samsung Note 7, your phone is a hazard with or without a petrol source.
I wish the scientific method, critical thinking and basic logic were taught better.
@syousef: You're right about two things:
That isn't a logical leap at all
It was an illogical leap. 0 out of 243 measured (assuming it's true) does not mean no chance, no matter how you twist it. You may not appreciate my sense of humour, but my dismissing of those quoted statistics is sound.
I wish the scientific method, critical thinking and basic logic were taught better.
So do I. Most people seem to have little idea of any of them. And I would also add statistical analysis to that list too…
@papachris: It doesn't mean no chance, granted. But I don't see anything to suggest that there is a danger. I'm not aware of one instance of this happening, where it wasn't shown that the source of ignition was something else. If you are, I'd really like to see the report.
Actually responses in this thread show why you need threads like this.
A lot of people simply don't/didn't know.
Todays article
https://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/motoring/on-th…
While I understand that there are people out there who are unaware of obscure rules, and there are some great threads on this on this forum, what we don't need is trolls. This is a troll thread. OP has added no input to the thread from the day it was posted, indicating that it was posted purely to troll. It worked.
Leaving your car unlocked and being booked for it is an obscure rule, I agree, but leaving your car running in the presence of signs that tell you not to is not ignorance or uneducated, it is pure arrogance to see the signs and then choose to ignore them anyway.
You can't compare an obscure road rule hidden in a mess of legislation on an internet website to a fuel station where warning placards are posted everywhere informing you what not to do.
Obscure? They ran campaigns about it when it was brought in, and there was some outrage expressed. It's a STUPID rule. But I'd argue against it being obscure.
It's a STUPID rule.
It's a stupid rule because there's stupid people who leave their car unlocked.
Is the real problem cars being unlocked? No, it's cars being stolen and then being driven dangerously / maliciously causing damage / etc.
One simple way to limit the number of vehicles being stolen? Ensure they're locked. A locked car is less likely to be stolen.
How do you get people to lock their cars (especially in areas they should be locking them)? Make it a fine-able offence.
Yes, it's stupid. But it's the law, and it was made for a reason. If you don't like being fined, don't break the law. Especially for not following a stupid rule like locking your car. It's not hard.
It seems like a pointless waste of fuel but OK, pretend that you don't have a battery that can power the air conditioner while you fuel up, your loss.
Many vehicles requires the engine to operate for the AC to work.
Pretty much all cars use engine power to run AC.
But you can get more fuel in if you you keep drawing it into the engine.
If I shut my vehicle off, put the ignition back on and set the fan speed to lowest setting, I can maintain a cool flow of air on a 35 degree day for about 5 minutes, and that's in the direct sunlight, not the shade of a fuel station.
This would be car dependant and a few other factors e.g condenser size, is the car already cold soaked inside, is it on recirc or fresh.But IMO shut your car down when refuelling regardless, your passengers surely wont suffer for just a few minutes, we're already sucking enough fumes in a petrol station while outside the vehicle, without adding to them for no real reason.
Don't feed the troll.
Excuse me
I'm almost certain with modern cars the risk is low and the signs are a carry over from the 90s but why take the risk?
i leave my engine on, so i can use the lighter, and punch a dart while filling up
How do you do all that while still on the phone?? :D
When I tether my Airship to top up with hydrogen I leave the engines running.
Engines = Good
Static = BadIt's perfectly safe…is what I would say if I was more worried about telling the truth and less about being sued "just in case".
Yes, if you drive off with the handle still in the tank, it'll PROBABLY just rip the hose off. It's designed to not keep pumping fuel in such a scenario. But this can happen whether you turn the car off, refuel, forget the hose, then drive off…or leave the car on, refuel, forget the hose, then drive off. Also, the combustion part is happening well away from where you're refueling. And if you did spill so much fuel that it goes under the engine…do you push your car to the pump and then push it away? If not, then the car is going to be running at some point, so….
It's something that has a virtually nil chance of happening, but if you're one of the small handful in the entire world that this did happen to, I don't want you saying "but this guy on Ozbargain said it was fine, I'm gonna sue!"
So, don't do it. Even though I do it if it's hot out and people are staying in the car (if everyone's going inside for a toilet break, that's different).
If you drive off with the hose still in the car it means you also haven't paid (can't ring up an unfinished sale) so you're in trouble regardless.
In some places it's normal to pull up after pumping, so you're not taking up the space the entire time you're away from the car (for example, you're at a servo with a Macca's…you could just pull up, go in, pay, and get a burger…or go in, pay, go out, move car, go in, get burger).
If it's pay at the pump (not common here), all you're really worried about is the initial authorization (it'll error out if there's a problem…if everything's ok, it'll enable the pump). If you hopped in, waited, then drove off…oops.
Burger is going to be flame grilled one way or another…
Moving the car after filling is different, because you've hung up the nozzle - that finalises the sale amount. It's impossible to pay for a fuel sale that hasn't finalised.
(Prepay is different again, the amount that it authorizes on your card is often higher than the entered amount and then gets adjusted when you finish).
Not necessarily - you pay before filling at Costco.
Probably safe, but if something does happen, can you live with it?
I think the chances of getting into a car accident is far, far higher than a fire suddenly starting because you refuelled while the engine was running. You hear about accidents every single day, but never come across a legit case of a car catching fire during refueling simply because the engine was on.
We're all certainly living with driving.
I've seen three different accidents where cars being filled were hit by other drivers. In two of those cases they got pushed into the bowsers.
Safety isn't just about minimising the damage you could do, it's also about minimising the risk from others.
Safety isn't just about minimising the damage you could do, it's also about minimising the risk from others.
If a running engine can set a car alight, what can you do about cars at other bowsers pulling up or driving away while you're filling?
Or running into you, like you saw.@eug: Nothing, but you can prevent your car from being a much greater potential hazard if it gets hit while you're not in it by turning the engine off.
It seems it really is true that people today have no common sense.
@ssquid: Hmm, how does the engine being on make it more dangerous? Surely a low-speed prang in a petrol station won't be enough to jolt the transmission lock on the shifter out of park?
It seems it really is true that people today have no common sense.
It's all about calculated risks and plausibility. IMHO glancing at your car radio to change stations is more likely to result in injury than a car engine somehow setting a bowser alight, but we all do it.
FWIW I always switch my engine off since there's normally nobody in the car when I fill up. I'm more interested in the reasoning behind people's fears.
@eug: I didn't say anything about low-speed. Many servos are next to busy roads, they don't have magical barriers that keep bad drivers from careening into them.
It's the same "calculated risk" as wearing seatbelts - 99.99% of the time they do nothing, but does that mean you don't wear one?
I didn't say anything about low-speed.
Well yeah, you simply said you saw cars being filled were hit by other drivers. You never mentioned that you saw cars crash through a servo off a busy road at high speed. In those three cases, would the engine being on or off actually make any difference?
It's the same "calculated risk" as wearing seatbelts - 99.99% of the time they do nothing, but does that mean you don't wear one?
Here comes the critical thinking part. Seatbelts are designed to reduce injury in an accident. There is plenty of evidence that it works. The probability of a seat belt actually reducing injury is high. So everybody does it.
Has it been conclusively proven that a running engine can set a petrol bowser alight? What is the probability? I wouldn't expect the probability to be zero, but it would be interesting to know what it is.
Humans are irrational. We tend to fixate on things while ignoring others. Like my example above - I am confident that being distracted while driving causes far more injury and death on a daily basis compared to leaving the engine running while refueling.
Yet, people fixate on things with a much, much lower probability while ignoring the things that will more likely get them injured or killed. Talking to someone in the car can be a large distraction. So can controlling the kids, changing radio stations, eating or drinking, etc.
If minimizing risk is the goal, does everyone here ensure they don't change stations on the radio or engage in conversation while driving? If no, why not? There is plenty of evidence that being distracted is dangerous.
The probability of a seat belt actually reducing injury is high. So everybody does it
No they don't and that is why it still a factor in serious injuries and fatalities in crashes
No they don't and that is why it still a factor in serious injuries and fatalities in crashes
You're missing the point.
@ssquid: ssquid, you are my new hero. All your comments here have been spot on. Don’t feed the trolls any logic, they can’t digest it.
Hmm, how does the engine being on make it more dangerous?
How does a piece of machinery literally combusting fuel at high temperatures under pressure thousands of times a second in a servo holding kilolitres of combustible and easily evaporated/aerosolised fuel make things more dangerous?
Christ mate, grow a brain cell.
How does a piece of machinery literally combusting fuel at high temperatures under pressure thousands of times a second in a servo holding kilolitres of combustible and easily evaporated/aerosolised fuel make things more dangerous?
Cars drive by you when you fill up. Why are multiple engines running under load at higher rpms all round you not dangerous?
If you've paid and are ready to leave, but the car on the bowser literally right next to you is still filling up, do you wait until they've finished before you start your engine? Why not?
You're only taking a very simplistic view of things.
Christ mate, grow a brain cell.
Come on now, no need for immature childish insults.
Cars drive by you when you fill up.
I'd hope they're further from the petrol bowser when they're driving past. Also, they spend far less time close to the bowser than the car actually filling up.
Come on now, no need for immature childish insults.
Then perhaps put more thought into your comments. It's fairly obvious that having your engine on while arriving or leaving is both far less time, and also necessary, compared to having your engine idling while filling up.
There's never a way to have zero risk. But it's possible to reduce unnecessary risks.
Then perhaps put more thought into your comments.
I have, but it seems like people don't do any critical thinking nowadays.
I always switch my engine off as I don't have any reason to leave it running. But I'm interested in the reasoning people have.
How does a running engine set a fuel pump alight? Like, realistically. Car engines are called internal combustion engines because the combustion happens internally, i.e. cars don't spit out sparks when idling.
Have there been confirmed cases of petrol pumps catching fire because the engine was running? Petrol pumps certainly have caught fire, but they're usually because people do silly things like light a cigarette while filling up.
How does a running engine set a fuel pump alight? Like, realistically.
Merely the engine running? It doesn't. But it increases the risk of:
If there's any spilt fuel, a badly combusting engine with unburnt fuel coming through the exhaust that combusts could set that spilt fuel on fire.
If there's another accident, a car with its engine running is far more dangerous.
Potential for cars to slip gears, someone inside from hitting something (putting it in D, etc).
Have there been confirmed cases of petrol pumps catching fire because the engine was running?
It increases the risk of a much larger incident if something else happens. Much like speeding - speeding is never the sole reason for an accident. But it contributes to accidents, and it makes any accidents potentially far more serious. Also, like seatbelts and airbags. There's never been (because it's impossible) any accidents caused by someone not wearing a seatbelt or not having airbags. They're still good ideas.
It's not about just having the engine running in a vacuum (ha, pun not intended). It's about how much it increases risks of an accident or increases magnitude of consequences if there is an accident.
Merely the engine running? It doesn't. But it increases the risk of:
OK, I actually think this is the most sensible answer to the OP's actual question so far.
While I think the probability of 1) isn't very high and 2) not a big concern (assuming the car is in P with the handbrake on), 3) is quite realistic when you have kids in the car. But to a petrol company's lawyers, 1) and 2) might be probable enough to make it a rule at their stations.
So it isn't a risk of fire that's the main concern, it's other accidents that can happen around it.
It reminds me of the whole switch-off-electronic-devices-at-takeoff-and-landing thing. Some airlines say you must set your phone to flight mode and switch it off to avoid interference with the aircraft. A phone in flight mode isn't going to cause any interference with anything, but passengers being distracted by their devices and not being able to hear any safety announcements during the critical takeoff and landing periods could certainly be a problem. Meanwhile, everybody thinks it's to avoid interference with the aircraft's systems.
you just described every single action everyone on earth has ever done or ever will
The point made is different. you can live with something that your taught is safe
In south-east Asia you nearly always leave the engine running. You just relax in the air-conditioning while the attendant does everything for you. I don't see anything dangerous about it.
Certainly that's not the case in Vietnam,
https://www.google.com/search?q=bang+bao+tat+may+khi+do+xang…
Just got back from a holiday in Dubai. It was standard practise there too. People leave engine running while refuelling….as well as ducking into shops for quick grocery run.
Absolutely standard practise, even with LPG.
LPG is generally far safer. It's attached securely to the car and the fuel is not exposed to the open air. The only real danger is if the pressure gauge in the car's tank is faulty and lets it overfill.
In south-east Asia
Yeah, I'm glad we generally have higher health and safety requirements here than SE Asia.
Reminds me of the joke about filling up a Yank big SUV - "turn off the engine, I think you are gaining on me".
It takes, what, two minutes to fuel a car and pay? With the window halfway down there won't be any real difference to your pansy ass passengers.
Fill up at night when its cooler or when there is no-one in the car. Problem solved. Also leave the car ignition on ACC or ON and let them have a little bit of airflow as that may help.
Pretty sure there are signs in the servo to say turn off engine when refueling, as the hotter fuel returning to the tank from the engine will turn to vapor and cause an explosion hazard when it comes out the fill port as its displaced by the cooler fuel going in. Return-less fuel systems may be different, but its an easy rule to follow nonetheless.
OP, It MAY or MAY NOT cause an explosion, but if you are willing to risk your life and the people in the car and around you, I leave that choice to you. I wouldn't do it.
Filling up during cool temperature also nets you a few extra ml due to thermal contraction. It's a tiny amount, but overall significant enough that servos can claim it as an operating expense (for tax purposes).
Another self entitled w⚓️
never mind that…
Why is there a tiger in my tank?
Clickbait troll.
But he got so many.
Rivals his insightful " What's the purpose of Taxation" post.
This website never ceases to amaze me.. everyone falls straight for these kinds of posts.
What's next? "Hey everyone, I like to smoke indoors and don't see a problem with it. Then a restaurant manager said don't do that. Do I have grounds to sue for discrimination?"
Do you also smoke while on the phone?
here we have a candidate for OzB's inaugural 'moran of the year award'?
We certainly do…
It’s a hard pick between this guy and “how do I blow my grandparents inheritance on expensive cars” guy from a few days ago…
No risk, they do it all the time in asia. Folks in here properly also believe using your phone while filling will also blow the joint.
They also drive around with 15 people on motor bikes and kids as young as 6 smoke..
If you are blowing a joint while using your phone, you are probably ordering a blanket with sleeves late at night…
Was gonna say, I remember my dad and bro will leave the car running while they fuel up in KL, cant recall if there were any signs to turn off the engine…
I think the 'no phone rule' is to prevent distracted customers from spilling fuel or stepping in front of a moving car. Don't know how the explosion myth started.
It's interesting to know that the risk is pretty low since people in other countries leave their engine running while refueling.
However, I treasure my family and if turning off the engine while refueling ensures they stay safe then I'll just turn off the engine. It's really not that hard.
It's all a question of balance.
To some people, they treasure their families more. To others, they treasure their civil liberties above all…
The civil liberties of…. leaving your car running as your fuel up? What?
No. The civil liberty of being able to do whatever you want, regardless of anyone or anything else…
@papachris: What about the right of private property and business owners to control who comes onto their property and uses their business? Because I'm pretty sure the 'turn your engine off while fuelling' is also a rule set by petrol station owners.
I guess you have to weight up the risk of passenger comfort vs passenger BBQ.
OP wants to BBQ mother-in-law.
On a hot day it would be a problem.
So you are one of those people…
Troll Alert
Leaving your car parked and running for longer than 30 seconds is a waste of fuel and emissions. Same goes for using the air-conditioner unless absolutely necessary. Please consider that your environment is also everyone else's environment and be more responsible.
Can't wait till electric cars become commonplace! No more being held hostage by wildly-fluctuating fuel prices. Cheap/free solar charging at home too!
instead held hostage to battery charging times
At least you can leave the AC running while it charges for 40 mins to an hour…
instead held hostage to battery charging times
Not sure why people don't seem to understand that it's more convenient.
First of all, with the current charging infrastructure and speeds, electric cars are perfect for daily commuting. They still are not suitable for long road trips at the moment, until there's a proper charging network. So electric cars, right now, are not for everyone.
Meanwhile, lots of people make a big deal about slow charging times. They are stuck in the old fuel mindset where you fill up maybe once every week or two for 500km of driving per full tank.
With an electric car, you start every single day with a full tank, because you recharge at home while you're asleep.
So unless you're driving over 400km every day, you don't have to sit around at a recharging station waiting for the car to recharge. It's a whole different mindset. You start every day with a full tank without having to sit around and wait for anything.
We rather pay a few dollars than sweat in the hot Sydney sun.
If it's 30c-plus, then that's fair. It's irksome when it's only 22c and people forget that their window rolls down.
I leave my phone on while charging.
I always thought Zoolander was way out there and ridiculous, guess not.
Accidentally left the engine running and fuelled-up .. the petrol didn't really go into the tank very smoothly or quickly as usual .. must have been pressure in the tank.
Accidentally left the engine running and fuelled-up .. the petrol didn't really go into the tank very smoothly or quickly as usual .. must have been pressure in the tank.
The petrol tank inlet is not sealed so there is no pressure. Anyway even if it was, a running engine will be drawing fuel from the tank, creating a vacuum. That would suck new fuel into the tank more quickly rather than resist it.
The reason for this is fuel is being recirculated around the car. An electric pump sends the fuel to the engine in high pressure, while at the other end, the fuel rail, where all the fuel injectors are hooked up to, has a pressure regulator that keeps the pressure steady by releasing excessive fuel into a hose that goes back to the tank. Usually this return fuel is piped back into the same filler hose that you stuff the gas station nozzle into. So here you have two streams of fuel colliding with each other prevent a smooth flow of filling up and causing bubbles that triggers the nozzle's "full tank" safety trigger.
Yep, Game R is right. I would have said exactly the same thing. Excess fuel from the fuel rail is vented back to the tank and in a lot of vehicles, it's pumped back in via the filler tube. Some cars, the action of the fuel returning to tank can cause fuel to splash around and cause you to have to feed the fuel in slower to stop the fuel filler nozzle from clicking off.
Ah … Very cool. Thank you for explaining!
This is another urban myth.
https://infrastructure.gov.au/roads/safety/publications/2005…
http://www.amta.org.au/articles/amta/Exploding.petrol.statio…
http://www.amta.org.au/pages/Exploding.petrol.stations
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2006/11/30/1799366.ht…