Good engineering can save lives from bush fires

[vk6zgo]

I agree the first line of defence is to remove trees, bracket, leaves etc from around a house.

When we had our Black Saturday bush fires in 2009 (180 dead, massive amounts of property lost), one council fined a bloke for clearing trees which would have otherwise burned his house down. It cost him $100K in legal costs to fight the council. https://www.smh.com.au/national/fined-for-illegal-clearing-family-now-feel-vindicated-20090212-85bd.html

I once had to pay $500 in wasteful costs imposed by the council and supply a large volume of paperwork over a period of several months to get a permit to remove a single non-native deciduous tree from my own land, else risk an $8000 fine. The leaves were a fire risk. I asked the council officer why people have to pay and go through all this to remove trees from their own property and the answer was, " If we didn't charge, everyone would be removing trees, ruining the aesthetic appearance of the district." Of course, that is utter , because before they started charging, people were not stripping the suburb bare of trees. Anyone should be able to remove whatever trees they want off their own land. I am sure houses have been lost in bush fires because of the religious fanaticism from tree-huggers.

I doubt you can blame the tree-huggers----more a combination of the "It reduces my land value" people, & the local council making a grab for power (& "Ohh Boy, do they love power")

I bet your council are not very receptive to ham  radio towers  either !

[David Hess]

I doubt you can blame the tree-huggers ...

Oh yes I can!

[Marco]

One problem I see with systems like you describe is if they are not regularly used, then they have questionable reliability when needed.  After I lost power in the aftermath of an ice storm for a week, among other things, I acquired a propane backup heater and deliberately use it during winter just to maintain readiness.

How about having a custom made set of poles to construct a guide system on either side of the house to pull tarp reinforced with rods across? Passive and long lasting.

[vk6zgo]

I doubt you can blame the tree-huggers ...

Oh yes I can!

Of course you can, if you really want to!

My point was simply that an awesome alliance between the "There goes the neighbourhood" types & a power & money hungry local council would be as likely as some "airy fairy" "tree hugger" influence.

My rule is to never get between a local council & a chance to grab money or power!

[Brumby]

I like the Hobbit's approach myself...

[coppercone2]

there is something else you can do, other then building bunkers

its called good forestry work, brush maintence and controlled burns.

The best and cheapest defense is... a good offense.

Not to mention.. none of this stuff will save you from death by smoke and gasses. Living in a bunker when everything is ready to blow up into flames is kinda reminiscent of hell don't you think?

[Halcyon]

I agree the first line of defence is to remove trees, bracket, leaves etc from around a house.

When we had our Black Saturday bush fires in 2009 (180 dead, massive amounts of property lost), one council fined a bloke for clearing trees which would have otherwise burned his house down. It cost him $100K in legal costs to fight the council. https://www.smh.com.au/national/fined-for-illegal-clearing-family-now-feel-vindicated-20090212-85bd.html

I once had to pay $500 in wasteful costs imposed by the council and supply a large volume of paperwork over a period of several months to get a permit to remove a single non-native deciduous tree from my own land, else risk an $8000 fine. The leaves were a fire risk. I asked the council officer why people have to pay and go through all this to remove trees from their own property and the answer was, " If we didn't charge, everyone would be removing trees, ruining the aesthetic appearance of the district." Of course, that is utter , because before they started charging, people were not stripping the suburb bare of trees. Anyone should be able to remove whatever trees they want off their own land. I am sure houses have been lost in bush fires because of the religious fanaticism from tree-huggers.

Thankfully in New South Wales, we have some common sense legislation (known as the 10/50 Code) which trumps local council regulations. Under the Rural Fires Act, landowners may remove any vegetation (including trees) within 10 metres, or any vegetation (excluding trees) within 50 metres of the external wall of one's house (and other such dwellings) without council application or approval.

Of course exclusions exist and this code doesn't apply to everyone, everywhere.

[Berni]

Wait what... You need a permit to cut down your own tree on your own property?!

Over here if there is a tree you find in the way you just take a chainsaw and have at it. As long as you are not cutting down someone else's tree, in that case they can sue you for damage to there property, but really you would ask them before doing such a thing anyway. If anything you could be in trouble if your neighbor pays you to remove his tree because the country didn't collect any tax from your profit. But i guess being payed in firewood from that fallen tree would be legally okay.

[Halcyon]

Wait what... You need a permit to cut down your own tree on your own property?!

Yep and some local councils are particularly difficult about it. Thankfully I live in an area where state fire legislation beats local council nonsense. Winner winner, chicken dinner. 

[coppercone2]

usually you need to pay per tree

[Sal Ammoniac]

Steel is fireproof.

I think the Twin Towers in NY on 9/11/2001 proved that isn't true.

[VK3DRB]

Wait what... You need a permit to cut down your own tree on your own property?!

Over here if there is a tree you find in the way you just take a chainsaw and have at it. As long as you are not cutting down someone else's tree, in that case they can sue you for damage to there property, but really you would ask them before doing such a thing anyway. If anything you could be in trouble if your neighbour pays you to remove his tree because the country didn't collect any tax from your profit. But i guess being payed in firewood from that fallen tree would be legally okay.

You have it easy. What country are you in?

A mate got a few pallet loads of pavers delivered on the nature strip (a small council-owned strip of land between the kerb and your own block of land), as he was going to pave his driveway. Within hours of the delivery, a council officer showed up threatening to fine him $200 if he does not move all of them onto his own property within exactly one hour. In reply, my mate said he is not going to mow the council's nature strip, to which the reply was that they will fine him if it is not mowed regularly, and they will be watching him. Councils budget for fines revenue which, IMO, is morally wrong, as it is effectively admitting to running an organised scam.

I am all for laws that make people safe (like fire codes, road laws etc), but fining people just to extort money, as per the paver incident, or charging for tree removal permits and fining them if they remove a tree without a permit is just wrong. By the way, blind eye is turned on big money building developers. Hence why flammable cladding has been used for years and many inner city apartments clearly fail to meet building regulations. But the little man gets his arse kicked. If a developer builds a three story McMansion next to your single-storey home, shadowing your solar panels or allowing people to perve into your backyard, you have no rights. However you can legally walk out in your backyard naked and not be fined.

But fining fools who make their home a fire trap where there is thick undergrowth all round in fire prone areas makes sense. The Fire authorities have warned tomorrow's fire risk to be "Catastrophic" in parts of Queensland, New South Wales, South Australia and north-west Victoria. We'll see what transpires. Hopefully it won't be a catastrophic day like Black Saturday and Ash Wednesday. And it is not even summer yet.

[Black Phoenix]

But fining fools who make their home a fire trap where there is thick undergrowth all round in fire prone areas makes sense. The Fire authorities have warned tomorrow's fire risk to be "Catastrophic" in parts of Queensland, New South Wales, South Australia and north-west Victoria. We'll see what transpires. Hopefully it won't be a catastrophic day like Black Saturday and Ash Wednesday. And it is not even summer yet.

Do you guys suffer from criminal arson? In Portugal is very common, unfortunately.

[VK3DRB]

But fining fools who make their home a fire trap where there is thick undergrowth all round in fire prone areas makes sense. The Fire authorities have warned tomorrow's fire risk to be "Catastrophic" in parts of Queensland, New South Wales, South Australia and north-west Victoria. We'll see what transpires. Hopefully it won't be a catastrophic day like Black Saturday and Ash Wednesday. And it is not even summer yet.

Do you guys suffer from criminal arson? In Portugal is very common, unfortunately.

Yes. https://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/video/11820099994/black-saturday-arsonist-jailed. 17 years in a taxpayer funded holiday camp is far too lenient for killing 10 people innocent people. A lot of bush fires are caused by arsonists, but another accidental cause is battery powered angle grinders. Another one is dry lightning strikes.  Cigarette butts are no longer a big issue, because few people smoke in Australia.

[Electro Detective]

It's shameful to think that perhaps Australia may be THE criminal arson capital of the world   

No matter what precautions in place, if the pricks are on a payed agenda for whatever the reason/s ( -enter your fav conspiracy theories here- )
or just plain fun seeking firetards,
they'll wait for the right hot dry day and wind conditions to do it. 

Arsonists, bus stop vandals and mindless graffiti assholes deserve a good phone book 2x4ing
followed by a tar, feather and paint spray go over
from their victims and dead victims relatives and friends

Let's see how quick they'll resume that stupid s*** again 

If you think that's a bit over the top,
it's still a better deal than what they'd get in some other countries 
that can't afford to tolerate such criminal BS that impacts their already struggling communities..


Too many aussies are still smoking btw, to their graves

If smokes were $1000 a box, they'd rob and or sell body parts (theirs last) to fill their lungs with tar and designer lab crap 'keep buying' chemicals

Sad creatures, I can't believe I too was taken in by it, for so long = 

Who knows how much great test gear I could have bought instead of playing along with the social choo choo train,
and most likely would have better quality non smoker friends too,
and lose those stenchy eye irritating ash tray aromas a lot earlier

Good riddance to bad rubbish 

[VK3DRB]

Just in... https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/arsonists-may-have-lit-strathallan-fires-60-000-without-power-20191121-p53cvm.html
Despite the arsonists, I still think lives would be saved if houses were engineered to withstand bush fires. For arsonists (and Gargasoulas) long sentences with hard labour needs to be reintroduced.

Good that you are no longer an addict. I know many engineers, technicians and programmers and not one of them smoke. Smokers are now considered losers. I enjoy witnessing French backpackers getting a shock here when they have to buy their smokes at $32 per pack and realising they are looked on as addicts rather than being cool.

[Sal Ammoniac]

One of the biggest causes of brush fires in my area (Northern California) is assholes who throw their burning cigarettes out the window of their cars when they're done smoking them. This is an arid area where it doesn't rain at all between April and November, and by summer the landscape is brown and crispy. This dried out grass and brush frequently extends right down to highways and roads so that it's easy for a burning cigarette thrown out of a car to start a fire.

It should be common sense not to throw burning cigarettes out of cars during fire season, but apparently it's not because a large number of fires start this way every year.

[andy3055]

You hit the nail on the head! I have seen this all over while driving.

[Electro Detective]

The only way to fix it is throw those smokers out of the moving car,
and butt their smouldering stink sticks in the vehicles ashtray.

Sell their car and proceeds handballed to legit charities catering to families hit hard by smoke and fire related illness/death

Too easy   

[VK3DRB]

The only way to fix it is throw those smokers out of the moving car,
and butt their smouldering stink sticks in the vehicles ashtray.

Sell their car and proceeds handballed to legit charities catering to families hit hard by smoke and fire related illness/death

Too easy   

I have a possible engineering solution, fitted to all cars.

If ((HUMIDITY_OUTSIDE < x) && (TEMPERATURE_OUTSIDE > y) && (CIGARETTE_SMOKE_DETECTED_INSIDE_CAR))
{
   SlowDownCar (Z);   // slow down gradually over Z seconds
   BringCarToHalt ();
   TransmitGpsLocationAndTime ();
   SetDashboardAlarm (DO_NOT_DISCARD_CIGARETTE_BUTT_OUTSIDE);
   WaitUntilSmokeIsCleared ();
}

This could work with modern telematics in cars. The smoke detector would need to discriminate between pollution or bush fire smoke, and just detect, for example nicotine in the smoke. If a fire starts, the authorities can quite often can pinpoint where it started from and when. If the location matches the GPS location, you've got the offender. I personally don't give a damn about the rights of smokers. Besides, smokers are already controlled by denying them the right to smoke in certain areas (workplaces inside and outside, airports, restaurants, public transport etc), so they should be used to it.

[NiHaoMike]

Just make smoking illegal.

[Halcyon]

Just make smoking illegal.

Perhaps not "illegal" but certainly increase taxation and deny free healthcare to those who choose to smoke. I get that quitting can be hard, but suck it up (so to speak).

It's a disgusting habit and thankfully in Australia it has become "unusual". The restrictions on where people can smoke are getting tighter, with Hobart becoming entirely smoke-free from April 2020 or risk a fine of $338.

[Electro Detective]

As a hard core ex-smoker (no thanks to advertisements during kids shows and teenage peertard pressure) I always still knew that everyones RIGHT TO BREATHE untainted air,
came way before suckers deluded selfish 'right to smoke',
so I chose when and where to do it that didn't impact others.

The 'smokers rights' attitude thing is one of the reasons I gave the s*** up, and even though occasionally a craving or two sneaks in    it's just not going to happen,
nor do I need some substitute product to cater for a fleeting moment of slack willpower.

i.e. weak willed inconsiderate smokers and cig companies can joyride on the helltrain for all I care, 
I blew enough cash and health points to earn the 'RIGHT' to say that. 


@ EEVblog puffers: lose the smokes, if only for the money saved,
and fwiw repairs and projects don't go smoother or solutions magically appear just because of you 'lighting one up' and thinking about it. A 'time out' on a task without a fag works just the same.

And, here's the cruncher: if the people around you don't respect your attempt/s to give up,
LOSE them too, that's what I had to do.

You can't 'give up' when weak willed Puffing Billy F heads keep offering you a bloody smoke every 10 minutes..   

[SL4P]

Good engineering in this case would involve locking pollies out of their offices... or better still into a porta-loo on the back of a tuck!

[David Hess]

Steel is fireproof.

My experience in the US is that small steel buildings used in place of timber construction are more susceptible to fire damage and insurance is higher on steel buildings for this reason.  Timber has to burn through before failure but steel loses strength and bends.

A mate got a few pallet loads of pavers delivered on the nature strip (a small council-owned strip of land between the kerb and your own block of land), as he was going to pave his driveway. Within hours of the delivery, a council officer showed up threatening to fine him $200 if he does not move all of them onto his own property within exactly one hour. In reply, my mate said he is not going to mow the council's nature strip, to which the reply was that they will fine him if it is not mowed regularly, and they will be watching him. Councils budget for fines revenue which, IMO, is morally wrong, as it is effectively admitting to running an organised scam.

I am all for laws that make people safe (like fire codes, road laws etc), but fining people just to extort money, as per the paver incident, or charging for tree removal permits and fining them if they remove a tree without a permit is just wrong. By the way, blind eye is turned on big money building developers. Hence why flammable cladding has been used for years and many inner city apartments clearly fail to meet building regulations. But the little man gets his arse kicked. If a developer builds a three story McMansion next to your single-storey home, shadowing your solar panels or allowing people to perve into your backyard, you have no rights. However you can legally walk out in your backyard naked and not be fined.

Where I am a permit is required for any sized concrete pad.  This has nothing to do with safety and is for tax assessment purposes; they need to know what you have for property taxes.

So when I extended my patio, I did it with paving stones which require no permit.  Under the paving stones is several inches of concrete.