- Apr 5, 2008
ThreeName said:If someone gets hit by a runaway truck, you don't go "Well they shouldn't have left their house or been within 10 meters of a road because that sort of thing is possible, because it's a road!"
Phrozenflame500 said:Yeah, exactly, they all chose specifically to live near flood prone areas.
Just like all those silly people who choose to live in war-torn poor countries instead of moving the the first-world.
I don't know if you all missed my original post, but either way you're missing the point I was making. I'm not talking about unforeseen disasters, such as the one currently affecting Somerset. The current flooding there is, from my understanding, due to three main factors: unpredictably high rainfall is the obvious one, combined with a shifting landscape (which has seen neighbouring farmlands turned into (non-absorbent) housing or modernised, lacking adequate flood defences) and a cost-cutting measure by local governments who ceased river dredging some years ago.DoPo said:So-o-o...flood victims were asking for it, right? And look at how the victims of earthquakes were dressed and how they act. Appalling! They totally deserve having bad shit happen to them - they have nobody to blame but themselves.
The point I am making is with regard to foreseeable disasters. No one who lives in Florida for example could possibly be unaware that the state is a regular target for hurricanes. Each Floridian aware of this therefore chooses to risk the hurricanes for the otherwise nice place to live. Should the government in this instance, spend millions of American tax dollars to subsidise insurance for homes destroyed in an area known to be at such high risk? Should those homes not have been built to sufficiently high standard to withstand the inevitable punishment they'll face?
As I mentioned previously, there are currently homes being built on high-risk floodplains in the UK, in full knowledge of the local councils and developers, against the advice of the experts. I think it's completely irresponsible and don't like the idea that tax money will end up going to aid in a problem that we know, from now, will happen. I'm adding to that all foreseeable disasters, like flooding in Louisiana, earthquakes in Frisco, etc. where the victims were not prepared and in full knowledge of potential issues. Speaking of which...
I agree entirely about where the blame there should lie, though in the case of Katrina it was a very special case, albeit one which, again, comes back to the idiot planners. The problems Nawlins had with Katrina were, as I understand them:skywolfblue said:We can and SHOULD blame the city planners when they build in an area like:
1) New Orleans without the ability to withstand a Cat 5 hurricane that was assured to hit there sooner or later. Look at Holland, they've got safeguards out the wazzoo, New Orleans has zippo, crossed it's fingers and "hoped" Katrina would never come.
- Despite warnings, city planners failed to either make or stick to evacuation plans, in particular for the most vulnerable. The fact is many people did get to safety and the ones who didn't only didn't because they couldn't, either lacking the means or ability.
- New Orleans has two defences against flooding, the levees and the pump system. The levees failed, some within their supposed ability to cope and that failure led to the submerging of pumping stations. Those pumps then failed, either through neglect or loss of power and the two failures combined to leave 3/4 of the city underwater.
It seems like a case of not being prepared enough in spite of warnings, and blame almost certainly lies with those responsible for planning against emergencies and those who built and (failed to) maintain the defences. You even point out the Dutch as an example and I agree that that's an excellent example. Considering the Netherlands is almost entirely below sea level, they take the battle against flooding seriously and their track record to date is exemplary.