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
Some people can’t read :)
Some people don't care :)
Some people come here and ask.
some people call me the space cowboy
Some people are morons.
Some people hate their passengers
I think it's to prevent fires accidentally starting.
That's the basic idea. It's just not particularly safe to leave a car running unattended, plus it's a typical MO of petrol thieves (fill up, jump in and take off before anyone notices).
People are in the car, it is not unattended .. thats why he leaves it with ac on. Then again some nutter could still jump in and take off with them. To be safe it would not hurt turning it off as the car would stay cool for the few minutes it takes to refuel.
If anyone wanted to steal my parents they'd be most welcome to them. I'd even throw in a cool $50!
@Scrooge McDuck: Leave it in the glove box and tell me where and when you are refueling next. Happy to help you.
How dangerous is it to refuel with the engine running?
https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/greatmomentsin…
Thanks for the link. In the comments, one reason is that people kept driving off with the leads still in their tanks. Not surprising given the number of petrol caps that used to get lost through people leaving on the top of the car when filling up.
Takeaway point - in some places it's normal to leave your car running while refilling.
I wouldn't call it normal, merely a "popular choice" that's unwise.
However, what people forget is that many (actually most) petrol stations have the older fueling pumps and nozzles, so you can visibly see some portion of the fuel you are paying for is getting lost into the atmosphere. These fuel vapours (gas?) are much much easier to ignite than liquid fuel. And it is possible (or more probable) that if your body has a high static charge, maybe with additional friction to your seat covers, with the engine still running on, and not grounding that static to your car's metal roof…. then you definitely have a fire hazard.
Now, if the fuel vapours ignite its a quick burn, sort of like a deodorant spray and match. That means you now have a proper fire source in the vicinity of the running car/fuel pump. And this source itself can be the catalyst to actually ignite fuel that's spilt, that's on the nozzle, and that's travelling abouts the running car.
So if you ever do conform to safe practices, and find yourself with fuel vapour ignition, you are at a significantly lower risk than someone who does not follow safe practices. As far as the science is concerned, mobile phone radio signals are not strong enough to ignite fuels either… however there are probably electronic devices out there that have such risk.
And it is possible (or more probable) that if your body has a high static charge, maybe with additional friction to your seat covers, with the engine still running on, and not grounding that static to your car's metal roof…. then you definitely have a fire hazard.
A running engine does not generate static electricity. Pumps have ignited from static discharge, but that has nothing to do with a running engine. It happens when people lock the refuelling lever, go back into their car brushing themselves around the upholstery and carpet which builds up a static charge in them, then get out of the car and touch the grounded pump handle.
As far as the science is concerned, mobile phone radio signals are not strong enough to ignite fuels either…
The turn off your mobile (CB, etc) is more to do with the electronics in said mobile (CB, etc) than the RF signals being sent by said mobile (CB, etc).
Yeah i was very surprised when I saw people doing this in Malaysia. Never seen before then and everyone was doing it
Yep my taxi driver in Malaysia did this. Thought it was so strange
In some places it's normal to ride on top of trains.
How dangerous is it to refuel with the engine running?
It's a pity people will ignore information that goes against what they want to believe.
This. If you want to measure yourself against anything folks, make it this: how often you think or say the words "that's interesting. I hadn't realised my long-held belief was outdated, baseless or a popular misconception. I'm glad I know better now."
Can’t wait to see the rest of the comments.
Get the popcorn.
Throws popcorn under the bridge to the trolls
Thank you for thinking about us
Are there any risks with this?
It carries the same fire risk as using a smart phone while refuelling. In other words a 0% fire risk.
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2006/11/30/1799366.ht…
An unattended running vehicle always has a risk of shifting into gear. Even with a park brake engaged that can be enough to cause a petrol spill on the ground or the person doing the filling.
What do you mean?
It's common to see diesel and petrol on the ground next to the pumps. Spontaneous combustion doesn't happen just because there is fuel on the ground.
A few drops from the nozzle at the end of filling is significantly less than if a fully-running nozzle falls out of a car during filling; most likely an amount that large would end up gathering in the nearest drain, which has a trap specifically designed to prevent petrol from escaping into the environment. So the fuel sits there just waiting for a discarded cigarette to find its way in…
And what if instead of going on the ground, it splashes on a person wearing clothing that is prone to static electricity..?
So the fuel sits there just waiting for a discarded cigarette to find its way in…
What ifs?
Petrol ignites at ~260C (higher for 95 OCT and 98 OCT) while cigarettes burns between ~300C to ~800C (during long drags). However, petrol in its liquid form is unlikely to ignite in open air spaces.
http://www.intuitor.com/moviephysics/mpmain.html#cigarettes
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271921785_The_Prope…
While it is impossible to conduct an infinite number of experiments to provide absolute proof that ignition of gasoline could never happen with a lit cigarette, based on the currently available experimental data, derived under controlled laboratory conditions from this and other studies, there is no evidence that a cigarette is a competent ignition source for gasoline vaporsit splashes on a person wearing clothing that is prone to static electricity.
http://www.esdjournal.com/static/Static_Fires.pdf
Static and fuel
Petroleum fuel has a low electrical conductivity, such that it does not conduct electricity well. However, a charge of static electricity can build up on the fuel as it flows through a pipe or hose. Generally, the charge takes several seconds to several minutes to dissipate after the fuel has reached a tank or a container. If the charge discharges as a spark from a tank or container to the grounded metal nozzle of the gasoline dispenser hose, the fuel may ignite. For this to occur, the spark needs to discharge near the tank opening where the fuel vapour is in the flammable range. It is also possible for a spark to discharge directly from the surface of the gasoline to the grounded nozzle. Normally, though, this will not result in ignition because the concentration of fuel vapour near the liquid is above the flammable limit.@whooah1979: A fuel separator is not an "open air space".
Petrol ignites at ~260C (higher for 95 OCT and 98 OCT) while cigarettes burns between ~300C to ~800C (during long drags).
Your second link states unleaded petrols auto-ignite at 350C.
It also describes (in detail, with a non-working link to a recorded incident) how clothing can cause a static spark that can ignite fuel vapour. The section you quoted is merely regarding the build-up of static charge in the fuel itself during filling (which is irrelevant).
It also ends with this gem of wisdom:
To minimise the build up of static charge and to control the effects of static discharge:
- Switch off your engine@ssquid: The stories of petrol igniting due to potential ESD from textiles has nothing to with having the engine running.
The stories of petrol igniting due to potential ESD from textiles has nothing to with having the engine running.
The relationship is the situation in which a running vehicle moves while filling, causing someone to be splashed with petrol. I already explained that to you.
It also ends with this gem of wisdom:
To minimise the build up of static charge and to control the effects of static discharge:
- Switch off your engineThey also say that about mobile phones which we all know was a joke from the 90's.
Petrol ignites at…
And you’re wrong. The “auto ignition” point of petrol is about 280 degrees C. The flash point of petrol is about -40C. Petrol will ignite at very low temperatures. At its flash point, it only takes something like a hot spark, static, ember or open flame to ignite the vapour.
However, petrol in its liquid form is unlikely to ignite in open air spaces.
It’s not the fuel you have to worry about, it’s the vapour. And it’s not the auto ignition temp you have to worry about, it’s the flash point.
The other issue is that petrol vapour is heavier than air and will sink to the ground. If the car is running and a hot piece of carbon leaves the exhaust tip, it could easily ignite the vapour.
So, everything you waffled on about before is misleading to say the least. Petrol is highly flammable at ambient air temperature.
@whooah1979: It’s not personal opinion. It’s scientific fact. You’re quoting the auto-ignition temp. Just google “flash-point” as that is what you need to consider.
Petrol vapours will ignite at temperatures down to -40. This isn’t my “opinion” it’s “fact”.
The flash point of a volatile material is the lowest temperature at which vapours of the material will ignite, when given an ignition source.
Nek minnit…
Gasoline (petrol) Flashpoint: −43 °C Auto-ignition temp: 280 °C
References:
Engineering Toolbox
Flashpoint
Auto-ignitionThe “facts” are that petrol is volatile at very low temperatures. Petrol produces vapours from about -40C. These vapours are easily ignited making it dangerous at average air temperatures.
And if you can’t find these “facts” with a simple Google search, I put it to you that you are not searching very hard.
@pegaxs: Have there been confirmed cases of cars catching fire because the engine was running while refueling?
@eug: Not the point. I am saying that quoting the "auto-ignition" temp as the temp that petrol will ignite is pure misinformation and mis-applied in this context. Petrol vapour is what catches alight and vapour can be created at temperatures as low as -40C
But in answer to this… yes.
Here is one I Googled for you (Just Google, there are heaps of examples…)
Have you never watched a YouTube video of a pit fire on a race track? While not identical to what OP is doing, the principle remains the same. These are dedicated people using sealed refuelling systems and these regularly catch fire from the vapour that escapes, so what hope does a road car have that uses an unsealed refuelling system?
To say that petrol is safe up till 280C is just downright ignorant and dangerous. Petrol is dangerous from -40C. This isn't my opinion. It's fact.
I am saying that quoting the "auto-ignition" temp as the temp that petrol will ignite is pure misinformation and mis-applied in this context.
OK, fair enough.
Here is one I Googled for you
How was it confirmed that the fire was caused by the engine not being switched off?
While not identical to what OP is doing,
You said it. There's a huge difference between driving a racing car whose engine and exhaust would be running at extremely high temperatures with the pit crew in a huge rush handling high-pressure refueling pumps, and a Corolla puttering around town.
How was it confirmed…
It was a 3 second Google. That is how easy it is to see examples of cars catching on fire at a fuel station. As for confirmation of the engine running caused this fire?, it doesn’t matter, you are only going to move the goal posts anyway. Feel free to use Google, or if you don’t trust them, use DuckDuckGo. I could post examples all day and recommendations from fuel companies and you would still say “yeah, but what proof…”
huge difference between…
No, no there isn’t. Do you understand how catalytic converters work and how hot they can get? Do you understand the concept of carbon deposits and exhaust leaks/joints? You do understand that while filling your car, vapour is spilling out, onto the ground and moving under your car? You do know that moving metal parts around and engine can cause sparks to ignite that vapour on the ground under your car? Or are these things just inconvenient to your adgenda?
While not identical to OP… the principal remains the same
Re-read that whole part again and again and again until you actually understand it. Stop cherry picking what I say…
No, for example, a V8 Supercar is not the same as the Corolla, but even with all their safety equipment and procedures in place, these cars are still running when they take on fuel, and even with all these measures in place, they still catch fire. “The principal remains the same”.
I’m sorry I unblocked you. So, unless you have something relevant to add, everything else is just trolling. I should have known better than to indulge you. You can go back to being blocked if you are just going to make silly statements and misquote out of context and added to that it’s totally off topic to what whoosh was talking about.
As for confirmation of the engine running caused this fire?, it doesn’t matter
It matters.
This whole post is about leaving the engine running while refueling.
If the car caught fire because someone lit a cigarette or had some static discharge, that has nothing to do with the car running. That is why I specifically mentioned confirmed instances of a running engine causing a fire - because that is what this post is about.
Why did you move the goalposts?
I’m sorry I unblocked you.
It's ok, I forgive you.
based on the currently available experimental data, derived under controlled laboratory conditions from this and other studies, there is no evidence that a cigarette is a competent ignition source for gasoline vapors
Obviously you don’t watch enough movies
How can an unattended vehicle change into gear by itself?
The Jeep Grand Cherokee allegedly rolled while in park.
https://www.news.com.au/finance/business/manufacturing/jeep-…
https://www.productsafety.gov.au/recall/fca-australia-pty-lt…@whooah1979: That's fair enough, but I think a known issue, that was recalled doesn't stand up to the claim.
It's also shifting into neutral, not into gear, although that's still an issue if not on flat level ground. I wouldnt want to be the poor fella that got pinned.The amount of components that are required to move, to shift an auto from park to neutral or drive, in a healthy maintained vehicle, are not on par with the claim
An unattended running vehicle always has a risk of shifting into gear
and a manual isn't much different in that aspect, slightly easier to drop out of gear into neutral if the box is worn I guess, but for the vehicle to move, we'd need the reverse, slip from neutral to gear. I'd find that rather unlikely without an external influence.
@Ace Ventura: I'm with you with this one. There is no evidence that automatics positioned in park changing into drive by itself.
@whooah1979: The whole point of leaving the engine running is because there's people in the car (but no-one in the driver's seat). It is not outside the realm of possibility for them to accidentally bump the stick.
An automatic left in neutral can end up shifting into reverse if it vibrates enough. There's plenty of videos of people trying to shut off driverless cars doing reverse donuts - that's how it happens.
if it vibrates enough.
If a car is vibrating so hard while stationary with the handbrake on that the transmission bounces into D, I think the driver has bigger problems to worry about than leaving the engine on. ;)
@eug: Column shift autos were notorious for it. But in this situation there's people (or maybe pets) in the car, it doesn't have to happen completely "on its own".
@ssquid: Happened to me. An old HQ with well-worn trans linkages. It reversed out of my driveway onto a busy road with me in hot pursuit. Extremely fortunate that it was only clipped by a passing van before I managed to jump in and take control as it headed backwards towards oncoming traffic. One of the scariest moments of my life.
Did you actually read this article?
So, has a mobile phone ever set off a petrol station fire? No
Confirmation bias? Especially after reading a previous paragraph in the same article:
most people won't use their mobile phone while they are refuelling their car's petrol tank
So perhaps no petrol station fires are caused by people using their mobiles while refuelling because most people don't use their mobiles while refuelling…
Lets continue, shall we?
It is theoretically possible to set off a petrol fire with a phone. The amount of energy needed for a spark to ignite petrol vapour is 0.2 mJ, which is roughly one five-millionth of the energy stored in a fully-charged phone battery. The difficulty is that the phone is not designed to make sparks.
So your phone battery holds more than sufficient energy to spark a petrol station fire, we're just fortunate that it's not designed to make sparks? You know what else isn't designed to create sparks? Your car's chassis, but it happens to do a great job via static electricity.
Just because somethings not designed to do something doesn't mean it can't or won't…
And why worry about the phone battery when you have batteries in your iPod, CD player, mini-torch, and yes, don't forget the big 15 kg car battery that powers the electrics of your car?
Why worry? You don't, because they're generally left in the car and thus not exposed to the petrol/fumes. Also that big 15kg car battery is designed with its operational environment in mind.
Well, what about the electric field put out by your phone? Yes, the electric field has been measured at 2-5 volts/meter, and has been known to interfere with heart monitors and infant incubators in hospitals, and various electronic equipment in planes. But the electric field from a mobile phone has never been known to set off a fire in a petrol station. And consider that in the UK , some 200 Shell petrol stations have mobile phone towers in the tall petrol price indicators, which stand right there on the forecourt, a few metres from the petrol pumps. The towers put out a lot more grunt than your small mobile phone.
As I've pointed out in another comment, the issue isn't so much the RF signals (although as noted in the above paragraph they have the capability). So I don't know why this article is pointing this out, except for it being written by someone who hasn't done a whole lot of research.
The phone companies post warnings about using phones in petrol stations for two reasons. First, mobile phones are not designed with “Intrinsic Safety” to make them able to operate safely in truly hazardous inflammable vapour situations.
Here you have it. Pretty much all the electricals at a fuel station are are designed and built to suit the "Hazardous Area" they're located in, which includes such features as "Intrinsically Safe" circuitry. Your phone is not designed as a Hazardous Area device. The aforementioned cell towers in the signage in the UK likely would be, or are considered far enough away to not need to be.
And finally…
no, according to the popular Mythbusters TV show, which tried mightily to make a mobile phone explode a chamber full of petrol vapour, and failed.
Sure, some TV show failed to make a phone cause a petrol station fire. And there's supposedly no mobile cause petrol station fire. And by all reports the likelihood of it happening is pretty slim. And yeah, most of the warnings are just people covering their asses.
But if it can't happen, then why is everyone trying to cover their ass? Because it could happen. And for the sake of just leaving my phone in my car, I know I'd rather not be the first…
People actively trying to ignite the petrol pumps with mobile phones sells it pretty hard for me (mythbusters)
There has not been a single reported case globally of a phone igniting the petrol pump because it is so incredibly unlikely.
While sure, most people wont do it, i would argue there is still a large amount of instances globally of people using their phones at fuel pumps. If only 1% of the population does it (and probably do it every time they fuel up) you're looking at a pretty big sample size here.We can argue all day about if it can happen or not - but with no cases of it happening and the fact that the people that have actively tried to get it to ignite in the best of circumstances (most ideal fuel to oxygen percentage etc.) cannot get it to ignite says to me that its safe enough - definitely statistically safer than driving the car in the first place.
However, static electricity is definitely something that you need to worry about - and thats a whole other story
being written by someone who hasn't done a whole lot of research.
The article was published by Dr. Karl Kruszelnicki. It's safe to say that he knows a thing or two about this topic.
Then how did I pick his article to pieces?
There's so much fluff, misinformation and anecdotal evidence in there, I'm honestly surprised to find that he wrote it.
@Chandler: I agree. It’s like some intern wrote it and they just licensed Dr. Karl’s name to put on the article.
They werent designed to blow up either, but hey i might not be from this galaxy so what do i know xD
Oh for gods sake…
You're in a hazardous area with an electronic device not designed to operate in such an environment, with signs telling you to leave it off or at least in the car where it won't be exposed to said explosive atmosphere.
Just leave it in the god damn car.
It carries the same fire risk as using a smart phone while refuelling. In other words a 0% fire risk
No it doesn't.
There are several possible sources of ignition when your car is running.
Here's an article that actually looks at leaving your car running.
https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/greatmomentsin…
Can't they open their window or go into the shop to look at the magazines, toilet break, or find a treat.
Why can’t they take a teaspoon of cement and harden up?
We prefer to stay comfortable up here with the AC on in the summer and the heater in the winter.
Because we are wealthy and live in a first world country, so don't have to "harden up" if we don't want to?
Not that I agree with his stance, you just both make bad points!
Because we are wealthy and live in a first world country, so don't have to "harden up" if we don't want to?
That's not how it works. The rules exist for a reason.
Classic melbournian. You guys don't get the heat we do here in Perth, your hottest is our pleasantly warm.
I guess they could. The OP came with the question 'are there any risks' so we're discussing risks.
they should be washing the windscreen. shotgun has duties as well as privileges.
backseat buys the snacks.
Is this a serious question? Leaving the engine running while refuelling is something we were taught not to do when learning to drive, never mind watching family and friends when younger. I seem to remember watching TV ads in the UK about how dangerous it was many years ago.
Dude you need help.
No Brain, no Gain :)
I hope someone jacks your car when you go to pay
I refuel so the adult passengers can sit in comfort with the air conditioning
Give me a break. I'm sure they'll survive 2 minutes without AC
First World problem.
Why take the risk?
This thread is the absolute reason why we need to be able to downvote forum topics.
The stink of entitlement in this post is just astounding… 100% sure it’s a troll thread.
If anyone was doing this at the fuel station where I was refueling, I would just walk over and hit the emergency stop or just walk inside and let the staff know there was someone refueling without shutting their car off.
telling someone not to break the rules. WOW! So much entitlement there.
I fail to see the irony. There are safety implications for not turning your vehicle off while refueling. Why is my safety less important than OP's passengers comfort??
There are signs everywhere in fuel stations that tell people to turn their vehicles engine off. Why is it so hard to just turn a car off to refuel?
The fact that OP even suggests they don't have a problem doing it and going against what the safety warning signs say shows that they have utter contempt for rules, safety and others welfare. So forgive me for wanting to leave a fuel station alive…
I think t_c doesn't know the meaning of irony.
Keep riding that high horse..
A couple of years ago I was refueling and while refueling I put my hand in my pocket and there was some paper in there,so with one hand I was looking down, unfolding it and reading it.
The fuel pump kept shutting off, took ages to fill up.
Go inside and was told off and told they shut the pump off because I was using my phone, which I denied of course and they told me they could see me on my phone???
Anyway, my point is I reckon if they suspected the car was running they would shut off the pump from inside.
Yeah, I agree. The only problem is that most fuel stations, the payment counter is buried deep in the store through all the rows of chips. Added to that, most modern cars are very quiet and a bit hard to hear running. Phone use is much easier to spot.
But yes, every time I have been inside and reported someone using their phone, filling water containers with fuel or engine running, the attendants have been immediate in shutting down the pump and getting on the intercom.
Why would you report someone using their phone?? It's verifiably NOT a hazard at a petrol station, never once causing a single incident world wide.
@Michael15286: Because there is a sign that says “don’t”. It’s the fuel stations SOP and it’s private property. Part of the conditions that when you fuel up is that you follow the fuel stations rules. They have a sign that says “don’t use your phone” so, you don’t.
It’s the same as leaving the engine running. Humans can’t be on the phone and do anything at the same time. So the issue may not be the fire risk, but the stupidity and inattentive risk.
You will be of great value when the revolution comes, comrade.
We always need good informers.
Aren't you supposed to turn your engine off while refuelling, according to the signs all over the petrol station? I think it's to prevent fires accidentally starting.