Chris Allington
EF4
In my opinion your wording is much, much to harsh. Why tell people travel is extremely discouraged (same as blizzard warning) when for the vast majority there will be no effect at all?
-
While Stormtrack has discontinued its hosting of SpotterNetwork support on the forums, keep in mind that support for SpotterNetwork issues is available by emailing [email protected].
Dan Robinson
I hear what you're saying. But when you go back and look at the fatality/injury rates during these events, the impacts to the public justify some type of strong urging to stay off the roads. On mornings such as 12/7 in the Louisville area, it would have been appropriate to urge people to postpone their commutes (and encourage schools/workplaces to delay start times) until the threat was mitigated either by the DOT or by warming temperatures.
Greg Stumpf
EF5
Sidebar: A tornado report also verifies a SVR.
A lot of this discussion centers on the multi-disciplinary problem of the integrated warning system, and I doubt these debates are going to lend much professional insight on the issues of social response to warnings, communication of the hazards, etc. Dan, for that, I would suggest not just contacting the NWS, but also the leadership of WAS*IS and try to get connected to folks that have already been studying the issue of winter weather response.
rdale
EF5
I have to ask -- how much operational experience do you have? DOTs don't dedicate resources to sending reports to the NWS while in the midst of salting and plowing.
So if one bridge out of 1000 in your area has a slick spot - then the RIW was a hit? That seems foolish.
...and I knew if we waited long enough for Greg to get wind of this thread there would be a WASIS reference
Great interview and discussion about the project at http://weatherbrains.com/weatherbrains/?p=609mikegeukes
EF5
Dan, what is your feedback on this advisory, they mention
slippery roads, sidewalks, slide offs possible, be prepared for
slippery roads and use caution while driving.
Example of a Winter Weather Advisory tonight where I live.
URGENT - WINTER WEATHER MESSAGE
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE GRAND RAPIDS MI
804 PM EST SAT DEC 12 2009
MIZ058-059-065>067-072>074-130915-
/O.NEW.KGRR.WW.Y.0017.091213T0300Z-091213T1500Z/
IONIA-CLINTON-BARRY-EATON-INGHAM-KALAMAZOO-CALHOUN-JACKSON-
INCLUDING THE CITIES OF...IONIA...ST. JOHNS...HASTINGS...
CHARLOTTE...LANSING...KALAMAZOO...BATTLE CREEK...JACKSON
804 PM EST SAT DEC 12 2009
...WINTER WEATHER ADVISORY IN EFFECT UNTIL 10 AM EST SUNDAY...
THE NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE IN GRAND RAPIDS HAS ISSUED A WINTER
WEATHER ADVISORY FOR A MIXTURE OF SNOW... FREEZING RAIN AND
RAIN... WHICH IS IN EFFECT UNTIL 10 AM EST SUNDAY.
HAZARDOUS WEATHER...
* A MIXTURE OF SNOW... FREEZING RAIN AND RAIN WILL DEVELOP BY
MIDNIGHT TONIGHT THEN CHANGE TO RAIN AFTER DAYBREAK SUNDAY.
* SNOW ACCUMULATIONS WILL BE AN INCH OR LESS.
* ICE ACCUMULATIONS WILL BE A TENTH OF AN INCH OR LESS.
IMPACTS...
* SLIPPERY ROADS AND SIDEWALKS. SLIDE OFFS POSSIBLE.
PRECAUTIONARY/PREPAREDNESS ACTIONS...
* A WINTER WEATHER ADVISORY MEANS THAT PERIODS OF SNOW AND FREEZING
RAIN WILL CAUSE TRAVEL DIFFICULTIES. BE PREPARED FOR SLIPPERY
ROADS AND LIMITED VISIBILITIES...AND USE CAUTION WHILE DRIVING.
slippery roads, sidewalks, slide offs possible, be prepared for
slippery roads and use caution while driving.
Example of a Winter Weather Advisory tonight where I live.
URGENT - WINTER WEATHER MESSAGE
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE GRAND RAPIDS MI
804 PM EST SAT DEC 12 2009
MIZ058-059-065>067-072>074-130915-
/O.NEW.KGRR.WW.Y.0017.091213T0300Z-091213T1500Z/
IONIA-CLINTON-BARRY-EATON-INGHAM-KALAMAZOO-CALHOUN-JACKSON-
INCLUDING THE CITIES OF...IONIA...ST. JOHNS...HASTINGS...
CHARLOTTE...LANSING...KALAMAZOO...BATTLE CREEK...JACKSON
804 PM EST SAT DEC 12 2009
...WINTER WEATHER ADVISORY IN EFFECT UNTIL 10 AM EST SUNDAY...
THE NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE IN GRAND RAPIDS HAS ISSUED A WINTER
WEATHER ADVISORY FOR A MIXTURE OF SNOW... FREEZING RAIN AND
RAIN... WHICH IS IN EFFECT UNTIL 10 AM EST SUNDAY.
HAZARDOUS WEATHER...
* A MIXTURE OF SNOW... FREEZING RAIN AND RAIN WILL DEVELOP BY
MIDNIGHT TONIGHT THEN CHANGE TO RAIN AFTER DAYBREAK SUNDAY.
* SNOW ACCUMULATIONS WILL BE AN INCH OR LESS.
* ICE ACCUMULATIONS WILL BE A TENTH OF AN INCH OR LESS.
IMPACTS...
* SLIPPERY ROADS AND SIDEWALKS. SLIDE OFFS POSSIBLE.
PRECAUTIONARY/PREPAREDNESS ACTIONS...
* A WINTER WEATHER ADVISORY MEANS THAT PERIODS OF SNOW AND FREEZING
RAIN WILL CAUSE TRAVEL DIFFICULTIES. BE PREPARED FOR SLIPPERY
ROADS AND LIMITED VISIBILITIES...AND USE CAUTION WHILE DRIVING.
Dan Robinson
You asked me how the NWS would verify warnings - and I said they could use the reports already gathered by the DOTs.
Icy road forecasting is a no-brainer. Below 32F temps + precip = icy roads in 99% of cases. Icy roads are hardly ever that localized either. I have to ask you how much operational experience you have observing the road ice hazard first-hand. I have offered actual data, observations, photographs and video. What do you have in support of your position?
Last edited by a moderator:
Dan Robinson
Mike, the issue here is that is an advisory, not a warning. It makes no mention of the fact that it is a deadly hazard with a high likelihood of death and injury.
The National Weather Service is the authoritative source in this country for identifying, forecasting and warning the public of weather hazards. Their very mission is to protect life and property by warning the public - we as taxpayers fund them for that purpose so we don't have to look at surface obs and radar every time we go somewhere. Media can't pass on information that they aren't getting from the authoritative source.
Brian Mette
EF0
Probably because there is only a low likelihood of injury or death. If there was such a high likelihood of death and or injury, then why is the percentage of deaths and or injuries so low, given that millions of people travel on icy roads during any given winter in the US alone?
Literally, the percentage of Americans killed by icy roads is like .0000001%.
The estimated population of the United States as of January, 2009 was 305,529,237.
Just for comparison, 565,650 people died from cancer in 2008.
Based on the statistics from icyroadsafety.com, there were only 477 deaths from icy roads during the 2008-2009 winter.
The tri-state tornado alone killed more people than that, and that was (arguably) a single tornado.
Dan Robinson
Per mile traveled and minute-for-minute while the event is in progress, there isn't another severe weather hazard that comes close to the death rates during icing events. What is the ratio for deaths per minute of tornado events in progress? I don't have the data for that, but I'd venture to say it's probably not too far off considering the square mileage that tornado outbreak systems cover annually. A tornado is a very narrow event that affects a tiny percentage of homes, yet warnings are issued and justified.
I've got to go back to my original premise. All of the arguments so far in this thread against warnings/enhanced wording for road icing, when applied to other weather hazards, clearly illustrate a glaring double standard.
Take any of those arguments and apply them to the severe thunderstorm. They'd absolutely obliterate any logical justification to continue issuing severe thunderstorm watches and warnings. The severe thunderstorm has a comparatively insignificant public impact - less than 40 deaths per year, and many of those being rare 'wrong place at the wrong time' accidents like trees falling on cars. By the anti-road ice warning standard, the only scenarios that logically justify SVRs are events like derechos and supercells. And even that is a stretch. Apply the anti-road ice warning/enhanced wording stance to severe thunderstorms, and it's rediculously silly to issue conventional severe thunderstorm watches and warnings at all. They could be easily covered by SPSs and advisories given their low public impact.
One could say that hail damage has a huge economic impact, and that is true. Insurance companies I've talked to say that vehicle hail damage is their greatest weather-related cost. But what can someone do about hail when they're warned about it? Unless they're near a carport or garage, absolutely nothing! It is not a life-threatening hazard, and not a threat that most can do anything about even if warned in advance. It's the same way with crop damage. How does a warning help a farmer? He can't do a thing about what's going to happen.
It's amazing to me that anyone can support the SVR products (watch, PDS watch, warning) for <40 deaths a year and obsess over things like 1" hail criteria vs 3/4", and at the same time shrug off making any changes for a weather hazard causing 500+ deaths and tens of thousands of injuries a year.
The NWS mission statement says that protecting life is the highest priority of the agency, and something that takes precedence over all its other functions.
Last edited by a moderator:
Brian Mette
EF0
Again, I agree with you about severe thunderstorm warnings.
What I disagree with is you saying that people traveling on icy roads have a high risk of injury and or death; which, as the statistics clearly point out, is not the case.
Icy roads ARE dangerous. No one is disputing this. But I think you are really blowing things out of proportion.
If you want to help save lives, that's totally fine, and commendable. If the way you want to do that is by raising awareness about icy roads, that's totally fine as well, and definitely a worthy cause. But you're really not helping your case by exaggerating or by blowing things out of proportion.
Dan Robinson
I'm not sure I follow you. I'm saying that the warnings for one hazard should follow the same convention as the others, and using the data to show that this hazard is equally deserving as the others. One could say we blow tornadoes out of proportion given the amount of attention they receive in comparison.
And I don't understand how the threat doesn't count as 'significant' in comparison to other hazard impacts. In Oklahoma and Kansas, you're more likely to die from road icing than a tornado. And mile-for-mile, any individual is more likely to get into a fatal car accident during icing events (should they choose to travel in them) than in any other road or weather condition period.
You couldn't even give that distinction to a major tornado outbreak in Oklahoma, where only a fraction of the population will actually be affected by the storms. However, the threat level of a tornado outbreak is clearly an issue worthy of attention for the general public, a fact illustrated by warning protocol.
Last edited by a moderator:
Dan Robinson
Once again, compare other "warning-grade" hazards and associated products. Blizzard Warnings. Winter Storm Warnings. Ice Storm Warnings. High Wind Warnings. All are hazards that affect 100% of the population within each warning area, yet the life and property impacts are minimal. Non-road-related winter storm deaths average 33 per year, yet these hazards still receive heightened attention with a warning product.
Death rates are low in high wind events, for example. There are two conclusions you can draw from that. Either the hazard is truly not dangerous enough to deserve being warning-grade, or the warning product has made a difference.
Even the plants on Grandma's back porch get a warning product (for freezing temperatures). If "warning" vs. "advisory" means anything at all, then the proper designation should be used on hazards according to their actual threat level to the public.
Tornado deaths are down to 63 annually. If 477 road icing deaths is 'no big deal', then why are we still aggressively spending resources on advancements in understanding for a hazard that affects 63? We (taxpayers) just spent $12 million on Vortex2. All I'm suggesting is changing a few words.
Death rates are low in high wind events, for example. There are two conclusions you can draw from that. Either the hazard is truly not dangerous enough to deserve being warning-grade, or the warning product has made a difference.
Even the plants on Grandma's back porch get a warning product (for freezing temperatures). If "warning" vs. "advisory" means anything at all, then the proper designation should be used on hazards according to their actual threat level to the public.
Tornado deaths are down to 63 annually. If 477 road icing deaths is 'no big deal', then why are we still aggressively spending resources on advancements in understanding for a hazard that affects 63? We (taxpayers) just spent $12 million on Vortex2. All I'm suggesting is changing a few words.
Last edited by a moderator:
Paul Hadfield
EF3
Back in February 2005 I was at home one night during a minor icing event. My friend Matt at ILX called the house and asked for a favor. They were on the fence as to whether or not to include our county in a freezing rain advisory and asked if I would step outside for a real time observation. Naturally I did and noted sidewalks, branches and our secondary road as having a slight glaze but more wet for hovering right at 32. Though it was minor, they felt it corroborated with what they were seeing on their end and went ahead with the advisory. I didn't think much of it then but here now, it illustrates how important they (ILX) take wx situations like this. With that being said, I don't understand why our community, one who touts itself as being in the best interest of serving the public is so against such a minor enhancement that has the potential of saving more lives than the status quo. If it requires more ground truth coming from the network of spotters stepping outside to check conditions then so be it. Here we have an opportunity to step up in the off season and do more for our communities than just reporting what we do yet not many do. Everyone gets a sense of pride from calling in tornado and large hail reports but how many go out of their way to provide the same life saving information that is beneficial to the decision making process of WCM's everywhere during freezing events? Looking at the lack of icons on SN at the time of this post during an event with numerous advisories posted around the Nation simultaneously, unfortunately not many. Even if you feel a change to the current system is unnecessary, WE have a responsibility for reporting life threatening weather related phenomena in whatever form. If your observation of frozen precipitation upgrades an existing advisory to a warning and that message is relayed to someone with common sense to understand basic wording and thus alter their decision to venture out then guess what, their life may have very well been spared which is the whole point. In all likelihood though, the tools we have for reporting will continue to be under utilized during severe winter weather and in turn, people will continue to be not effectively warned. The status quo will perpetuate and lives will be lost. All because we chose to do nothing let alone introduce a few lines of basic yet more effective text...
Jason Boggs
Seriously, if the NWS upgraded an advisory to a warning, it wouldn't make a hill of beans difference in the lives saved. I truly believe that. People need to understand that an agency like the NWS cannot save every life when bad weather takes hold of a town. You have to also be responsible for yourself. Advisory, warning, blah blah blah....Slow down if you think the roads might be icy. If there wasn't any slick spots, no harm done. If you're an idiot, go fast and see what happens when you hit a slick spot.
I've almost wrecked before while driving on ice. Was it the NWS's fault for not informing me with a "warning"? Hell no! I have to take responsibility for my actions. That's the problem with today's society. When something goes bad, it's always someone else's fault. Take some damn responsibility for yourself.
Dan, as much effort as your putting into this, I think it's just time to let go. People die, and that's part of life. Will we ever save everyone from tornadoes, ice and hurricanes? Of course not, so why dwell on it?
I've almost wrecked before while driving on ice. Was it the NWS's fault for not informing me with a "warning"? Hell no! I have to take responsibility for my actions. That's the problem with today's society. When something goes bad, it's always someone else's fault. Take some damn responsibility for yourself.
Dan, as much effort as your putting into this, I think it's just time to let go. People die, and that's part of life. Will we ever save everyone from tornadoes, ice and hurricanes? Of course not, so why dwell on it?
rdale
EF5
Which, bringing you back to the real world, is not possible in 99% of the cases.
I've dealt with forecasting ice for the public, dealing with incidents directly, and in emergency management.
You've offered data that shows icy roads kill people. We all know that. We want to know what SOCIAL data you have that indicates a RIW will save those lives, and that's still the missing (and KEY) ingredient.
Similar threads
