[LINK] No cash for phone alert system

[Ivan Trundle]

On 17/02/2009, at 8:24 AM, Richard Chirgwin wrote:

> I am seriously concerned that a focus on city technologies would only
> enable more effective rubber-necking from a safe distance, without
> changing anything for those in the fire path.

You've hit the nail on the head there, Richard.

Checking Google etc relies on the internet (technology) being front- 
and-centre, accessible, and a priority during an emergency (i.e.  
totally ludicrous).

Further, mobile phones are nowhere near as ubiquitous or far-reaching  
as we would like to think: as others have pointed out, there are  
severe limitations in attempting to deliver technology-driven  
'solutions' in times of crisis, and perhaps the only real advantage is  
that armchair rubber-neckers can see what is happening from afar. Even  
landlines fail in areas under fire (along with electricity). And just  
because a mobile network might be operating does not guarantee that  
people will access it (from personal experience, mobile phones are the  
last thing on your mind when trying to save lives and property).

As for finding a suitable evacuation path: this is again city-slicker  
nonsense: I have lived in numerous places where there is simply no  
choice in evacuation paths - unlike a suburban environment (which,  
incidentally, was no help for many in the Canberra bushfires: too many  
paths were blocked without warning). The recent fires demonstrate  
clearly that jumping into a car to escape a fire is not without its  
risks.

On the other hand, delivering information to rubber-neckers might help  
promote the recovery process (donations etc), so I'm all for it. Not  
that it will help those directly dealing with an emergency, however...

iT