Comments on: Re-evaluating fire safety individualism

By: lolo

lolo — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

A close family friend of mine is a retired architect who specialised in bushfire resistant design. Speaking to him this morning, he offered that a house is only worth staying with to defend if you are confident it is defensible - many houses have timber roofs, timber decking, large panorama windows with no shutters (even flyscreens can retard fire from catching in a house). Individual responsibility is indeed a huge burden if blanket stay-or-go guidelines are communicated when many houses may be of greater risk of combustion than others. I don’t know what briefing was offered by the CFA before the fires, but perhaps one lesson to come out of this horror is for a systematic evaluation for all houses in areas at risk - so that people have better information about what the best approach, defend or leave, is for their own situation. Combined with community approaches as Lionel suggests such as safe places, maybe this can all help when the next (sigh) horrific fire comes. My thoughts are with all those I know and those I don’t who are touched by this awful, awful weekend.

By: Margot Fallscheer

Margot Fallscheer — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Well said. I hope that the “right” people in the big offices are all given and made to read and understand its contents. Then and only then can we all move forward.

By: Andrew P

Andrew P — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

The 2003 bushfire season certainly killed a few in Canberra. Having seen those fires, I am not certain that one can defend a normal suburban house from the kind of event which occurs on a hot day, in a drought, with a driving wind. The same issues will probably be argued. There should have been fuel reduction burns (it is the greenies fault), but the opportunity for such burns has been limited by the same weather which produced the fires. It is the arsonists (its the fault of the lefties who are soft on crime), which is true but a prevention strategy based on depriving the mentally deficient and emotionally disturbed of the most basic technological capacity i,e making fire is not very helpful. Eventually I think it comes down to a question of what risks people are willing to take to live close to the bush, what can reasonably be expected from the rest of the community when this goes bad, and how can communities at risk best arrange themselves to handle the risk. Storm cellars are pretty standard in some parts of the world, why not fire-based design?

By: M. James

M. James — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

It will be considered appallingly insensitive at this time of so many tragic deaths, but the responses of the media, the public and the affected people are extremely frustrating. These places are in the driest continent and in one of the most fire prone regions on earth, yet these calamities are regular occurrences. What are these people doing to protect themselves? Since one definition of insanity is repeating the same behaviour expecting a different outcome, we/they must all be crazy.
Almost all these deaths occurred in cars attempting foolishly to flee the fire at the last moment, despite endless advice that people need to either flee early or prepare properly for the onslaught. Most houses can be protected by relatively simple, inexpensive measures because the reason most houses burn is the firestorm smashes glass windows so that embers enter and burn the house from the inside. We have all seen how Americans in their tornado zones board over windows and doors and retreat to a bunker- are we incapable of such simple common sense measures?
Three things contribute to survivability without the need for expensive or complicated measures: (a) windows can be protected by the cheapest of materials such as fibro-cement sheeting or corrugated iron sheets; (b) home-owners can put out embers; (c) houses do not burn down instantly and can still provide sufficient protection for sufficient time for survival. (By its very nature the firestorm outside passes quite quickly.)
It is depressing to see that in reality we Australians behave as if nothing can be done and instead wring our hands and wail about the problem. Governments and people seem in denial but all the firemen and trucks and helicopters in the world cannot stop these bushfires. Instead people in fireprone areas need to take responsibility for these minimal protections of their houses. Lionel Elmore is right that clear guidelines still seem to be lacking or poorly communicated.

By: John Spresser

John Spresser — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Lionel

It’s funny how there are different memories of the same night.

I was in Macedon that night but not at the pub so I can not comment how the pub was defended. However I have always wondered what would have happened if the fire front had been 100 meters further south as every house on the north side of the street the pub was in was destroyed but every house on the south side (the pub side) was standing.

As you are aware, there was a fire that went through the North Side of the mountain a few weeks before. On the night of the ash Wednesday many Mt Macedon residents fled north across the mountain. There was a tree across the road and there was a considerable back up of cars (70?). The fire stopped when it reached the burnt out section. I think we were extremely lucky that night that the death toll was not vastly higher.

As to hazard reduction – the question to be asked in this instance is – “When was the last time a fire went through the areas in question”. Until that question is answered, I would prefer not to comment on the viability of the scheme. I now back on to a national park and I do know how quickly the bush bounces back if there is a fire that goes through an area that has had the fuel reduced as opposed to the areas where the wild fire – the difference is measured in years.

Commiserations – too many memories have been bought back with these fires. We lost a few fences on the night but I am fully aware of the hurt that those who lost everything went through.

My heart goes out to the victims.

By: R.Ross

R.Ross — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Hindsight is a wonderful thing. The writer is spot-on. It is sad that so many had to die to make us rethink bushfire management. I guess the ‘plans’ in place were okay for regular bushfires but not for the tsunami equivalent of a bushfire. Worst case scenario plans are the only way to ensure safety.

By: Max

Max — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Yes - when there is 10 minutes warning people need a fail- safe last resort. - protection of property probably wont matter by then. Easy access to clearly marked underground bunkers on individual properties is an option worthy of serious consideration. That would save lives - Cant we learn from the "twisters" in the US and post tsunami warning sytems- i think so.

The other advantage to the underground bunker option is cost- they would be relatively cheap to construct and maintain - certainly a lot cheaper than some of the mandatory bushfire building codes that are now likely to be considered.

And finally these structures should be recognisable - assuming you can still through any smoke so that anyone can use them in a scenario such as we have just witnessed.

By: Moira Smith

Moira Smith — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

"Community based protection of townships from these extreme fire events needs to include [...] alternatives beyond individuals making decisions as to whether they stay and fight fires or leave."

I do agree. As a chronically ill woman in my fifties, responsible for a housebound elderly father and two cats, I worry about this constantly. We live in one of the suburbs of Canberra affected by the 2002 fires. What kind of a 'plan' can I have? at least when I lived in Townsville I knew which part of the house to retreat to when a cyclone menaced [under the stairs]. Now I am advised to decide whether to 'go or stay', and either seems an option bearing stresses and dangers I can't personally cope with. Last night on the TV someone said, 'If you can see smoke it's too late to flee', today someone else advised 'Go if you can see smoke but not flames'.

We are advised to stay with our houses ... in 2002 a friend of mine in Duffy left at the last moment (and came here), his house survived even though he was not there to defend it. The mat at the front door was an ashpile, the lawnmower in the shed was melted, but the main structure survived and was liveable in once the power was back on.

Helpful snippets such as 'wear long sleeved cotton clothing' and ‘clear round the house’ hardly seem sufficient given the ferocity of the recent fires.

I like the 'bunker' idea ... eg we have a large underpass nearby that goes under the road ... that might be safe - if I can get my Dad and his wheelie-walker down there somehow. I could also do with someone coming house to house in calmer times and advising me, assessing our risk and noting who lives here and how capable they are (or aren’t). We DO need more than an individual solution as the writer says.

I hope the Victorian Royal Enquiry won't be another exercise in blaming/arse covering but really examine what the ordinary citizen can do. We are clearly going to have to live with this danger.

Our prayers for all affected.

By: Colleen Murrell

Colleen Murrell — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

An excellent piece of analysis for those of us left scratching our heads in disbelief and wondering why so many died. I think the pictures of the burnt cars are the worst of the photos. They remind me of the ‘road to Basra’ after Gulf War 1 (91).

By: Venise Alstergren

Venise Alstergren — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Do I hear a politically correct movement here? A movement that would make staying to protect one’s own property a crime? Or should the whole community ‘understand’ the mind-set of those tragically misunderstood souls, the arsonists.
The one thing that seems to occur during a bushfire is the ability for a community to pull together. So now we need a Royal Commission to tell us the bleeding obvious. Because if you, Lionel, think a Royal Commission will solve anything at all you are sadly misinformed. Oh yes it will find we need more fire-fighting equipment and things which are well known by the blind Freddies of this world. But it won’t help to educate people to use common sense, nor will it help eviscerate the arsonists responsible for many of these fires. But it will help to inflate the egos of a lot of small-town council aspirants. And it will inflate the already over-inflated salaries of the legal profession.
Macedon was a different scenario to the Gembrook/Emerald areas, IMHO.

By: lmxly

lmxly — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Excellent article except for the second last sentence. This has EVERYTHING to do with global warming, simply because, at the very least, we KNOW these extreme weather events are going to become more frequent in future. So it is is absolutely essential that the Royal Commission investigates rapidly and concludes comprehensively, so that while we may nto be able to prevent such fires again, at least fewer lives will be lost.

By: noelb

noelb — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

excellent article. At its harshest , this is a vast natural experiment, with bitterly bought wisdom to be had. A rational response would be to establish a data base of all threatened and destroyed properties , and to analyse the resultant information with an eye to the factors that predicate survival or destruction.

By: B MESSMER

B MESSMER — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

If I remember correctly, this summer there were no pre-season controlled burn offs to control
tinder dry undergrowth and create some suitable fire breaks and that this policy was followed largely because of some very loud but partisan pressure.

If this is so, perhaps these policies should be reviewed.

By: robert

robert — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

The Mum of a friend of mine only survived due to locals helping each other out.

Also - on his way up to find her - he noticed that houses with windbreaks or with well established gardens surrounding the house, seemed to survive more often than the houses that were left completely exposed to the wind and the heat.