Professor Handmer delivered his report to the Commission in April 2010. In the report and in subsequent oral examination, he noted, among other things, the following in relation to those who perished:
?
Fifty-eight per cent had made no preparations either for staying and defending or for leaving early. A number were prepared to leave but were apparently awaiting a warning.2
? Twenty per cent intended to stay and defend and were well prepared; another 14 per cent had made some limited preparations.3
?
The fire took by surprise 30 per cent of those who died.4
?
Twenty-four per cent seemed unaware that they were in a bushfire risk area, and 38 per cent did not seem to have a basic knowledge of what precautions needed to be taken to give themselves some degree of protection.5
? Fourteen per cent were fleeing the fire at the time of their death; of these, 4 per cent were fleeing in a vehicle and the remaining 10 per cent were on foot, although a number had fled their vehicles while trying to leave the area.6
? Sixty-nine per cent were classed as ?passively sheltering? inside a house or other building at the time of their death?as opposed to ?actively defending??although some of these people might have retreated inside (having tried to defend) when the fire front arrived.7
? Forty-four per cent were classed as ?vulnerable? because they were aged less than 12 years old or more than 70 years or because they were suffering from an acute or chronic illness or disability.8
?
Thirty-two per cent lost their lives on properties whose defendability was questionable.9
Professor Handmer said the material he analysed contained ?unprecedented detail on the circumstances surrounding each fatality? because it allowed him to 'see what people intended to do and what they did in addition to what the final situation was?.10
He offered three principal interpretations of the data:
? The ?prepare, stay and defend or leave early? policy appears 'sound on paper? but ?implementation presents major challenges?.
? Over half of those who died believed that by staying to defend their properties, they were 'taking effective action in terms of their safety?.
? Most of those who died 'did not, and often could not, respond appropriately to the risk that the bushfires presented for them on 7 February?.11
Bookmarks