Stronger NWS wording needed for freezing rain

[Jason A.C. Brock]

We pay attention to it because we are weather nerds....the current warnings I think are fine....its the people who dont take 2 minutes to look at or listen to the weather each day that usually have the problems. Ive seen towns get destroyed by a massive tornado oin a moderate or even high risk of severe storms type of day. Then you hear the towns people say..."We had no warning".....you were in a moderate risk ith a PDS tornado watch!
Ive also seen a fine morning ist due to fog during rush hour down here cause massive pile ups.....jsut depends where ya are and if you have been taught to drive in ice and snow.....nobody can really drive in jsut pure ice anyways so its best to stay at home if the road looks wet and temp is 32 or below......but people dont look to see if the temp is 32 or below. If it doenst look like an ice rink.....they assume its safe....and most always will.

 

[rdale]

The kind of evidence you're asking for can't possibly be produced because "black ice road travel warnings" don't exist, and so can't be tested. Until such testing occurs, no evidence can be furnished either for or against.

EXACTLY. Before we go making up new warnings, lets do some testing first.

What I find myself wondering is, what kind of thought went into developing the existing terminology?

Probably the same amount that went into NWS telling everyone on the roads to immediately dive for the nearest ditch whenever a TOR is issued. There's no basis to it, and nobody does (or should do) it, yet they still recommend that response...

Consider the points made in this discussion and ask yourself this: if no winter weather advisory language existed today and we had to develop terminology from scratch, what would we wind up with?

I wouldn't have too many of them... Maybe a Blizzard Warning, Travel Warning and Travel Advisory. The rest are just one-liners for the radio DJ's to read off, they don't really serve much purpose.

But again, I don't think it could hurt to revisit the terminology.

Absolutely... But revisit it with research of actually public response...

 

[Greg Higgins]

The real issue at hand is public education and people being responsible for their own actions. While the NWS and other media outlets can change the terminology, broadcast the warnings every minute of the day and attempt to provide guidance, until the public a) pays attention to the information, b) understands the consequences of the information, c) makes a rational decision, and d) accepts responsibility for their actions, will the advisories, watches and warnings be useful. Education needs to start in grades 1-3 and then reinforced all the way through high school graduation. And still it will take several generations to see a change.

Greg Higgins

 

[Bob Hartig]

Absolutely... But revisit it with research of actually public response...

Right. A knee-jerk response is as bad as no response, maybe worse. The right way is to consider the factors involved, then carefully choose terminology, run it through the hoops, and arrive empirically at language and best practices that most effectively communicate to the public.

And there will still be accidents. There's only so much the NWS can do, and once it's done, the rest is up to the public.

 

[Evan Bookbinder]

Of course one can never interview those who have died resulting from accidents due to icing, but for those who have survived, I wonder if any studies have been done to interrogate their weather knowledge at the time of the incident. A great candidate for a WAS*IS societal impact study.

There are several scenarios where great Internet and media coverage of an icing event isn't going to help. And for these reasons and others, I don't think the underlying problem is with the current watch/warning/advisory structure in the NWS.

1.) Long distance travelers and truckers who unknowingly cross a frontal zone from rain into freezing rain, or from snow into freezing rain (and think its warmed above 32)
2.) Those who went out to run errands, etc... at temperatures above freezing, and the temperature dropped below freezing while out and about.
3.) Rainfall or snowmelt occurs above freezing, followed by an arctic blast resulting in a flash freeze.
4.) Non-meteorological factors -- including the number of people who now listen to their iPods or XM radio in their car instead of local stations, thus severely limiting their ability to become situationally aware.

I use "freezing" as a proxy, because actual icing can occur much lower due to pavement temperatures, oil, dirt, chemicals, etc...

Anywho, I've been trying to make a push with regards to vehicles themselves. Think of the many safety features on your vehicle (ABS, airbags, crumple zones, idiot lights, seatbelts, etc...), but then check the overwhelming number of vehicles that do not have a lousy outdoor temperature gauge display on their dash console. An EXTREMELY cheap solution that when combined with an idiot light/warning tone for at or below freezing temperatures, could potentially save many many lives.

Great strides have been made -- such as the addition of dynamic display boards along the Interstates...but they are limited to just those roads and widely spaced sections that contain those signs. More vehicles are now including outdoor thermometers, although many have no alert capability for sub-freezing temperatures. Unfortunately, many of these are mid-high $ models, making it seem as though knowing the outdoor temperature is a luxury feature.

Bottom line is that I think making drivers first-hand aware of an ice scenario (freezing rain or otherwise) could go a VERY long ways to reducing accident rates and certainly injury/fatality rates. Please take the time to write your auto manufacturers, as I have, about this safety issue. Express this concern to your local dealership as well. You'd be surprised the reactions I've gotten in the past 3 months of vehicle shopping when I told them I wouldn't buy an otherwise outstanding vehicle because of this missing safety issue.

Comments and thoughts appreciated.

Respectfully,
Evan

 

[John Farley]

One scenario I would add to Evan's list above is situations where the ground is warm enough to prevent freezing, but freezing occurs on bridges, overpasses, or chronically-shaded areas where the ground is colder. Many years ago while driving from home (Iowa) to college (Michigan), I encountered this kind of situation in Illinois on I-80. The road was just wet, EXCEPT on bridges and overpasses which were icy and very slippery. More than once I unexpectedly encountered ice on an overpass and slid over into the left lane, luckily no car there. Also went through an area where I saw wrecks on 3 consecutive overpasses. Now I, and the other drivers, should have been aware of this as it is a not uncommon scenario, and this is especially true for me after sliding out the first time. But it is very easy to get lulled into complacency when the road is just wet for miles, then suddenly icy. I think this situation is much more dangerous than when the road is icy everywhere. This experience, along with driving experience generally, made me into a driver much more aware and wary of this risk, but for less experienced or even slightly inattentive drivers, it poses a deadly risk.

Evan's suggestion is helpful for this; perhaps also flashers on bridges that activate automatically when the temperature falls below freezing and the road surface is wet? Not sure how costly this would be, but I have seen them in a few places (not sure if automatic or human-controlled, though).

 

[jshields]

its been mentioned in this post about the icing we had here in omaha yesterday, 1/3. let me tell you my experience with it we had basically a flash freeze. all morning it was foggy and misty with light drizzle and about 36 degrees outside. a little before 1pm my wife and i went out to walk the dog. about a block away i felt the first wind gust out of the northwest and it started drizzling harder. within 5-8 minutes or so the winds were about 20-25 mph sustained and it was misting/drizzling fairly hard. you could see it coming down in "sheets", but the drops were very fine. soon i noticed ice forming on the front side of my jacket. by the time i got back home my hood was frozen solid! i checked my thermometer and it was down to 26 degrees! it was cool to see how the ice froze on sidewalks, our decks, etc. about 3pm i went out to go to a friends house on the other side of town. normally a 20 minute drive it took me about an hour and 5 minutes, bc 15-20 mph was all the safer i felt to go. i actually witnessed 2 accidents, saw about 5-7 others that had already happened. if you stopped moving while going up a hill, you had a good chance of not making it. i saw several cars sliding backwards down a hill! several times i saw traffic backed up for blocks due to an accident or someone stuck, etc. police weren't even responding to non injury accidents. i even saw a big rig semi truck without its trailer stuck at a stoplight! even on major streets it was usually horrible. i only saw one sand truck on my whole drive. the roads dept here was quoted as saying the front came through quicker than they thought, and they didn't even start salting and sanding until 1 pm, about the time it froze everywhere. this despite the freezing rain adv that was issued by 10 am. they also said there was so much traffic out that it made getting around slower. to me they should have been out pretreating the roads long before 1 pm. anyways now here's my take on the topic. i think the way these advisories are issued are fine. they were pretty animate about the freezing rain poss on the news the night before. people who drive like idiots are always going to drive like idiots and i think the majority of people that get into accidents/die during icing events were probably over driving the conditions. i don't know how many times i was passed yesterday like i was standing still by some moron driving a suv or pickup yesterday. i stopped at a gas station on my way and as i came out i hear a car slamming on its brakes and sliding and i looked up and guess what type of vehicle it was? an suv. just like tornado warnings and high risk severe weather days, theres only so much the nws and media can do, then its up to individual person on they respond to that threat or danger.

 

[Patrick Marsh]

I don't have the time or desire to go back and read all the pages of posts on this topic, but I did want to say this: At what point does the NWS wash its hands of trying to scare people into heeding its warnings and focus on providing the most reliable weather information in a timely manner? This thread, the Tornado Emergency thread, and many others all speak to an underlying debate: just what is the role of the NWS. Is an NWS WFO responsible for the actions of those affected by weather events in their CWA or is an NWS WFO responsible for providing the most accurate and timely information to the public as possible?

I won't speak for anyone else, but my opinion is that at some point the NWS has to wash its hands of the end users actions and focus on what its employees are trained to do, forecasting (yes, watches, warnings, etc are forecasts) the weather.

 

[Danny Neal]

I agree with your philosophy to an extent Patrick.

It would bug me though if I worked for the NWS and issued product after product and people STILL didn't care or heed my warning/wording. No matter what, the WFO personnel are going to care about the feedback. If they issue warning after warning (advisory etc) and dozens of people still perished, I don't think they can just wash their hands of it.

The problem lies with the people blaming the NWS. I think it is necessary to use scare tactics, at least that way when something bad does happen, you can go back and say "Well we told you so....."

I guess it would get extremely frustrating to know that you did the best job you could and that still wasn't good enough for some people. I can't see why the NWS would wash its' hands of the situation..... if anything I think they would get more drastic with their wording, to where one day I can see a warning saying "If you go outside you will not survive, period" or "If you drive your car on icy covered roadways, you will crash and die" <--------Maybe not to that extent, but you get the picture.

 

[rdale]

The problem is (I think there's a thread about it somewhere ) is that when you tell someone they will die if they do something, but they do it and live (which is likely for 99.9% of all drivers in ice events) then how do you get them to react next time?

 

[Danny Neal]

The problem is (I think there's a thread about it somewhere ) is that when you tell someone they will die if they do something, but they do it and live (which is likely for 99.9% of all drivers in ice events) then how do you get them to react next time?

You can't which is where I would see Patrick saying "let's wash our hands of it" (BTW I think it was the Hurricane IKE thread maybe?) Either way you look at it, you can't win. You issue standard warnings, people die. You go to the extreme, people don't die but think you are full of it. You can't get frustrated though, if you are in a public safety field ...anything less than 100% is a failure. If you know you could broadcast an effective way of getting people to shelter or to stay off roads, but don't, then you failed. Mike U on Greensburg used the ultimate wording, because he felt it deep down. He could have said....."TW Greensburg, tornado 5 miles south heading N, take shelter now...." but didn't. Whether people in GB actually heard HIS warning or not, he at least did everything he could. Which is why I disagree with the logic of saying "every person for themselves"

I apologize for going SLIGHTLY off topic....

 

[Chris Allington]

I do agree that we should try to do something... but that being said I think its close if not right on to how it should be right now. The advisories/ warnings are issued, then its your choice to heed the warning or go out and drive anyway. Again, I feel like the burden in this situation lies on the individual, or atleast the individual causing the accidents, not the person who gets hit by some bum in an SUV going 55 mph because 'they have 4x4.'

 

[Patrick Marsh]

Mike U on Greensburg used the ultimate wording...

Not true. He issued a Tornado Warning and then a follow up SVS with the words "Tornado Emergency". Whether you like Tornado Emergencies or not, this is not "the ultimate wording". He could have said what Gary England said during the Moore tornado of 1999 (paraphrase here since I don't have the exact words: You cannot survive this tornado above ground. Get below ground or you will die.) I'd argue that Gary's wording was way more extreme than a Tornado Emergency. Using your logic, Mike should feel bad for not "doing all he could do" to save those who did lose their life in the Greensburg tornado. I believe Mike did a great job as a meteorologist that evening. That's all I can ask of him.

Oh, and about Gary's wording? People took him serious and there are reports of people ripping open manhole covers to seek shelter. Problem is, if that supercell had been more HP and moving a lot slower, those sewers - where people sought shelter - would have flooded killing them. You can't try to scare people into doing something. If people don't take the warning system seriously at face value, that's their fault - not the NWS's. This leads into why call to action statements are a joke, but that's another thread...

 

[Danny Neal]

Not true. He issued a Tornado Warning and then a follow up SVS with the words Tornado Emergency. Whether you like Tornado Emergencies or not, this is not "the ultimate wording". He could have said what Gary England said during the Moore tornado of 1999 (paraphrase here since I don't have the exact words: You cannot survive this tornado above ground. Get below ground or you will die.) I'd argue that Gary's wording was way more extreme than a Tornado Emergency. Using your logic, Mike should feel bad for not "doing all he could do" to save those who did lose their life in the Greensburg tornado. I believe Mike did a great job as a meteorologist that evening. That's all I can ask of him.

Oh, and about Gary's wording? People took him serious and there are reports of people ripping open manhole covers to seek shelter. Problem is, if this supercell had been more HP and moving a lot slower, those sewers where people sought shelter would have flooded, killing them anyways. This leads me into why call to action statements are a joke, but that's another thread...

I don't disagree with your whole point. I just don't think one should give up because the majority doesn't follow the amendments to the rules. I.E - Tornado Emergency or w/e. I agree with Greg Stumpf when he said the T.E is mainly for fire. police, and hospitals to put them on alert of something significant happening.

I don't doubt Mike did do a great job. I commend him, I am just saying he didn't JUST leave it as a tornado warning, he went minute by minute (maybe 5 min) updates of the situation while the storm was devastating GB. He gave 100%. I expect everyone in the public safety field to do so. I just have to ask how he should feel bad for not doing everything he could do? He was following standard protocol (tornado warning) and then put his own twist(tornado emergency) on things....IMO THAT is the way it needed to be done. Even without using the term TORNADO EMERGENCY all the public wants is frequent, accurate updates. Most of the time you get a tornado warning - 1 or 2 SVS - cancellation. As the reports kept coming in, he kept broadcasting. It is his job and it how I think it should be done.

From his initial Kiowa County warning at 855 PM he made 11 SVS on top of 3 warnings. All 5-10 minutes apart.

As for Gary England, I know what you are talking about, but the thing is people actually SAW what was coming for them....there was no mystery. With Greensburg, they HEARD it was coming, but how many actually SAW it heading for them in the dead of night?

 

[Adam Lucio]

I too agree with the washing of the hands philosophy to an extent, the problem is though, when something bad happens people always look for someone to blame...its not my fault for driving too fast and putting on makeup while talking on my phone at the same time...its them for not telling me there was a patch of ice located at mile marker 56...

I think a freezing rain advisory should be issued before the event and then changed to a warning once it happens. Even the slightest accumulation can cause major problems. Dec 26th we had .1 here in the city and it was headline news for days. The NWS criteria seems to based off structural and property damage likelyness.

On the other hand though, I dont think the general public would react differently. Ice is ice no matter what...weather theres .05 of it or .75 its slipper and dangerous. People know this but are so caught up in their rush rush lifestyle they ignore it...maybe they could develop some sort of ice warning that could scroll on the tv like a severe warning or tornado warning, people can a least see the information....how they choose to react is up to them.

Theres only so much hand holding the officials can do, people have to take responsibility for their own lives. If you tell them not to drive because its icy and they do it anyways and end up crashing and dying well...its a shame but its their own fault.

 

[Danny Neal]

If people don't take the warning system seriously at face value, that's their fault - not the NWS's. This leads into why call to action statements are a joke, but that's another thread...

We all know it is their fault. But ultimately who does the finger get pointed back to?

 

[Chris Allington]

I think a freezing rain advisory should be issued before the event and then changed to a warning once it happens. Even the slightest accumulation can cause major problems. Dec 26th we had .1 here in the city and it was headline news for days. The NWS criteria seems to based off structural and property damage likelyness.

On the other hand though, I dont think the general public would react differently. Ice is ice no matter what...weather theres .05 of it or .75 its slipper and dangerous.

So do you think it should go from Advisory to Ice Storm Warning... or their should be a new wording created like 'Glaze Warning.' Also, what would be different to make people heed the warning?

 

[Adam Lucio]

Glaze warning? nah. Adding more terms would only confuse people more.

The point of my post was that...as far as driving goes, .01 of ice is just as dangerous as .75 of ice but the warning criteria seems to be based off significant accumulations that can bring down trees and powerlines....the driving issue is why i think a warning could be justified for only .01 inches.

I dont know if people would heed the warnings, in all actuality they probably wont...but you never know.

 

[Dan Robinson]

I think how the public responds is irrelevant. We know most people are not going to respond properly. But it's the same with any other type of warning. Does that mean we should just not issue weather-related warnings (tornadoes, floods, etc) altogether becuase most people won't listen?

IMO we've got tornado warning practice to the point that there is probably not much else you can do to change people's behavior there. But, can it be said that changes to tornado warning policy/practice over the decades has had no effect on casualty numbers? I can't imagine that it hasn't at all.

Freezing rain has never been treated like tornadoes, IE it's never been portrayed as something that can kill more easily. How can people's perception be expected to change without the 'official' sources not alluding to the true level of risk?

There is personal responsibility in everything - I'm just saying use every practical means to convey the danger, and then you can leave people to respond how they wish (and accept the consequences accordingly). Right now freezing rain is not portrayed as a big hazard to people. It is like a rain-wrapped tornado in that you can't see it - unless you're a weather geek, and have been watching obs and radar all day. I don't expect a soccer mom to start looking at METAR data and radar every time she goes out.

And yes, a lot of accidents are caused by the 'idiots' who are careless. But many of them are not. Most of them are caused by people caught completely off guard by conditions they were not aware of.

And I'm not blaming the NWS at all. No one - not even me - has realized how significant of a danger this is until I started taking a close look at the casualty data.

 

[rdale]

Most of them are caused by people caught completely off guard by conditions they were not aware of.

You say that over and over as if it's a fact - but there are many of us who strongly disagree... How do you know that most ice-related accidents occur with drivers who had ABSOLUTELY NO CLUE beforehand that ice was out there?

 

[Dan Robinson]

You say that over and over as if it's a fact - but there are many of us who strongly disagree... How do you know that most ice-related accidents occur with drivers who had ABSOLUTELY NO CLUE beforehand that ice was out there?

Because I've watched it happen in person dozens of times over the past 3 years.

 

[Patrick Marsh]

Because I've watched it happen in person dozens of times over the past 3 years.

This doesn't prove they were caught off guard. It just proves that they were driving on ice. Unless you specifically asked the drivers if they were unaware of an ice threat (remember, if they are aware of a threat of ice, they can't be "completely caught of guard"), all you have is proof that people drive on ice.

 

[Dan Robinson]

This doesn't prove they were caught off guard.

I have stood on the end of icy bridges several times, waving for people to slow down. Many of them, as they drive by, say thanks and they had no idea the hazard was there. Most accidents happen from people getting caught off guard (icy bridges, isolated ice patches or rapidly changing conditions). It's obvious if someone is driving at 70mph during freezing rain that they either have no clue what is out there, or they don't realize the level of danger.

I don't understand the default assumption that people know what is happening. Why would someone knowingly put themselves at so great of a risk?

We've got to get rid of the common assumption that everyone that wrecks on ice is an idiot that should have known better. That is simply not true.

 

[rdale]

I have stood on the end of icy bridges several times, waving for people to slow down. Many of them, as they drive by, say thanks and they had no idea the hazard was there.

Again - that means nothing. If you want to change the way we deliver weather information, you need some sort of evidence that there's a need. And you've yet to show even the slightest bit of evidence that those drivers didn't already get the freezing rain forecast ahead of time.

It's obvious if someone is driving at 70mph during freezing rain that they either have no clue what is out there, or they don't realize the level of danger.

Are you serious? It means they don't think their car will get in trouble because it's 4WD, or they don't think it will happen to them because last time there was an ice storm warning they drove at 70mph and they made it. Don't equate that with "they didn't know there was an ice storm warning."

I don't understand the default assumption that people know what is happening.

Today we had 0.05" ice. Most roads were fine, but there still were icy patches. As I got on the expressway, EVERYONE was in a one-lane line moving about 40mph. Then every one in a while someone would shoot past at 70. Are you saying those people, who got on the expressway with icy roads and saw EVERYONE ELSE driving 40 -- had no idea that something was happening that should suggest they slow down?

We've got to get rid of the common assumption that everyone that wrecks on ice is an idiot that should have known better. That is simply not true.

Proof = ?

 

[Dan Robinson]

Today we had 0.05" ice. Most roads were fine, but there still were icy patches. As I got on the expressway, EVERYONE was in a one-lane line moving about 40mph. Then every one in a while someone would shoot past at 70. Are you saying those people, who got on the expressway with icy roads and saw EVERYONE ELSE driving 40 -- had no idea that something was happening that should suggest they slow down?QUOTE]

You're in Michigan - a state where people have a more acute awareness of the hazard. In your case I would expect a higher percentage of accidents to be caused by people igniring all the warnings.

Again - that means nothing. If you want to change the way we deliver weather information, you need some sort of evidence that there's a need.

244 deaths since October isn't good enough?

Are you serious? It means they don't think their car will get in trouble because it's 4WD, or they don't think it will happen to them because last time there was an ice storm warning they drove at 70mph and they made it. Don't equate that with "they didn't know there was an ice storm warning."

You're saying that's more probable than someone not knowing that there is a hazard? Where is the proof of that? And how is it that my first-hand observations and conversations with drivers are meritless in comparison?