Bushfires (1 Viewer)

[David Spade]

What would you do if your house was being threatened by a bushfire (of any severity because they all burn hehe)


In the wake of the Black Saturday Royal Commission, people are now going to be urged to leave their houses if the Fire Danger Index climbs above 50, and there is a fire threatening.

"From today, the Bureau of Meteorology and fire agencies will determine the fire rating for each day. This will be based on the Fire Danger Index, a scale from one to 100 that factors in wind, temperature, humidity and drought. A code red day is above 100.

Under the new policy, people will be told to check their bushfire survival plans when the fire danger is low-moderate and high. At very high fire danger, residents are urged to leave at the start of the day if, under their bushfire survival plan, they have decided not to defend their home.

When the fire danger index climbs to about 50, the day will become a severe fire risk. Again, residents are urged to leave early and stay only if the home is ''well prepared and you can actively defend it''.

The recommended action is the same for extreme fire danger days, except that the warning says the home must also be ''well constructed'' as well as ''well prepared''."

"The system recommends specific actions for each of the six previously announced fire danger days: low-moderate, high, very high, severe, extreme and code red (catastrophic).". Last weekend was a code red across most of the state fyi.

Keep in mind this policy does not give authorities the power to forcefully remove anyone who wishes to stay.






- Do you think this is an acceptable policy?

- Should people be forcefully evacuated when threatened with a bushfire?

- Should people be allowed to stay and defend their homes no matter the circumstances?
Even on code red days, when RFS says this about them "''lives will be lost'' on a code red day and that ''even well-prepared and constructed homes will not be safe''."?

- Is any fire survival plan ever good enough?

- Do you have a bushfire survival plan?

- What would you personally do?

etc

 

[loquasagacious]

I've been in the situation on several occassions (sup black christmas fires burning down 5 houses on my parents street) and I think the correct response depends on the exact scenario.

I think the policy is good in that it does not forcibly remove people (which would be a violation of their reights) but does try and provide people with the information they need to make effective decisions on a case-by-case basis.

As for some examples living in an appartment in an 'inner city' area doesn't really provide any however my parents house is a much better example. It is relatively well prepared, 100m clearance between it and the treeline, regular backburning 50m into the treeline to remove scrub/flammable build-up. Gutters are clear and can be filled with water. Swimming pool, Dam and an inground tank provide ample water and are connected to an underground pipe which circles the house and has regular taps for hoses. If fire appears imminent then the hoses are laid out ready. A couple of petrol powered pumps are on hand if power goes down. And of course fire-safe clothing + water knapsacks for spot-fires. Having said that it is far from perfect or fire-safe.

When we (the children) were younger the plan was to evacuate if it got serious and on a couple of occassions the car was packed and ready to go.

As we got older and went from liabilities to being able to help fight fires the plan shifted to staying and fighting a fire. We stayed through black christmas (though grandparents who were over for christmas lunch did evacuate and had the excitement of the flame-front going over their car on the way). Their are currently fires burning in the area and a rating of catastrophic, the plan is still to stay.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

I find it a little humourous that the bumfuck bogan posts a thread about bushfires. lol.

 

[David Spade]

ok?

 

[David Spade]

i dont get your point, but as usual, great input bro
this thread is really just a stab at your ronald mcdonald hair and general hideous appearance. but its ok im sure being a hard cunt in serious threads will make up for your obvious aspergers and social retardation. arent you from like camden, isnt that place just dairy farms and drug labs?

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

omg must go and kill self after mentally retarded bogans attempt at "serious thread"

lol

 

[David Spade]

probably the only viable option you failed abortion

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

i've requested from you before: help me be cool like you and create good thrads.
will you halp me david spade you HERO?



if not
then suicide
end sub

 

[pman]

I would most likely stay and fight, water things down, remove fuel, that kind of thing

 

[David Spade]

How come? Is it worth risking your life, when your house and contents are insured etc?

 

[loquasagacious]

How come? Is it worth risking your life, when your house and contents are insured etc?

Valid point but still it's pretty inconvenient for your house to burn down (and most people are under-insured which is a seperate problem).

 

[David Spade]

i am over insured to the max and CANNOT wait for my house to burn down

i can live in my car for so long/stay with mates

Edit: it doesnt work that way, i got my house for less than it is valued at and replacement will cost more etc so i will come out on top

 

[fliick]

Lol...
My home was being threatened on Sunday. The fire was less than 1k away when it was controlled. They cut off the main road and evacuated the town and hospital.

I have shit insurance, so I spent the first 24hrs contributing to the drought and let the hoses run. And I actually considered staying in the bottom floor bathroom. House is hebel, bathroom is fully insulated and bottom floor seperated from the outside walls by atleast one room... Just keep shower running with a drenched mattress against the door.
I wasn't sure about oxygen though lol. I would have just kept the fan running and hope for the best?

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

People should never be forced to move from their homes, even if there is a high chance they will die.

People own their own bodies and have a right to take stupid risks.

 

[will-anal]

People should never be forced to move from their homes, even if there is a high chance they will die.

People own their own bodies and have a right to take stupid risks.

Yeah tbh this

I'd gtfo asap, but if my neighbour wants to stay and defend their house with a garden hose, who is to tell them they can't? If they want to risk being burnt to a crisp, that's their right.

 

[David Spade]

People should never be forced to move from their homes, even if there is a high chance they will die.

People own their own bodies and have a right to take stupid risks.

wont somebody think of the children?

serious question though, should everyone under 18 be evacuated?

 

[fliick]

wont somebody think of the children?

serious question though, should everyone under 18 be evacuated?

If I said yes to an age limit, then why not consider controlling the senile, insane and disabled?

Parents I've met that were adamant on staying and protecting their home definitely got their kids out at the first sign of trouble. However I have no doubt there will be shitheads that won't think or care.

Forcefully evacuating people is a question of ethics and morals. And like most ethical questions, there is no distinct line.

But yes, anyone under 16 should be evacuated.

 

[David Spade]

Under 18yr olds are not developed enough to think for themselves, and if the parents are doing something to put them in danger then the government should step in and remove them

this is a situation where i would say the government would be right to forcefully evactuate minors

minors might be more of a hindrance anyway when fighting a fire. no training coupled with the possibility of death may not go down too well with them as a fire closes in.

 

[David Spade]

and yes i assume the disabled etc are evacuated first usually anyway.

you say the parents you met got their kids to safety, lots of children died this year in the black saturday fires because they either left it too late to evacuate them, or tried to stay in their houses.

if they were forcefully evacuated that morning they would be alive now





i honestly dont see what the appeal is in defending your house from something that will kill you, it is jsut bricks and wood.

 

[fliick]

Under 18yr olds are not developed enough to think for themselves, and if the parents are doing something to put them in danger then the government should step in and remove them

this is a situation where i would say the government would be right to forcefully evactuate minors

minors might be more of a hindrance anyway when fighting a fire. no training coupled with the possibility of death may not go down too well with them as a fire closes in.

No so true by my personal experience.
My brother is 16 and has been doing night shifts with me to contain and control the fires. He has been trained by RFS and is only proving himself more capable every day.

But I agree most under 18 year olds lack physical and mental maturity.
The concept of the 'physical and mental' maturity can't be distinctively outlined, and shouldn't be enforced. I'm saying the best way to deal with it is per case, thus leaving the responsibility to the people.

(+) I'm not sure if it's stubborness or that I'm owned by my material possessions that gave me false hope that I could win against a 10m blaze.
And as for the children that died, I still reserve my belief that under 16's should be indefinitely evacuated.