Brian Mette
EF0
Well, should they post 'Wet Road Warnings' whenever it rains, then as well? Hydroplaning causes plenty of accidents as well.
-
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
Looking at the accident rate per mile traveled and per hour for the given weather condition, rain-related crashes don't register on the scale. A rain event in a major metro area may result in 10 accidents - an icing event in the same city could result in a thousand or more. Deaths are also infrequent in rainy conditions, they are common with icing. No other weather condition has a higher death rate per hour, per mile than icing.
Jason Boggs
You can only babysit the public so far. In the long run, it's up to the public to decide their own safety. In other words, you can't have a warning for everything, and common sense should take over at some point.
Dan Robinson
I agree with that to a point. That's why I'm pointing out severe thunderstorm warnings. Why do we have that system in place for something that has an almost insignificant public impact when compared to the road icing threat. If we decide that the public needs to take care of themselves and if road icing doesn't deserve a warning, then there is no justification to keep the SVR warning.
Maybe there is a deeper issue here on what the real role of the NWS is and what the real reasoning behind warning criteria is. Because right now, it doesn't look like it's all based on actual public impact. I know the chaser mentality that it's tough to concede that our 'baby' of severe storms isn't the biggest, baddest dude on the block. Could this be a prominent theme across the board in the weather/met community? Sometimes we can't see the forest for the trees due to our awe and high regard for the convective phenomena we love. Could it be that this psychological issue is part of it? I don't know.
Dan Robinson
FYI - here is a TV news story on this morning's crash in KY that I referred to earlier:
http://www.whas11.com/news/local/Tw...Collision-on-Snow-Covered-Roads-78697207.html
http://www.whas11.com/news/local/Tw...Collision-on-Snow-Covered-Roads-78697207.html
Brian Mette
EF0
That was pretty much my point. I just think that if you're old enough to drive a car, then you should be old enough to figure out on your own if the roads might be icy or not. Also, icy roads should not be that much of a problem if you drive responsibly and safely. The only times I have ever had trouble with icy roads was when I was driving in a manner that I should not have been.
Case in point was last week. I live near the corner of my street and another street. Last week it snowed a little bit one evening. My roommate, who is outside smoking every five seconds, kept mentioning how he saw cars turning onto the street sliding into the curb. Having a 'icy road warning' or a 'snowy road warning', or a 'hey, there's something on the ground warning' isn't going to change the fact that they're college kids, and they drive like, well, idiots.
Dan Robinson
OK, let's disband the NWS. We all should take care of ourselves. No warnings needed for anything. Think of the tax money we'd save!
I have been watching these events first-hand and it is unfair to call everyone who crashes an 'idiot driver'. No one is ever taught exactly how deadly this hazard is. Do you think the mother in Kentucky this morning knew how much of a risk she was putting her and her kids into? Icy roads are treated as a nuisance, not a killer - and that is why people don't take it seriously. Not everyone who crashes is being reckless.
Frankly it is appaling to trivialize the more than 500 deaths a year by calling them 'idiots'. How would you react if someone said that about the Greensburg tornado victims?
Chris Allington
EF4
I think the difference is a tornado can be a sudden and un-expected event, where as ice accrual and freezing rain takes time. Additionally, people usually know its slick within seconds of walking out to there car or backing out of the garage and sliding in the driveway. You could argue that bridges and elevated surfaces ice while other surfaces don't, hence why we have 'Bridges May Be Icy' plastered all over bridges. You could probably call a tornado victim an idiot if they knew of the tornado and yet didnt take steps to protect themselves, just as with ice, your an idiot if slide while backing out the car or accelerating, or notice ice while your heading out to get in your vehicle and still don't slow down or take appropriate winter driving steps.
How have we not familiarized society with the dangers of winter driving? Everyone hears about accidents during snow and ice events, and people still choose to drive however they want.
Chris Allington
EF4
Don't most CWA's already issue Winter Weather Advisories in between I-80 and I-40 when they except trace icing? In fact just this morning DDC has WWA's out for icing during fog and drizzle into a sub-freezing airmass. Not sure about the media in that area but I'm sure they had some kind of winter weather advisory graphic up on their channel and news and radio mentioned crashes or slow downs due to ice. Yet I'm sure people still headed out and drove anyway... just seems pointless to add another product that people will ignore as you admit, when they don't always listen to the products already put out in these situations.
EDIT: Heck OUN has one out right now, what exactly are the supposed to do otherwise? Heres a sample of the text:
A WINTER WEATHER ADVISORY REMAINS IN EFFECT UNTIL 9 AM CST
TUESDAY.
* TIMING: FREEZING DRIZZLE OR LIGHT FREEZING RAIN MAY DEVELOP THIS
EVENING BUT A BETTER OPPORTUNITY WILL BE OVERNIGHT INTO EARLY
TUESDAY MORNING.
* MAIN IMPACT: ELEVATED SURFACES SUCH AS BRIDGES AND OVERPASSES
MAY DEVELOP LIGHT ACCUMULATIONS OF ICE WHICH WILL CAUSE
HAZARDOUS DRIVING CONDITIONS.
Heres yet another example from DDC for tonight:
* AREAS SOUTH AND EAST OF DODGE CITY TUESDAY MORNING MAY
ALSO HAVE A MIXED WITH FREEZING DRIZZLE OR LIGHT FREEZING RAIN
BETWEEN 3 AND 9 AM.
* SLICK ROADWAYS WILL MAKE TRAVEL HAZARDOUS ON TUESDAY. STRONG WINDS
TUESDAY AFTERNOON AND TUESDAY NIGHT WILL RESULT IN REDUCED
VISIBILITIES IN BLOWING AND DRIFTING SNOW.
What else are they supposed to do? They explained the weather conditions that are expected, they explained the resulting effect on roadways and attendant threat to drivers, they provided a time frame for those events. Now that I have recieved the product from my news media or weather radio its my choice to decide if I can make the appropriate decisions while driving.
Last edited by a moderator:
Brian Mette
EF0
Oh, I wasn't calling everyone who has ever slid on ice an idiot. Just the college kids in my town. That's kind of a joke by the way. And yes, I too have slid on ice several times. Last winter, I put my mustang into a ditch. And how did I do it? By driving irresponsibly.
Anyway, do I think the Kentucky mother knew how much risk she was putting herself and her kids into? Yes I do. If she didn't, well then she probably should not have been driving an automobile in the first place.
As for disbanding the NWS, no that's a bit extreme. Severe Thunderstorm Warnings, I agree with you about. Tornado warnings, hurricane warnings, winter storm warnings/advisories, on the other hand are very, useful.
Dan Robinson
Many ice-related deaths happen with unexpected encounters, IE, bridges and black ice. Most icing is not geographically uniform and widespread, and may not be present when someone leaves their home. Road icing in fact can, and often does, take place within minutes of precip onset.
A tornado and road icing have identical hazard properties:
- directly weather-related
- physically causing death/injury without abnormal behavior from the victim
- element of surprise
Us 'weather geeks' know to connect the dots between freezing temps and precip just like we know to look for shear and CAPE juxtaposed. People in general don't. We can't expect everyone to check the surface obs, radar and the RUC to see if frozen precip is going to happen on the way to work.
Another theme I'm seeing is the inability or unwillingness to separate those who are being reckless and willfully negligent with those who are not doing anything wrong and simply don't know how much danger they are putting themselves in.
I think the answer to this is no. The numbers don't say so. We may have a general awareness, but not enough of one to make an impact. People do not give this hazard the reverence it deserves. When people start staying home during icing events and stop saying I'm crazy for chasing tornadoes while driving their kids to school during freezing rain, then I might say we've made progress.
Again, we can say this about severe thunderstorms. I keep going back to that because it is a stark comparison. So why continue the SVR warning product and keep refining its criteria?
John Robinson
EF1
Mike Smith was correct in his assessment: Meteorologists are taught to deal with the weather, not something that another agency has control over. And, Brian Mette was correct in mentioning rainy day accidents. These cause thousands of deaths a year in the U.S. What about the number of deaths caused when the sun got in a driver's eyes? I'm not trying to be cynical here. Not far from my house, there was a serious accident two weeks ago when the sun was directly behind the traffic signal, the driver did not see it and ended up running the red light and colliding with another vehicle.
NWS meteorologists simply don't know what roads and/or bridges were treated with, how long ago they were treated, what effect the various chemicals have on the roads at varying temperatures, or, in many cases, road surface temperatures. All these are controlled by multiple other agencies (city, county and state).
Last week, we had a morning well-below freezing and had a number of ice-related wrecks. Some of these were due to puddles that froze from the rain the day before, but others were due to gas stations washing their driveways, water running out of car washes, and sprinkler systems that came on overnight.
Many years ago, there was a product called a Travelers Advisory. It was used when the precip was occurring and as long afterward as the forecaster wished. But, there were constant problems like refreezing for multiple nights, and cases where 95% of the highway was fine two days after the precip ended but shady spots would remain icy for more than a week. There simply was never any agreement on when a Travelers Advisory should end. Policy was then changed to Advisories that would end when the precipitation did, the idea being that forecasters were to stick to meteorology, not things that they had no knowledge of or control over.
Special Weather Statements can be used to describe refreezing hazards as necessary. When these are used sparingly and at the appropriate time, they get their message across, i.e., the media usually see the messages and know it's time to emphasize the point.
NWS meteorologists simply don't know what roads and/or bridges were treated with, how long ago they were treated, what effect the various chemicals have on the roads at varying temperatures, or, in many cases, road surface temperatures. All these are controlled by multiple other agencies (city, county and state).
Last week, we had a morning well-below freezing and had a number of ice-related wrecks. Some of these were due to puddles that froze from the rain the day before, but others were due to gas stations washing their driveways, water running out of car washes, and sprinkler systems that came on overnight.
Many years ago, there was a product called a Travelers Advisory. It was used when the precip was occurring and as long afterward as the forecaster wished. But, there were constant problems like refreezing for multiple nights, and cases where 95% of the highway was fine two days after the precip ended but shady spots would remain icy for more than a week. There simply was never any agreement on when a Travelers Advisory should end. Policy was then changed to Advisories that would end when the precipitation did, the idea being that forecasters were to stick to meteorology, not things that they had no knowledge of or control over.
Special Weather Statements can be used to describe refreezing hazards as necessary. When these are used sparingly and at the appropriate time, they get their message across, i.e., the media usually see the messages and know it's time to emphasize the point.
Dan Robinson
Sometimes. Many times the criteria for a WWA or WSW isn't reached for events that can still cause deadly icing. Kentucky this morning was a perfect example.
I keep going back to the death rates. I'm not making those numbers up. Are you saying there is nothing that can be done and those deaths are acceptable? I have a hard time believing that nothing we do would make a difference in even a small fraction of those cases.
So why don't we just issue 'tornado advisories'? It's the conveyance of the level of risk is what I'm getting at. 'Advisory' conveys 'mild nuisance', not 'grave danger'.
We have freeze warnings for crying out loud - so people can go cover up their plants on the porch. What is so radical about saying something that communicates that "road ice can kill you - change your plans or driving behavior or you might die"?
Jason Bolt
Good points on both sides of this. I hate to look at this like a beltway politician, but let's take a look from the $ side of things. The NWS faces budget scrutiny like any other federal agency. Isn't this an opportunity to save lives at very minimal new expense? Would this not further solidify NWS as a vital, life-saving agency? I agree that this may not be a 100% meteorological warning, but the bottom line in my opinion should be whether or not lives could be saved. I also find it interesting how many of the opposition comments come from states that see a lot of winter weather and are more prepared. I can tell you from living in the hills of Arkansas that winter weather is not a common event in that locale. When I lived there, most people were oblivious to black ice, freezing rain, etc. Snow and sleet are a little easier to see and people were more aware it seemed. I get the impression Dan is suggesting an increased level of warning for strictly icing type events in areas that do not see regular winter weather. I think this would be a small targeted area, and yes I think public awareness would be increased thus saving lives. The concept seems worthy of a trial run at the least.
Oh and for what it's worth, I am fully aware of the personal responsibility element. I am one of the biggest proponents I know for personal responsibility. I just think this is an opportunity to increase public awareness regarding a deadly phenomenon.
Oh and for what it's worth, I am fully aware of the personal responsibility element. I am one of the biggest proponents I know for personal responsibility. I just think this is an opportunity to increase public awareness regarding a deadly phenomenon.
Dan Robinson
Snow, freezing rain, freezing drizzle and freezing fog are the weather. No other agency is equipped with the tools to forecast for these hazards.
How many rainy days result in thousands of accidents in a single state in just a few hours? How many rain events cause 49 deaths in one day (12/22-23/08)?
The point is not to know what the road conditions are. The point is to know when the ingredients for icing are in place and to issue warnings when they are imminent or occuring. These are infrequent instances for most areas that have high death rates.
In my research, I have found the 'refreezing' or 'man made' icing instances to be very rare, at least the ones that cause deaths. Last year, there was only one man-made icing death recorded, and I believe only one or two due to refreezing. It is a subset of the hazard that does not need monitoring.
Refreezing rarely deposits enough moisture to cause icing problems. In nearly all cases I've observed, falling precip in some form is needed to create the serious dangers.
Similar threads
