Help protect children from gaming harms.

Take our survey

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

AIBU to think the wildfire alert about barbecues was unnecessary?

379 replies

HollyhockDayssss · 14/08/2026 19:55

Oh My God Reaction GIF

AIBU to think the alert was unnecessary? I get wildfires are an issue but informing the public not to use bbqs isnt a life and death situation.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
7
ifonlytheydlisten · 15/08/2026 00:11

One alert every 6 months and people are up in arms. Bonkers

JassyRadlett · 15/08/2026 00:14

AmnesiacsDream · 14/08/2026 23:57

There is plenty of research to suggest that every alert increases the number of people who opt out and alerts that are sent to significant numbers of people for whom it isn't particularly relevant (as happened today) increase that number substantially. We'll get to see in a couple of days just how high the spike on searches for turning off the alerts is, which should give some indication of whether it will contribute to system fatigue.

Can you share your sources? The evidence for the UK that I'm aware of is pretty thin as the full national system has been used fairly sparingly. After the national test from memory there was around a 3% opt out rate.

It's an argument for using the system sparingly, certainly, to avoid alert fatigue.

And I'd strongly disagree on the relevance point - given the conditions (and the complacency shown even on this thread) it's a message that is relevant to huge numbers of people nationwide.

JassyRadlett · 15/08/2026 00:20

ThisBrickPombear · 14/08/2026 23:53

Absolutely ridiculous- these alerts should be reserved for imminent threat to life: earthquakes, air raids, nuclear threats, hurricanes, bomb threats etc - NOT as a reminder not to have a BBQ!

the real danger is if the government keep on sending these out for everything all they’ll do is teach everyone to ignore it.

When you intentionally have to leave "widespread fire" out of your list of known dangers to life while listing others it undermines you a bit.

This isn't actually about barbecues. It's about idiots who are either too thick or too professionally contrarian to respect nature.

dhillan · 15/08/2026 00:44

PickAChew · 15/08/2026 00:10

Do you have a link to any of that research?

Of course not!

AmnesiacsDream · 15/08/2026 02:25

dhillan · 15/08/2026 00:44

Of course not!

You'd only think that if you were ignorant on the subject and hadn't bothered to even look, because there's a lot out there. The US and Australia in particular have been using these systems for a while and have been concerned about how fatigue, people officially opting out, or just ignoring the warnings when they come through.

Here are a few papers and articles (there's plenty more if you are actually interested):

https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5973.70076
https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA2451-1.html
http://dx.doi.org/10.26021/4033
https://doi.org/10.1175/WCAS-D-18-0080.1
https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5973.12278
https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720816672117

Valeriekat · 15/08/2026 02:57

AplineDaisies · 14/08/2026 19:57

The government do not do these for no reason at all.

You sure?

placemats · 15/08/2026 03:16

Katypp · 14/08/2026 21:54

You are other pps accusing posters of ignoring how dangerous wldfires are are missing the point somewhat.
I don't think anyone has said wildfires are not a matter of life or death, have they?
Pps are saying that the alarm warning system was set up to alert people of imminent danger, not to warn them not to do something that MAY cause danger.
As pps have said, why was there no warning to avoid looking directly at the eclipse or to remember to wear sunscreen?
The warning system was not set up to tell people how to behave. It was set up to warn people of imminent danger.
On that basis, it should not have been used tonight.

Thank goodness you're not in charge of running the country.

AmnesiacsDream · 15/08/2026 03:23

JassyRadlett · 15/08/2026 00:20

When you intentionally have to leave "widespread fire" out of your list of known dangers to life while listing others it undermines you a bit.

This isn't actually about barbecues. It's about idiots who are either too thick or too professionally contrarian to respect nature.

If it's about people who are professionally contrarian, sending out an official direction not to do something would be counter productive, wouldn't it?

JassyRadlett · 15/08/2026 03:58

AmnesiacsDream · 15/08/2026 03:23

If it's about people who are professionally contrarian, sending out an official direction not to do something would be counter productive, wouldn't it?

Good to tackle at least one group of dickheads, though, right, even though the others are going to continue their twattery?

And peer/family pressure on the second group - for example, by declining to participate in stupidly unsafe activities - can also have an impact.

Sagealicious · 15/08/2026 05:01

AmnesiacsDream · 15/08/2026 02:25

You'd only think that if you were ignorant on the subject and hadn't bothered to even look, because there's a lot out there. The US and Australia in particular have been using these systems for a while and have been concerned about how fatigue, people officially opting out, or just ignoring the warnings when they come through.

Here are a few papers and articles (there's plenty more if you are actually interested):

https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5973.70076
https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA2451-1.html
http://dx.doi.org/10.26021/4033
https://doi.org/10.1175/WCAS-D-18-0080.1
https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5973.12278
https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720816672117

Yeah these kind of bans are completely normal for us in Australia. We don't think twice about it because as a nation we know what can and does happen when you don't listen to certain warnings. Maybe if you're not used to it and if it's new to you it might seem like a bit of an overreach but one day the time may come when you'll be grateful that such bans exist during fires. Many Australians will attest to that.

JMSA · 15/08/2026 05:07

YABVU.

OneAquaFatball · 15/08/2026 05:11

Best get used to it. As the risk rises you’ll likely see a marked increase in them like we in other places who have experienced this more commonly over summer do, since you can’t legislate for public stupidity in these situations sadly.

When they’re a bit more normalised we probably won’t see this remarkable depth and breadth of discussion over them which will be good. Six or so threads I’ve counted today. bizarre!

Andimpleased · 15/08/2026 06:00

I knew this message would excite and / or anger some mumsnetters.

AmnesiacsDream · 15/08/2026 06:48

JassyRadlett · 15/08/2026 03:58

Good to tackle at least one group of dickheads, though, right, even though the others are going to continue their twattery?

And peer/family pressure on the second group - for example, by declining to participate in stupidly unsafe activities - can also have an impact.

Would be good if it didn't come with a side effective of making the alert system less effective, yes.

AmnesiacsDream · 15/08/2026 06:54

Sagealicious · 15/08/2026 05:01

Yeah these kind of bans are completely normal for us in Australia. We don't think twice about it because as a nation we know what can and does happen when you don't listen to certain warnings. Maybe if you're not used to it and if it's new to you it might seem like a bit of an overreach but one day the time may come when you'll be grateful that such bans exist during fires. Many Australians will attest to that.

You might not think twice about them but alert fatigue has been a critical consideration in the design of the new AusAlert system.

Sagealicious · 15/08/2026 07:03

AmnesiacsDream · 15/08/2026 06:54

You might not think twice about them but alert fatigue has been a critical consideration in the design of the new AusAlert system.

True. it's definitely something that needs to be considered.

Yesitisnotthatitbe · 15/08/2026 07:45

Of course it was unnecessary. We watch the news. Also, it's the over reach some of us predicted when they introduced it. It's supposed to be for an imminent emergency for the people at risk, not just general nanny state "advice".
What next? Alarms every time you order a takeaway as you're at danger of putting on weight

Yesitisnotthatitbe · 15/08/2026 07:50

Sherararara · 14/08/2026 20:52

No. Using a national emergency alert system to send a message such as this is incompetent. It’s an important message but one that can be disseminated on other channels. The alert system should be kept for significant and immediate threats only. If it starts getting used regularly for things like this it will become an annoyance people will just start to ignore it and it will lose its impact when it is most needed.

This is so blindingly obvious but not to everybody it seems

JassyRadlett · 15/08/2026 08:01

AmnesiacsDream · 15/08/2026 06:48

Would be good if it didn't come with a side effective of making the alert system less effective, yes.

None of the studies you shared dispute that sparing and proportionate use of push alert systems lead to mass switch-off.

The volumes here are nothing like in some US states where there are a huge range of push and other alerts at multiple levels of government.

AmnesiacsDream · 15/08/2026 08:45

JassyRadlett · 15/08/2026 08:01

None of the studies you shared dispute that sparing and proportionate use of push alert systems lead to mass switch-off.

The volumes here are nothing like in some US states where there are a huge range of push and other alerts at multiple levels of government.

Why would they? I didn't claim that that was what was happening.

scalt · 15/08/2026 08:55

MrsOni · 14/08/2026 21:53

This is an argument that would make sense if this was the 50th alert this month. It's the first in 6 months.

Get a grip.

Who wants a bet that the next alert giving general advice which we know already will be less than six months from now? Then five months, then four, etc? I do foresee these being used more and more often, for non-emergencies.

Andimpleased · 15/08/2026 09:18

scalt · 15/08/2026 08:55

Who wants a bet that the next alert giving general advice which we know already will be less than six months from now? Then five months, then four, etc? I do foresee these being used more and more often, for non-emergencies.

I hope not.

Mainly because of all the Mumsnet threads from over excitable Ops that will follow

Error404FucksNotFound · 15/08/2026 09:18

Maybe if people werent as thick as pigshit the government wouldn't have to use the alert system to state the blindingly obvious.

Andimpleased · 15/08/2026 09:20

The government have to pitch communication to the lowest common denominator
I don’t have a problem with it
mind you, there’s a heap of stuff that seem to rile to many on Mumsnet that I don’t give a second’s though

OneStarAwake · 15/08/2026 09:20

Error404FucksNotFound · 15/08/2026 09:18

Maybe if people werent as thick as pigshit the government wouldn't have to use the alert system to state the blindingly obvious.

Exactly.

Swipe left for the next trending thread