It's time to do away with severe thunderstorm warnings

[Dan Robinson]

Again, common sense plays a major role in winter weather safety. Tornado sirens and strong wording come into play because you don't have to leave your home to be impacted by the event. Most winter weather situations (icy roads) come into play when you're obviously out on the road and not at home.

I think when roads are icy and snow packed, signs that say so are a waste of time and money. If those signs really do help motorists, those motorists should not be allowed to drive.

I think we are talking about two different things. Snowpacked roads during a major storm are one thing. Death rates are generally low during those conditions. Intermittent icing, bridge icing, freezing rain and freezing drizzle are subtle, not as apparent and have high death rates. Many have just as much of an element of surprise as a tornado suddenly bearing down on a home.

Driving is a necessity for society, a part of people's everyday lives - just like being at home. Icing threatens people going about their daily lives just like a supercell does while they are at home. One could argue that lightning and thunder are ample warning for someone at home to become alert of a convective-based threat.

 

[Chris Allington]

One could argue that lightning and thunder are ample warning for someone at home to become alert of a convective-based threat.

The same way one could argue that seeing it rain/ drizzle/ fog outside when below freezing is an obvious indicator of ice. How many cars and homes have outside thermometers. Most cars even flash (ICE POSSIBLE) on the dash when the temps lower below 36 degrees.

 

[Dan Robinson]

The same way one could argue that seeing it rain/ drizzle/ fog outside when below freezing is an obvious indicator of ice. How many cars and homes have outside thermometers. Most cars even flash (ICE POSSIBLE) on the dash when the temps lower below 36 degrees.

That's what I'm saying. If drivers have to ascertain the icing threat, then they should be able to ascertain the severe storm/tornado threat at home.

It goes back to the question of what the NWS role is. Are people responsible for ascertaining weather hazards themselves, or does the NWS exist to provide assististance in alerting people who don't think about weather 24/7 like we do?

 

[Adam Lucio]

The way I see it is not all thunderstorms are severe. There are dozens of thunderstorm events every year that aren't severe. Every storm presents a lightning hazard but they don't issue lightning warnings.

Ice is ice no matter what. If the NWS issues their product saying the roads could be icy then thats it. They have done their job. Every person knows ice is slippery and has the information already beat into their heads even though most ignore it.

I would think current road conditions should be handled by the DOT. I think here in Chicago the plows are going to be outfitted with GPS units and you can actually track them. I don't know if this has been done or not but I remember there were talks about it.

 

[Chris Allington]

That's what I'm saying. If drivers have to ascertain the icing threat, then they should be able to ascertain the severe storm/tornado threat at home.

It goes back to the question of what the NWS role is. Are people responsible for ascertaining weather hazards themselves, or does the NWS exist to provide assististance in alerting people who don't think about weather 24/7 like we do?

The way I see it is not all thunderstorms are severe. There are dozens of thunderstorm events every year that aren't severe. Every storm presents a lightning hazard but they don't issue lightning warnings.

Ice is ice no matter what. If the NWS issues their product saying the roads could be icy then thats it. They have done their job. Every person knows ice is slippery and has the information already beat into their heads even though most ignore it.

I would think current road conditions should be handled by the DOT. I think here in Chicago the plows are going to be outfitted with GPS units and you can actually track them. I don't know if this has been done or not but I remember there were talks about it.

Exactly... The NWS already issues products that warn of icy or dangerous road conditions. Even for low end glaze events such as the current examples (from today) that I posted. In my eyes, that covers their end of the job. Maybe you should go the direction of implementing some kind of weather driving test that you can pass or fail and have conditions on your licsense similar to the ones for glasses or contacts. If you really don't know that ice is slippery, and can't infer that water is ice when the temp lowers to freezing, then you probably shouldn't be driving. You learn about the states of water in kindergarten or 1st grade lol.

 

[Dan Robinson]

If you really don't know that ice is slippery, and can't infer that water is ice when the temp lowers to freezing, then you probably shouldn't be driving. You learn about the states of water in kindergarten or 1st grade lol.

It's not about knowing that ice is slippery. It is about knowing when it is present or will be present. People do not pay attention to surface obs and radar when they go to work every day. Most don't even know they should look. They are not weather nerds like we are.

Many of the deadliest events have an element of surprise - intermittent icing, bridge icing, freezing rain and freezing drizzle are visually undetectable at worst or very subtle at best.

You never hear any product say that icing is deadly. Even severe thunderstorm warnings mention deadly lightning.

So everyone here is OK with 500 deaths a year. All of those people are just idiots and nothing we can do is worth trying to make a difference? Is that really the sentiment over adding a couple of new words to the NWS arsenal and a few lines of text to a product?

 

[Jason Boggs]

It goes back to the question of what the NWS role is. Are people responsible for ascertaining weather hazards themselves, or does the NWS exist to provide assististance in alerting people who don't think about weather 24/7 like we do?

NWS people are responsible for getting out warnings and watches, but the public is also responsible for using some common sense. Heck, when there is a tornado warning, you see people standing on their porch trying to see the tornado. That's not exactly common sense. People just don't take warnings seriously anymore. They haul ass on snow, icy roads and wet roads. No kind of warning can protect these kind of idiot drivers. Drivers that slow down in these types of circumstances are protected by their noggin, not warnings or watches.

 

[Dan Robinson]

No kind of warning can protect these kind of idiot drivers.

Many of the deadliest events have an element of surprise - intermittent icing, bridge icing, freezing rain and freezing drizzle are visually undetectable at worst or very subtle at best.

I have copied and pasted that three times now in this thread. Is there another way I need to word it to get the message across? Help me figure out a way to say that better that conveys the fact that many of the deadliest icing events are ones that catch drivers off guard.

There are some 'idiots' who ignore the conditions, just like there are some 'idiots' who don't pay attention to tornado warnings/watches. But they do not represent all of the fatalities.

 

[MClarkson]

People die on wet roads all the time. Skiers slip on ice and rocket off into trees all the time. Sailboaters drown after winds tip them over all the time. I dont think warnings need to go out every time weather could possibly affect some other part of life that when combined causes something that is slightly dangerous...

 

[Chris Carter]

If you read my former post, disregard.

I know where you are getting at in Icy Road Safety. But that is why there is so much done prior to the event, heavily used roads have built-in sprayers in the street that help melt ice and snowpacked roads. Trucks go out and put salt down or liquid de-icing, schools cancel classes before the icing starts and usually doesn't reopen until all roadways are cleared. TV and radio make sure the word is out to prevent unnecessary accidents and put the "If you don't need to leave your house, don't drive on the roadways." But yet people still venture out, why? Because its their right to, they want to take their chances and try and be careful, then you get some people that don't care and leave anyway, or then the people who are careful, think the roads are fine and then they hit a patch of ice and find themselves in a ditch.

People who are accustom to snow and ice and slick roads, know how to drive on the roads and know when it is safe to do so. I have lived in Nebraska for 20 years, driven around on the road after a 2" icestorm, but i know what im doing when im driving in slick conditions, and yet im sure one day ill get into accident or slip off the road. But i know, never to slam on my brakes, make sure there is at least 1-2 cars worth of space between me and person in front of me, never accelerate when the road curves, take turns nice and slow, if the car starts to slip, turn the wheel only far enough to correct yourself. Too many times I've seen someones car slip and they turn the wheel all the way to the opposite side and then once the car finds the grip on the ground, it turns them too far and they spin out of control.

 

[Dan Robinson]

People die on wet roads all the time...

Already addressed this earlier. Wet roads do not have nearly the death rates that icing events have.

I dont think warnings need to go out every time weather could possibly affect some other part of life that when combined causes something that is slightly dangerous...

OK, again - then we need to do away with severe thunderstorm warnings.

I use the severe thunderstorm example because all of the arguments against warning for road icing absolutely annihilate any logical reason to have severe thunderstorm warnings.

 

[Dan Robinson]

I don't actually believe that we should eliminate severe thunderstorm warnings. I use them as an example to show the huge gap in resource allocation versus actual human impact from a direct weather phenomenon.

 

[Chris Allington]

Many of the deadliest events have an element of surprise - intermittent icing, bridge icing, freezing rain and freezing drizzle are visually undetectable at worst or very subtle at best.

I have copied and pasted that three times now in this thread. Is there another way I need to word it to get the message across? Help me figure out a way to say that better that conveys the fact that many of the deadliest icing events are ones that catch drivers off guard.

And how are you suggesting that yet another set of paragraphs is going to change that? Below freezing temperatures plus moisture equals ice... its just that simple. Its easy to tell if its raining, or drizzling because it will obviously be landing on your windshield as your driving, you look down at your speedometer and the lcd temp display says 32 degrees. TADA ICE! Bridge icing is addressed by a sign at literally every single bridge. Intermittent icing is about the same as freezing rain and drizzle, just with subtle temperature flucuations leading to frozen and un-frozen patches. The bottom line is still when its 32 degrees or below, and water is present expect ice. Build cars that are smarter when it comes to detecting icing, or have an audible statement warning of possible ice when the temperature is approaching 32... I'm not saying that I think 500 deaths is simply the result of stupidity (though for some it most likely is) but I really don't think yet another warning is the way to do so.

Your suggesting that current winter weather products don't cover the threat (even though we have broken down current real time examples), so what would change with how the products are issued? Nothing... except calling it a warning.

 

[Jason Boggs]

Many of the deadliest events have an element of surprise - intermittent icing, bridge icing, freezing rain and freezing drizzle are visually undetectable at worst or very subtle at best.

I have copied and pasted that three times now in this thread. Is there another way I need to word it to get the message across? Help me figure out a way to say that better that conveys the fact that many of the deadliest icing events are ones that catch drivers off guard.

There are some 'idiots' who ignore the conditions, just like there are some 'idiots' who don't pay attention to tornado warnings/watches. But they do not represent all of the fatalities.

I understand what you're saying. If mutliple warnings go out for icing on roads, and there is intermittent icing, and subtle icing in small areas, people will still drive fast because they think there is no danger until they hit that slick spot the size of a small room. What warning could possibly protect them against that?

Again, I have high respect for what you're doing Dan, but sometimes you just have to let the public make their own decisions about safety.

 

[MClarkson]

Well ya, the threshold for severe tstorm warnings should be increased. Not arguing against that.