Comment by kappuchino | Hacker News Reader

Comment by kappuchino | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I'm only commenting on this passage: >> the emergency sirens weren't used because "they aren't for this function" and now we have ...

I think the sirens were a good call and a bad example of what you want to state.

Becuase it is established that people (would) associate the sirens with a tusnami warning. Their anticipated action would under this assumption to seek higher ground. Where the fire was. (See for yourself: https://old.reddit.com/r/therewasanattempt/comments/15vfw26/...)

I'm from germany and here sirens here have been assigned with the "turn the fucking radio on NOW" behaviour. In my city there is a siren drill every other month to get you aware, my city only skipped it out of sensibility one time for the ukranian refugees directly after the war to give them some peace.

For more emergent situations we have Emergency Apps like "Nina" and "KatWarn" + Mobile Push Systems to alert you precisely about the kind of emergency/danger you are facing. My city for example has a WW2 Bomb found every other week, meaning thousands of people get evacuated for a time and need get informed.

> turn the fucking radio on NOW

is it common to still have a radio? or where do you go instead now?

I should add a crank radio to my go bag…

Wouldn't they likely have seen the smoke instead of hanging out in there houses until it was too late to leave. People that are out and moving can choose to move in the right direction but people who are stationary are just waiting to die from a crisis they don't understand is happening. I think it was the wrong call.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37230146

We have a commenter here who lived on Maui who says that the behavior on hearing the siren is hard coded, not something people second guess. If you hesitate when there's a tsunami, you die.

Personally, I'm not qualified to have an opinion on this, not living on Maui, so I'll defer to the locals rather than the armchair emergency response managers.

By the time you can see the slightly denser smoke, you're stuck in traffic headed towards the fire, no?

This also sounds like suggestions made by people that have never been to the specific area being discussed, and assuming things based on experience where they are located.

The roads in Hawaii are not high speed in any sense of the word. It took me a couple of hours to get from Lahaina to the airport on the one trip I have taken there. This is typical, as the group I was was with were regulars there and knew to leave hours in advance. The roads are 2 lanes with one in either direction. One of the streets was so close to the ocean, the larger waves were lapping onto the street. Even during that trip, I was thinking to myself that this is not a place I would want to be trying to a make an emergency trip by car.

In the absence of outside input the people who decided to move almost all lived because collectively they all decided to go somewhere not full of fire. People that drove a mile in the wrong direction are still already in a car moving and able to change direction and cover substantial ground quickly. The same person who waited half an hour doing nothing is already fire adjacent and the roads just can't possible handle the thoughtput of getting everyone out simultaneously in the 3 minutes between now and when your kids are cinders whereas the roads could have handled it over the half an hour they sat on their hands.

> In the absence of outside input [...] People that drove a mile in the wrong direction are still already in a car moving and able to change direction and cover substantial ground quickly.

In the absence of outside input, driving can just as easily be more dangerous than staying where you are.

I'll quote this from the Wikipedia article of the June 2017 wildfires in Portugal:

> The majority of deaths took place in the Pedrógão Grande municipality, when a fire swept across a road filled with evacuees escaping in their cars.

> 47 people died in or near their cars when a fire overtook the area; 30 people died while trapped in their vehicles while the other 17 died nearby trying to escape on foot.

It is suspected that they could have died from smoke inhalation rather than from the subsequent burn. But it is clear that many, if not all of them, could have survived if they hadn't tried to escape by car, because those who didn't try to escape did survive, and many of the houses were actually unaffected.

But yes, it could have easily been the opposite, as it happened in the same wildfire on another municipality.

And I would say it's quite possible that, in the absence of outside input, trying to escape by car could give you the greatest chances of surviving in most circumstances. But I'm not an expert so I really can't say that for sure.

And I'm sure it would also depend on the geography, the roads, and where the fire is.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com