An article in today's SMH bothers me.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/think-before-you-hunker-in-a-bunker-say-experts-20090215-887r.html?page=-1

The general tenor seems to be against the idea of building fire-proof bunkers for use during bush fires, in favour of increased hardening of houses.

The lesson that does not seem to have been learned by these so called experts is that some fires are so severe that there's no way that a house can be defended. Choosing hardening over bunkers is actually choosing property over lives.

A house is an asset. It costs money, and it can be replaced. To a point, it makes sense to spend money on protecting it against damage. But only to a point. Yet there seems to be a wide reluctance to accept the idea that in a severe fire, one should simply let the house burn, and spend any extra money on making sure that the occupants survive.

The article talks about smoke getting into bunkers. Well it may do. But a supply of compressed air and masks with which to use it would deal with that.

If I were intending to live in an area where I could be trapped by a bush fire, I'd build myself a bunker, and equip it properly. The house would have basic protection against things like ember attack, and it would be insured. If it burns, then it burns.

Sylvia.

Sylvia
I am bothered that no one has yet spotted the coming gotcha.
I have noticed that insurance companies are slowly eliminating their (exposure) to flood. Some areas even central city areas can’t get flood insurance and if they can it is at a huge premium. That’s business. I’ve go it but I live 200 ft above sea level and 150 feet above the nearest water course
Well, how long you feel it will take these insurance companies to the same with Bush fire cover? Especially with the Global warming on the horizon.

I’m prepared to give odds that recommendations of the commission will be on the next policy renewal with an increase especially for those in ‘fire prone areas’.

The other gotcha that unless mandated will be those who can’t afford or choose other priorities over insurance will be more motivated to defend (and probably die for) the home.

Therefore, I see some value for a bunker with a near air tight inward opening door and perhaps an air lock. To minimize smoke, O2 depletion due to the effects of a fire storm for the nasty surprises. But I still maintain leaving earlier as a better idea.

Better again would be a cultural change in the style of house we build. Currently if you have a view then you build to incorporate ease of viewing it Big picture windows raised wooden deck verandas etc (all of which makes the house more vulnerable to bush fires). Technologies/ techniques exist now to virtually fire proof a well maintained home.
But we insist on building flamboyant and un-defendable homes for vanity sake.
We have a culture of more and scream and sacrifice non vanity items like insurance/survival items in favour of luxuries.
Many want a lifestyle but want someone else to pay for the infrastructure including their safety as a right.
In truth there are many people who just can’t “afford” ($ and risk) to live in or near the bush.
Freedom of choice is one thing but when it endangers others?
Laws are comming. Commen

My sister and brother in law owned a house in the Blue Mountains right in the bush at Yellow Rock. From the upper deck you could reach the limbs of trees that hung over it. They had a 25,000 gallon tank installed with pomp to spray over the roof and walls to reduce threat of becoming flamable.

It seems odd that insurers are refusing to insure against flood. After all, insuring against risk is what insurers do.

That said, the essence of insurance is sharing the risk of some adverse event with other people who face a similar level of risk. This works provided one doesn't expect pretty much all of those people to experience a realisation of the risk in a relatively short time - say a decade or two. In some areas, insurers may have concluded that the risk is higher than they previously thought, or has become higher, and that it's no longer possible to share the risk, because there's no one to share it with.

I suppose the same view might come to be taken of bush-fire prone areas, though the reality is that around a 1000 homes have been destroyed, which is only a small proportion of the total at risk, over a long period. Refusing to insure against bush-fires in those areas would make commercial sense only if it's perceived that bush-fires have recently become so much more likely that a significant proportion of the at risk houses will be burnt down over the next decade or so.

On the subject of getting out in the face of a bush-fire, rather than staying, I would generally agree. Some might like to stay and defend, but if they're going to do that they need a fall-back option.

But I noted that some of the people who survived, but nearly died, (and therefore probably also some who died) in the recent event, were caught up in the bush fire so quickly that leaving was never an option, unless they'd simply vacated at the beginning of the bush fire season.

So even with a bail-out and let it burn philosophy, I'd still want a bunker in such areas.

On the subject of changing the way houses are built. I suppose it would be possible to build houses that can withstand a fire storm. But at what cost? Beyond a certain point it's cheaper to let houses burn down and build them again when necessary.

Where do you get your FACTS examinator?

Suncorp are advertising right now, that they are now including flood cover automatically, in all their policies.

It is a sore point with me, as they are using this flood cover to justify a 26% increase in the cost of my policy.

As my place is flood proof, & I have not made a claim in the 17 years I've had it, I am more than a little annoyed at this.

Fortunately, I also made my place as fire proof as reasonably possible, before the cuttent fashion of public servants granting them selves the right to tell us what we may do with our properties.

Hasbeen,
If you live in the flood plane of Brisbane check your contents policy.
My aunt and mum just renewed both their insurance covers and have had terminology change. Storm water (as in drain etc) yes, but it was cover forn excluding floods (rivers,dam overflows etc). I checked on their behalfand it was confirmed.
Flood cover is offered by some companies as ‘an included’ selectively to those areas that are unlikely to ever need it. It’s all marketing selling the sizzle not the steak.

Sylvia,
Insurance companies are businesses each item would be like a mini cost centre if it cost more than it gains, they either up the price if it’s strategic or dump it. Spreading the load is how THEY pay for their losses (payouts). The rest is marketing spin.
Add the floods in Nth Queensland etc (barely touched on OLO) will also cost insurance companies a bomb. The media hasn’t focused on that simply because fire is more spectacular and the flooding has been a reality for weeks if not months

More importantly these will spook the re-insurers (spreading the risk) and those who invest in insurance companies. This will lead to the insurance companies having to pay more hence fees go up. Then they always recoup. Watch the fees it will be depressing reading.

Sooner or later if your bush home doesn’t have……you won’t get insurance period.

On available technology etc you proved my point people want a life style benefits but not the responsibility.
See my posts on related topics for a small list of examples of the curmudgeonary attitudes of most people when it comes to things like community safety and fire dangers.

When the SA govt brought in the fire safety building requirement you should have seen the nature of the complaints! Talk about recalcitrant! Most bordered on the wilfully inane and negligent.
Like I said we need a culture change

*Beyond a certain point it's cheaper to let houses burn down and build them again when necessary.*

Well yup, if you get somebody else to pay for it through
insurance. Clearly you are not keen to pay for it yourself.

As is being pointed out and is happening in places like America,
insurance companies become wise to this after a while and
will either refuse to insure you, or charge you a fortune and
on their terms.

A friend of mine owns some oldish homes in the NE US and every
year she battles to find any insurance company which actually
wants her business. They then send an inspector in and if
his list of repairs are not done, forget it, no insurance.

I think we can learn a great deal from these fires, about which
houses survived and why. Those who are prepared to implement those
kinds of buidling improvements should clearly not have to
subsidise those who can't be bothered, with higher insurance
premiums.

At the end of the day, insurers won't wear the losses, they will
pass them back to those taking out insurance.

A number of approaches are probably needed.

Not only the idea of protection via bunkers and the like, but about building houses that are less susceptible to ember flare and in bush areas looking at clearing trees directly near the house. Some have even suggested fire breaks at appropriate areas to prevent the spread of fires that move at an unbelievably fast rate.

On Canberra's Stateline this Friday there is a report about one fire victim who rebuilt his home to be as fire resistant as possible. From what was already reported the home has no open guttering or areas that can trap embers and the external walls are metal. There is a roof sprinkler system and a bunker/cellar built beneath.

The ferocity of a bushfire is unbelievable. From just one suburb away we stood on our front porch and the wind and heat was intense, our cheeks were burnt as flaming embers swept through the suburbs while we attempted to keep water on the roof of the house and clear the gutters. The streets near us were evacuated and the neighbours fence caught fire but was quickly dowsed by water from a neighbouring pool. The neighbour across the road found some burnt leaves in her gutters after the fire which demonstrates just how far an ember can travel.

I can only imagine the impact in a predominantly forested area.

Yabby,

The issue is whether it's worth paying the costs of hardening when that cost exceeds the true value of the reduction in risk. Essentially, at that point it's cheaper to spend money on rebuilding houses when they burn down that to spend it trying to prevent the loss.

The particular danger is that the 'experts' will push for hardening in excess of that which is economically rational on the basis that it will save lives, even though no practical level of hardening will prevent houses being destroyed in a fire storm. To my mind, that is conflating too separate issues - one being the preservation of property, and the other being the preservation of life, with the latter being better served by fire-proof bunkers than hardening.

Insurance comes into this equation only as a way of transferring money, from those who would otherwise spend it inefficiently on hardening, to those particular individuals whose houses actually burn down.

Certainly premiums should reflect the risk, and I have no issue with people with unhardened houses paying higher premiums, but the higher premium approach is the rational one for the insurers to pursue, rather than simply refusing to insure.

The real problem may not be that insurers cannot handle the risk, but the chance of an individual event exceeding their ability to pay would bankrupt them. If this is the problem, then the government should step in, because excessive hardening is economically wasteful, and should be discouraged, not encouraged.

It's like armour plating the exterior of your house, and employing armed guards, as a protection against burglars. Effective, perhaps, but hardly cost effective.

Sylvia.

*but the higher premium approach is the rational one for the insurers to pursue, rather than simply refusing to insure.*

It is of course perfectly rational for some insurers to conclude
that some houses are simply too risky to insure, so refuse to
do business with a person. That should be their choice.

People act based on self interest. Some will conclude that all
they have to do is pay their insurance premium, somebody else
will pay, if their house burns down.

Sometimes fairly cheap solutions, can make a huge amount of
difference, but if insurance pays it all, people won't bother.

A friend of mine bought a home in the hills of Perth, a
Kentucky log cabin, surrounded by gum trees, on a few acres.

When I first saw the place I coughed a bit :), having been
through some fires I suggested that he remove those trees
close by, or plant deciduous trees, for they actually filter
embers, unlike gum trees, which soon catch alight and fire
the flames.

Next I suggested that he put a sprinkler system on his house
and walls, drawing water from the swimming pool which was right
there. Best to use a small diesel pump, petrol pumps can stop
in the heat and of course the power could be out.

He kept the litter on his few acres to a minimum, he could
well have survived a fire, without bankrupting his piggy bank.

Hopefully insurers will evaluate these things and reward
people who have made an effort to minimise risk. Those who
simply rely on insurers as a solution, well its only fair
enough that they pay through the nose, but of course there
will no doubt be loud complaints.