When a powerful earthquake rattles the ground, instincts kick in—and sometimes, those instincts clash with official advice. The events following two recent seismic episodes, one near Japan’s coast and another in the remote wilds of North America, have reignited debate about how communities prepare for and respond to such natural disasters.
On July 30, 2025, tsunami warnings blared across parts of Japan after a significant earthquake struck off Russia’s Kamchatka Peninsula. The government’s message was clear: evacuate on foot. Yet, as revealed by an October survey conducted by Japan’s Cabinet Office, more than half of those who actually evacuated did so by car. This divergence from official guidance has prompted a closer look at why people make the choices they do when every second counts.
The survey, which polled 4,300 residents from Hokkaido, Miyagi, Kanagawa, and Shizuoka prefectures—among the 13 regions affected by the warnings—uncovered a striking pattern. Of the respondents, 1,012 people (23.5%) said they evacuated ahead of the possible tsunami. But the real surprise? Out of those evacuees, 560 (55.3%) opted for their cars, while only 396 (39.1%) traveled on foot. A small fraction, 42 individuals (4.2%), chose motorcycles or bicycles.
Why the rush to the driver’s seat? According to The Japan News, the government’s advice to leave on foot stems from hard-learned lessons during the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake, when traffic jams tragically delayed escapes. Yet, the recent survey suggests that this directive “had not been widely recognized.” And for those who did drive, the risks were not merely theoretical—202 of the 560 car evacuees (36.1%) found themselves stuck in traffic jams, just as officials had feared.
Japan’s Cabinet Office now faces a dilemma. While the principle remains to evacuate on foot, reality is messier. Some residents, especially those with special needs, may have no choice but to use vehicles. In response, the government plans to revise its guidelines for local governments by the end of 2025. The update will include a stipulation that municipalities must consider cases where evacuation by car is necessary, particularly for vulnerable populations.
This development comes at a time when natural disasters and their aftermath are front-of-mind not only in Japan but across the Pacific. Just this past Saturday, December 7, a magnitude 7.0 earthquake struck near the border between Alaska and Canada’s Yukon Territory. According to the US Geological Survey (USGS), the quake’s epicenter was about 10 kilometers deep, located roughly 370 kilometers northwest of Juneau, Alaska, and some 250 kilometers west of Whitehorse, the capital of Yukon.
Despite its remote location, the tremor was felt keenly by those in its path. Police in Whitehorse reported receiving several emergency calls, as residents described strong shaking and objects tumbling from shelves and walls. Fortunately, initial reports indicated no structural damage or injuries—a lucky outcome, considering the quake’s shallow depth and magnitude. As BBC News noted, “a shallow 7.0-magnitude event at a depth of only 5–10 kilometres is considered a major tremor.”
While the Pacific Tsunami Warning Centre (PTWC) quickly confirmed there was no tsunami threat in the Pacific Ocean, authorities remained vigilant. Seismologists at Natural Resources Canada highlighted the region’s mountainous terrain and sparse population—a blessing, perhaps, given the potential for devastation in more densely settled areas. Still, the aftermath was not without risk: avalanche warnings were issued for some regions, underscoring the unpredictable chain of events that earthquakes can set in motion.
These two incidents—one marked by mass car evacuations in Japan, the other by shaking shelves in Yukon—offer a window into the challenges of disaster preparedness in very different contexts. In Japan, a nation with a long history of seismic tragedy, the government’s push for on-foot evacuation is rooted in bitter experience. Yet, as the Cabinet Office’s survey shows, habits die hard, and many people still reach for their car keys when danger looms.
For some, the car is not just a convenience but a necessity. Elderly residents, families with young children, and those with mobility issues may find walking impossible, especially under the stress of an imminent tsunami. The government’s planned guideline revision acknowledges this reality, seeking to balance the ideal with the practical. As officials prepare to update their advice, they must grapple with the question: how can local governments ensure that everyone can reach safety, regardless of their circumstances?
Meanwhile, the Alaska-Yukon quake serves as a reminder that even remote areas are not immune to nature’s shocks. The lack of injuries or major damage this time may have been due to geography and luck rather than preparedness alone. But as authorities maintain close monitoring and issue avalanche warnings, the event underscores the importance of vigilance and rapid response, even in places where the population is sparse and the risks less obvious.
These stories also highlight the importance of clear communication and community engagement. In Japan, the survey’s findings suggest that government messaging—no matter how well-intentioned—does not always reach or persuade the public. Whether due to lack of awareness, skepticism, or practical barriers, people often make decisions in the heat of the moment that diverge from official recommendations. Understanding these choices is crucial for crafting policies that work in the real world, not just on paper.
In the United States and Canada, the response to the Alaska-Yukon earthquake illustrates the benefits of robust monitoring systems and cross-border cooperation. The rapid confirmation from the PTWC that there was no tsunami threat helped prevent unnecessary panic, while local authorities’ swift attention to avalanche risks demonstrated adaptability in the face of evolving dangers.
As climate change and population growth increase the potential impact of natural disasters worldwide, the lessons from these recent earthquakes are more relevant than ever. Governments must not only issue guidelines but also ensure they are practical, inclusive, and responsive to the needs of diverse communities. At the same time, individuals must weigh official advice against their own circumstances, sometimes making tough choices in the face of uncertainty.
Ultimately, the stories from Japan and the Alaska-Yukon border remind us that disaster preparedness is not a one-size-fits-all proposition. It is, instead, a delicate dance between policy and practice, shaped by history, geography, and the unpredictable nature of human behavior. As officials revise their strategies and communities reflect on recent events, the hope is that the next time the ground shakes or the sirens sound, everyone will be a little safer—and a little wiser—than before.
