Ethanol in Fuel - Petition.

Message

Gio · #31 Post by **Gio** » Thu Mar 01, 2012 6:07 pm

D-Rider wrote:Here's some on the Diesel Enfields:
http://www.dieselbike.net/royalenfield/royalenfield.htm

http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_bikes.html

And a few others:
http://www.dieselbike.net/currentconver ... rsions.htm

http://www.gizmag.com/go/4272/

WOW tyvm D, Liked the look of the http://www.dieselmotorcycles.co.uk/

HowardQ · #32 Post by **HowardQ** » Tue Mar 06, 2012 1:19 pm

Finally got to talk to Rotherham Trading Standards today, what a complete waste of time!
The basic much repeated response was -
"Do you really think that the Government would sanction putting Ethanol in petrol if it was as unsafe as you claim?" (inferring don't be bloody silly).
Reply well yes actually I do and we have proof that it damages plastic and fibreglass petrol tanks and it could also damage plastic and rubber parts of fuel lines etc.. Hence the petrol is unfit for purpose.
Repeat - ]"Do you really ............." with an even stronger hint that I was being stupid.
I explained the situation in more detail and then
Repeat - "Do you really ............." with a still stronger hint that I was being stupid.
So suggested that a motorcycle with a plastic or fibreglass tank could end up as a fireball if a tank split and fuel ignited on the hot engine or exhaust.
Repeat - "Do you really ............." with a very much stronger hint that I was being stupid, and a further comment that anybody who rides a motorcycle could be in an acccident and a plastic tank could split, it was one of the risks we took.
Again suggested that the fuel with Ethanol was not fit for purpose, and something should be done.
Repeat - "Do you really ............." with the now standard hint that I was being stupid, with an added "what do you expect me to do about it".
I suggested he could advise the national Trading Standards people about the issue and see if some more investigation could be done before somebody gets fried.
Some mumbled resonse.
I reply - you are not really interested in this at all are you.
Reply NO and the phone slammed down.
Glad I got such a great response from my own bloody council.

Sorry folks.

Samray · #33 Post by **Samray** » Tue Mar 06, 2012 1:58 pm

Speechless.

You're in good company Howard. 500 other 'idiots' have signed that petition.

Aladinsaneuk · #34 Post by **Aladinsaneuk** » Tue Mar 06, 2012 1:59 pm

Local Government Ombudsman

complain - and write to your MP about it - and be specific - the complaint has to be investigated and acted on....

blinkey501 · #35 Post by **blinkey501** » Tue Mar 06, 2012 7:04 pm

HowardQ wrote:Finally got to talk to Rotherham Trading Standards today, what a complete waste of time!
The basic much repeated response was -
"Do you really think that the Government would sanction putting Ethanol in petrol if it was unsdafe as you claim?" (inferring don't be bloody silly).
Reply well yes actually I do and we have proof that it damages plastic and fibreglass petrol tanks and it could also damage plastic and rubber parts of fuel lines etc.. Hence the petrol is unfit for purpose.
Repeat - ]"Do you really ............." with an even stronger hint that I was being stupid.
I explained the situation in more detail and then
Repeat - "Do you really ............." with a still stronger hint that I was being stupid.
So suggested that a motorcycle with a plastic or fibreglass tank could end up as a fireball if a tank split and fuel ignited on the hot engine or exhaust.
Repeat - "Do you really ............." with a very much stronger hint that I was being stupid, and a further comment that anybody who rides a motorcycle could be in an acccident and a plastic tank could split, it was one of the risks we took.
Again suggested that the fuel with Ethanol was not fit for purpose, and something should be done.
Repeat - "Do you really ............." with the now standard hint that I was being stupid, with an added "what do you expect me to do about it".
I suggested he could advice the national Trading Standards people about the issue and see if some more investigation could be done before somebody gets fried.
Some mumbled resonse.
I reply you are not really interested in this at all are you.
Reply NO and the phone slammed down.
Glad I got such a great response from my own bloody council.

Sorry folks.

Hes a prick, a jobs worth who is only there just to get a wage i would guess.

fatboy · #36 Post by **fatboy** » Tue Mar 06, 2012 7:26 pm

Well done for trying mate, bloody shame it was a predictable response from a predictable prick working for a predicable bunch of tossers

Falcorob · #37 Post by **Falcorob** » Tue Mar 06, 2012 9:42 pm

Did you get his name?

HowardQ · #38 Post by **HowardQ** » Tue Mar 06, 2012 11:43 pm

MartDude · #39 Post by **MartDude** » Tue Mar 06, 2012 11:44 pm

Stiff letter to his manager, then?

Falcorob · #40 Post by **Falcorob** » Wed Mar 07, 2012 7:23 pm

HowardQ wrote:YES!

Can you share it?

And the address where he might be found?

He might appreciate a few letters.

BikerGran · #41 Post by **BikerGran** » Wed Mar 07, 2012 8:59 pm

What about contacting the Transport Safety Research Centre

http://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/lds/ ... oups/tsrc/

"The TSRC is a multi-disciplinary team conducting research into all aspects of road and vehicle safety"

Or talk to your local Fire and Rescue Service for advice on who to contact.

D-Rider · #42 Post by **D-Rider** » Wed Mar 07, 2012 9:00 pm

TBH their response is exactly that I would have expected.
In all honesty, what civil servant is going to publicly accept that the Government will have allowed something that causes damage? ..... and to be honest, most of them will genuinely not believe that it's possible that such a thing would be permitted.

I dare say that the effects of ethanol in fuel are unintentional and were possibly not even appreciated by the powers that be if due diligence was not carried out properly.

Good for you for chipping away Howard but as with all these things it's going to take more to raise the profile ..... but maybe one of these Watchdog or Rogue Petrol Vendors TV shows might help if their interest could be raised.

blinkey501 · #43 Post by **blinkey501** » Wed Mar 07, 2012 9:16 pm

What really is such a shame is that someone will have to die before the government will sit up and take note...
That is the realisation that we are faced with.
That is the shocking truth

HowardQ · #44 Post by **HowardQ** » Wed Mar 07, 2012 11:38 pm

D-Rider wrote:TBH their response is exactly that I would have expected.
In all honesty, what civil servant is going to publicly accept that the Government will have allowed something that causes damage? ..... and to be honest, most of them will genuinely not believe that it's possible that such a thing would be permitted.

I dare say that the effects of ethanol in fuel are unintentional and were possibly not even appreciated by the powers that be if due diligence was not carried out properly.

Good for you for chipping away Howard but as with all these things it's going to take more to raise the profile ..... but maybe one of these Watchdog or Rogue Petrol Vendors TV shows might help if their interest could be raised.

I have his name and will try and wind things up a bit, but I do work for the same council and it is not straightforward.
I also have a few other bikers to work on, one of whom is a Head of Service (Director), so I will see if I can an opportunity to get a word with him, but it won't be easy.
To be honest I do have some (minimal) sympathy for the other bloke.
We have cut budgets and services to death recently and are still making savage cuts of another £20 odd million next financial year, with lots more people to go.
Can you imagine the scenario if he had taken this up and gone to his boss to ask for a budget to investigate this great idea of the Government to create greener petrol and prove that this could be dangerous, because some biker had claimed his petrol tank was getting bigger!
Until there is a major incident, I do not really think there is much hope.
If something bad does happen, we have things like this on record as well as the petition, to show we have previously warned of this and might then get a better hearing, but it would be really sad if somebody was seriously burned before we can get started.
How many bikers have been killed or hurt by diesel spills, and how long have we been fighting that.
I cannot really remember not seeing a spillage on my daily commute and one particular roundabout has a spillage almost every day.

On a different tack, does anybody have contacts with MAG or BMF.

MartDude · #45 Post by **MartDude** » Fri Mar 09, 2012 12:27 am

Some interesting comments in here. Especially post no. 31; wonder how AF1 are doing this?