Certain Death Warnings

[Mike Peregrine]

There was a mandatory evacuation, and people didn't leave, and that is very frustrating because now, we are having to deal with everybody who did not heed the order. This is why we do it, and they had enough time to get out. It's just unfortunate that they decided to stay," said Steve LeBlanc, city manager in Galveston.

That is unfortunate. 140,000 probably should not have been there. I wonder why they were, in spite of such strongly worded warnings? I don't think it's because they are retarded, but rather just the opposite. Most of them have done this before. Like many of the members of this board who traveled hundreds, if not thousands, of miles to be there to witness things firsthand themselves. Fortunately, the death toll remains at two. Hopefully it stays put.

 

[Dennis Sherrod]

That is unfortunate. 140,000 probably should not have been there. I wonder why they were, in spite of such strongly worded warnings? I don't think it's because they are retarded, but rather just the opposite. Most of them have done this before. A lot like many of the members of this board who traveled hundreds, if not thousands, of miles to be there to witness things firsthand themselves.

Mike, I agree. This is similar to what I had said sometime earlier, that it is hard to get people to pay attention to warnings to leave when they see dozens and dozens of people and media standing in the middle of it and then they are seeing themselves on videos and TVs. They may think there must be something good to see and it is safe. Then, they may also read stuff like is on this board with people condemning the wording used trying to get people out. Then of course, some of the media will then chime in and say that the people will not listen next time. It is just a viscious cycle of people sitting back at their home, gripping at the wording they don't like, and second guessing everything someone else says. Yeah, and it is also right, I could just see those same people start hollering again when they did the tornado warnings like were mentioned.

 

[rdale]

If you are saying people stayed behind because they decided to log in to StormTrack.org, read Mike's thread, and figured out they don't need to evacuate - you are giving Mike (and ST) a lot more credit than deserved...

 

[Dennis Sherrod]

If you are saying people stayed behind because they decided to log in to StormTrack.org, read Mike's thread, and figured out they don't need to evacuate - you are giving Mike (and ST) a lot more credit than deserved...

As I said; It is just a viscious cycle of people sitting back at their home, gripping at the wording they don't like, and second guessing everything someone else says.

 

[rdale]

They didn't respond to the "you are going to die" wording. 140000 didn't. I fail to understand how you say Mike and StormTrack posters are responsible for even one of those.

I would however hope that discussions like this can lead people (EM's, mets, politicians etc.) to consider the use of that type of wording in the future.

Or we can just leave the status quo, and for every landfalling hurricane tell everyone they'll die from the mother of all storms if they don't leave and just end at that

 

[Mike Peregrine]

It isn't the warning or its wording I wonder about, really - rather what the media chooses to do with it once it is issued.

 

[Ryan McGinnis]

That is unfortunate. 140,000 probably should not have been there. I wonder why they were, in spite of such strongly worded warnings? I don't think it's because they are retarded, but rather just the opposite. Most of them have done this before. Like many of the members of this board who traveled hundreds, if not thousands, of miles to be there to witness things firsthand themselves. Fortunately, the death toll remains at two. Hopefully it stays put.

When people are given strong warning about a danger from a reliable source and they fail to protect themselves... I would not call that intelligent. I think we agree this is true in many other parts of our lives, so I'm not sure why hurricanes should be any different. Yes, I think chasers fall in a different category than the general public in this respect, as chasers spend their lives studying the weather they chase and learning strategies to avoid the danger. I highly doubt any chaser would have based themselves in a single story house on stilts in the surge zone. Chasers are not ignoring the danger, they are keenly aware of it -- moreso than almost anyone else. They aren't dancing on the seawall in a bearsuit at H12.

 

[Dennis Sherrod]

Maybe instead of jumping so quickly to condemn everyone and what you preceive to be said, maybe you should actually read and understand the wording used.

"They may think there must be something good to see and it is safe. Then, they may also read stuff like is on this board with people condemning the wording used trying to get people out."

There is a major difference in using the word "may" to correlate to something, compared to using the word "did" have something to do with it. You are the one changing the wording and meaning to fit your own style.
But as usual, and what is obvious by what others also say, there is no discussing anything with you. It is your way and nothing else is correct.
You make it totally understandable why some animals eat their young.
I am done with this one.

 

[Mike Peregrine]

Ryan, we're not disagreeing on the point that people should have heeded a proper warning. I'm just drawing attention to the fact that we are basically playing the odds here. I just ran onto an article that AP ran after Gustav that is basically asking the same question I am.

Most people who stick out these storms have been there several times already. They're just fortunate that the circumstances have allowed for their survival so far. Maybe it's sort of like dealing with children. Children aren't stupid ... they're not retarded ... but they are inexperienced. So when we teach them, we take this into account. People who stick around during these storms feel like they have more experience than they actually do in reality. So they don't react - or they turn around and react just the opposite of how they should - when someone tries to scare them into thinking any differently. Just so we're clear ... I'm not claiming to have the answers, but I don't feel bad about asking what people think about it -

 

[rdale]

Maybe instead of jumping so quickly to condemn everyone

I am not condemning anyone... It seems some people just want the discussion to stop. But we have professional mets, media, NWS, people who deal with risk-management, emergency management, and more -- right in this very thread! So why not discuss it?

If I went on TV and said "Tornado Warning for Lansing, tornado on the ground moving towards the city, most of you will certainly die if you don't take cover" would that do any good? I don't think so. People will say "What's he talking about, I've been through 14 tornado warnings in the last two years, and I'm still alive." That's why we say "Tornado on the ground, a history of damage. Take shelter, protect yourself, put as many walls in between you and the outside, etc."

My suggestion is that the NWS doesn't use words like "odds are good you will die if you don't evacuate." Nobody has been able to come up with a reason why that suggestion is bad.

 

[T Melton]

I have noticed that people will often do the opposite of what they are told, If you put a sign up that says keep out they will often defy what is written and enter the area anyhow. So along the same lines when a warning of impending doom is issued people through some silly instinct want to stick around just to see what happens. I noticed from several different media outlets that the people that remained behind in Houston were quick to call 911 after being told of the dangers faced by "Riding the storm out". It tends to be like a broken record,I think there is truth to the theory of "crying wolf" however good sense and instinct there to tell you to take flight from danger. I suppose some are just complacent.

 

[Chris Nuttall]

And to clarify - NHC did not use this language, NWS Houston did. Only for a short time, then they removed it shortly afterwards.

Looking back through some previous statements, Lake Charles used the same type of language in their HLS. So, it wasn't just Houston. HGX is just the one getting all the attention.

Like I said previously, I have no clue what I would have done in that situation. I'm not experienced enough yet to know. But, I did prefer one of the later statements that read: "...FACE THE POSSIBILITY OF DEATH." The phrase "LIFE-THREATENING" can only be used so many times before it becomes common-place...for lack of a better word. "Death" carries a bit more shock-value to people.

It isn't the warning or its wording I wonder about, really - rather what the media chooses to do with it once it is issued.

That's my problem with the situation. NWS is highly dependent on the media for warning dissemination. It's just unfortunate that several media outlets tend to sensationalize. I've been on both sides of this, so I've got a bit of a unique perspective.

 

[Mike Peregrine]

It's pretty important to realize that as far as the US is concerned, Ike was NOT a major hurricane. It may have been trying to strengthen at the time of landfall, but as a Category 2, it was nowhere near a Charley, Katrina, or even a Rita. The way I see it, Houston/Galveston's day of reckoning has not yet come. When it does, it looks like there is the potential for a much bigger problem. We would really lack humility if we couldn't admit that -

People all over the Gulf probably feel more inconvenienced this year, rather than feel like their lives have been saved ... we may not like it or agree with it, but it's just human nature. To me, this year's hurricane season looks like it has the makings of a PR nightmare for officials.

 

[Chris Nuttall]

People all over the Gulf probably feel more inconvenienced this year, rather than feel like their lives have been saved ... we may not like it or agree with it, but it's just human nature. To me, this year's hurricane season looks like it has the makings of a PR nightmare for officials.

But really, isn't that what usually happens after a history-making disaster? I mean, look at how crazy TV weather coverage has gotten in OKC since 5/3/1999. It's like this with anything. Until you have another event that meets or exceeds the benchmark, every warning that doesn't pan out is going to have bad PR.

The main thing right now is that we are less than 5 years removed from Katrina. It's still very fresh in everyone's mind. Everyone remembers it. Hell, the hardest hit areas have yet to fully recover (if ever). It was what, 30 years since the last measuring-stick storm (Camile)? Galveston hasn't taken a hit from a major hurricane since 1983. Nobody under the age of 30 probably remembers it.

As time goes on, people will eventually forget, or at least won't remember it so vividly. That's when the next major storm comes along and reminds us at unfortunately, what is usually a high price.

 

[Jason A.C. Brock]

Id rather be told its going to be bad and then its not rather than be told its going to be ok then its not. If you cant figure out that the national weather service knows more than you do about the weather.....then you should 1. get a job there cuz your a freakin smart....or 2. just give up on having any common sense ever.

No matter how many videos ya show...pictures ya take.....warnings you issue....people wont dont and cant understand until they see it with their own eyes. The world has little faith and thats become a big problem.