BMW Driver Blocks Hydrant.....7 Alarm Fire Breaks Out

[Lonyo]

...the article says they couldn't bend a 4" line, but that's exactly what they did trying to get it though the car. It would have been 10 times less bent if they used the side port and went around the car.

Looks a lot more like they were trying to ruin the guys day than fix the problem in the most expeditious and reliable manner.

Looks like the guy was trying to ruin someone else's day by preventing their house being saved by parking in a dumb place.
Maybe he should have parked somewhere and used a side parking spot and gone past the hydrant.

 

[OILFIELDTRASH]

...the article says they couldn't bend a 4" line, but that's exactly what they did trying to get it though the car. It would have been 10 times less bent if they used the side port and went around the car.

Looks a lot more like they were trying to ruin the guys day than fix the problem in the most expeditious and reliable manner.

Yes because they should work around his illegally parked car while a building with people in it is burning down. Or they could punch his windows out and get er done. Glad they choose the latter.

 

[The Boston Dangler]

typical east boston scumbag. i'm surprised it didn't have bogus handicapped placards.

 

[drinkmorejava]

That's what he gets for breaking the law.

Not saying he didn't deserve it, but the penalty for parking in front of a fire hydrant is $100, not $5k of extra-judicial punishment. The damage was completely unnecessary and it's going to result in a lawsuit that the city will either lose or spend lots of taxpayer money to fight.

 

[Capt Caveman]

Not saying he didn't deserve it, but the penalty for parking in front of a fire hydrant is $100, not $5k of extra-judicial punishment. The damage was completely unnecessary and it's going to result in a lawsuit that the city will either lose or spend lots of taxpayer money to fight.

:biggrin:

 

[drinkmorejava]

Yes because they should work around his illegally parked car while a building with people in it is burning down. Or they could punch his windows out and get er done. Glad they choose the latter.

Did you read what I wrote? I'm arguing that it would have been easier and better for the hose to go around the car. It doesn't help their case that the hose immediately turns to go behind the car in the pictures. Furthermore, the argument could be made that it would have been faster to go around the car, so they wasted time messing around with someone's car instead of fighting the fire.

 

[Flammable]

Did you read what I wrote? I'm arguing that it would have been easier and better for the hose to go around the car. It doesn't help their case that the hose immediately turns to go behind the car in the pictures. Furthermore, the argument could be made that it would have been faster to go around the car, so they wasted time messing around with someone's car instead of fighting the fire.

I don't think you've ever seen a fire hose straighten out when connected to a hydrant or even an engine

 

[OILFIELDTRASH]

Did you read what I wrote?. I'm arguing that it would have been easier and better for the hose to go around the car. It doesn't help their case that the hose immediately turns to go behind the car in the pictures. Furthermore, the argument could be made that it would have been faster to go around the car, so they wasted time messing around with someone's car instead of fighting the fire.

Did you not read the article? They said the less bends the better. Well obviously the water making a 90 immediately at the fire hydrant would count as an extreme bend wouldn't it? If that loss of pressure is the difference between saving the building or people is the douche going to cover those costs?

 

[MotionMan]

I knew I had seen this somewhere before:

Backdraft (1991)

MotionMan

 

[Bryf50]

Did you read what I wrote? I'm arguing that it would have been easier and better for the hose to go around the car. It doesn't help their case that the hose immediately turns to go behind the car in the pictures. Furthermore, the argument could be made that it would have been faster to go around the car, so they wasted time messing around with someone's car instead of fighting the fire.

Someone posted a bunch of pictures of similar scenes in the reddit thread. It looks like busting the windows to run the hose through is standard procedure in this situation. The turn that would be required to go immediately around the car would be way tighter than what we see in the picture.

 

[FleshLight]

Did you read what I wrote? I'm arguing that it would have been easier and better for the hose to go around the car. It doesn't help their case that the hose immediately turns to go behind the car in the pictures. Furthermore, the argument could be made that it would have been faster to go around the car, so they wasted time messing around with someone's car instead of fighting the fire.

You need to retake hydraulics 101

 

[Lean L]

Did you not read the article? They said the less bends the better. Well obviously the water making a 90 immediately at the fire hydrant would count as an extreme bend wouldn't it? If that loss of pressure is the difference between saving the building or people is the douche going to cover those costs?

To be fair he did say connect to the side of the hydrant.

I'm curious as well. It looks like it could have just gone over the car almost as easily with the same amount of time. It's damaging the car either way though. You can expect the hose to flex the roof if they went over.

 

[drinkmorejava]

Did you not read the article? They said the less bends the better. Well obviously the water making a 90 immediately at the fire hydrant would count as an extreme bend wouldn't it? If that loss of pressure is the difference between saving the building or people is the douche going to cover those costs?

They said "You can’t really bend a charged 4-inch feed line. Straight and a slight bend is about as good as you can do."

This makes me think it's about what's better for the hose, not that the splitter has some noticeable head loss if they use the side ports.

 

[Attic]

and good times were had by all.

 

[NetWareHead]

I don't think you've ever seen a fire hose straighten out when connected to a hydrant or even an engine

and

You need to retake hydraulics 101

Go home man...the hose had to be run through the car and not around it.

 

[smackababy]

They said "You can’t really bend a charged 4-inch feed line. Straight and a slight bend is about as good as you can do."

This makes me think it's about what's better for the hose, not that the splitter has some noticeable head loss if they use the side ports.

Except, that isn't the case. The hose becomes pressurized and is basically not able to bend more than a bit. Had they used a side port, it would have required a 90 degree bend, which isn't happening. Have you ever used a firehose or been around one? I am going to say no, simply based on your response. Even the bend to get above the car would have been incredibly difficult. There is a reason it is against the law to park in front of a fire hydrant. It hinders firemen from performing life and property saving actions.

 

[drinkmorejava]

Do you think they're bending the hose when they use the side port or are you saying the pressure loss is too great to use a side port coming out of the splitter?

If they absolutely had to use the front port then going through the car was the only option. However, no one has given a reason why they couldn't use one of the 4" side ports. This would have put the hose much more in the direction where it had to go.

 

[smackababy]

The pressure in the feet directly coming out does not allow for the bends they'd need to get past the car legally parked away from the hydrant with ease. They couldn't bend the hose to get it into the street. The car was parked in a place supposed to be unobstructed to allow the proper distance to get enough hose to turn. The only reason it works when going through a car is because the first sharp 90 degree turn upwards is "helped" by the car's side and the second 90 degree is helped by the car's roof. Without either, they are not getting the hose to bend.

 

[Ns1]

Not saying he didn't deserve it, but the penalty for parking in front of a fire hydrant is $100, not $5k of extra-judicial punishment. The damage was completely unnecessary and it's going to result in a lawsuit that the city will either lose or spend lots of taxpayer money to fight.

drink more java bro.

 

[drinkmorejava]

The pressure in the feet directly coming out does not allow for the bends they'd need to get past the car legally parked away from the hydrant with ease. They couldn't bend the hose to get it into the street. The car was parked in a place supposed to be unobstructed to allow the proper distance to get enough hose to turn. The only reason it works when going through a car is because the first sharp 90 degree turn upwards is "helped" by the car's side and the second 90 degree is helped by the car's roof. Without either, they are not getting the hose to bend.

I'm not sure if you know what I'm saying. In the pictures, there is a 3 way splitter coming out of the hydrant. They wouldn't have had to bend the hose at all to get around the car if they used one of the side ports on the splitter. I'm not suggesting they use the front port then try to bend the hose around the car.

 

[etrigan420]

The pressure in the feet directly coming out does not allow for the bends they'd need to get past the car legally parked away from the hydrant with ease. They couldn't bend the hose to get it into the street. The car was parked in a place supposed to be unobstructed to allow the proper distance to get enough hose to turn. The only reason it works when going through a car is because the first sharp 90 degree turn upwards is "helped" by the car's side and the second 90 degree is helped by the car's roof. Without either, they are not getting the hose to bend.

drinkmorejava makes a valid point. Based on Capt. Cavemans photo (second one down), it appears that they could have used either the side port to the hydrant itself or the side port to the attached fitting to lead the hose behind the car, either between the BMW and the Acura, or around the back end of the Acura and then curve to the left...which is where it ends up going anyway, based on the third photo.

One problem is that it's difficult to tell exactly where the fire was in relation to the car based on the provided gallery. Looks like maybe around the corner (going off of third photo)?

Having said all of that...I'm not about to second guess the split second decision to take the shortest route between the fire and the hydrant, and highly doubt the BMW owner would win a court case. He rolled the dice and lost.

 

[BrayD]

...the article says they couldn't bend a 4" line, but that's exactly what they did trying to get it though the car. It would have been 10 times less bent if they used the side port and went around the car.

Looks a lot more like they were trying to ruin the guys day than fix the problem in the most expeditious and reliable manner.

The front port is for a 4" hose, those side ports are for 2.5" hoses. Using the side ports would drastically reduce flow as its for much smaller hoses. Firefighters aren't going to risk their lives and significantly more property damage using smaller hoses just because some jackass in a BMW didn't want to be inconvenienced.

In addition to that, the street was full of emergency vehicles and personnel. The Firefighters would have had to stop fighting the fire in order move their equipment around to pull the vehicle out of there.

Stop blaming the Firefighters. The jackass in the BMW gambled and lost. 100% his fault. The law is there for a reason, and it doesn't care what car you drive.

 

[drinkmorejava]

BrayD

I'm referring to the side ports on the splitter, not the hydrant. Those look like 4".

 

[smackababy]

I'm not sure if you know what I'm saying. In the pictures, there is a 3 way splitter coming out of the hydrant. They wouldn't have had to bend the hose at all to get around the car if they used one of the side ports on the splitter. I'm not suggesting they use the front port then try to bend the hose around the car.

I don't think are getting what I'm saying. If they used the side splitter, they would have to bend the hose into the street, which, due to pressure being the highest at the source (the hydrant), would have to happen after several feet. Several feet past the hydrant, in the direction they were going, was a car legally parked. That could obstruct the hose, and isn't something they should be required to bother finding the logistics about. If the hose had to be against the SUV, it could have caused damage the fire department would be liable for. Now, going through the car illegally obstructing their direct path to the hose removes them from damage liability and is likely quicker than figuring out if they are going to have to go under the SUV or not, which can cost valuable time, costing loss of life and property. The quicker they can address the fire and stop it from spreading, the better.

 

[BrayD]

BrayD

I'm referring to the side ports on the splitter, not the hydrant. Those look like 4".

Those are intake ports for boosting flow, they aren't for output.

Edit: To better explain, pumps are hooked up to either of the "splitter". This boosts pressure above normal hydrant levels, allowing water to reach higher heights and longer distances.