Stronger NWS wording needed for freezing rain

[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?

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 ignoring all the warning signs.

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? 32 people killed in one event? How high does the number have to be?

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?

So let's drop all funding for tornado reasearch and disband the NWS. People should learn storm structure and mesoanalysis techniques, and evaluate all hazards themselves. If they get hurt or killed, it's their own fault.

 

[Dennis Sherrod]

One thing I have noticed is there is no mention of here: (maybe I missed it) What about the people that may be just traveling to or through an area affected by icing that are not from anywhere around these parts? Most people from the deep south and other warmer climates are probably not as familiar with the icing potentials. Many people traveling may come from a rain area to an area with freezing temperatures and not even know it.
In winter resort areas these kind of warnings that Dan is talking about are fairly common. I have seen and heard these many times in ski resorts where I lived and have gone and the roads and cities that may lead that way. They recognize and even speak of the people not familiar with these conditions to take extra precautions.
Yet traveling through much of Alaska and Canada in the wintertime, there are not much warnings of this, if at all. Overseas is a whole different ballgame and some countries have some of the best warnings ever about this.
For instance in much of Europe, many cars are equipped with sensing devices that warn drivers of outside temperatures and wet roads that may freeze. I first encountered this in the early 90's. Just about scared me to death when someone started talking to me and I was by myself in the car. Other areas have automatic warnings that come across the radios even if they are turned off, warning of road icing potentials.
Each is entitled to their own opinion. Personally, I like the ideas if for no other reason that to advise the people that may be passing through or are not as familiar with the winter style of driving as those that may live there.

 

[rdale]

And how is it that my first-hand observations and conversations with drivers are meritless?

Meritless because you didn't ask them if they knew ice was in the forecast. Odds are they would say YES. Then you need to find out why they were driving unprepared when they knew roads could be icy?

So let's drop all funding for tornado reasearch and disband the NWS. People should learn storm structure and mesoanalysis techniques, and evaluate all hazards themselves. If they get hurt or killed, it's their own fault.

Where did anyone indicate anything like that? We have Freezing Rain Advisories and Ice Storm Warnings. YOU are the one saying people ignore them. Nobody says "Don't forecast ice." YOU need to come up with evidence that people 1) ignore the forecasts of ice using our current methodology and 2) would listen to "black ice travel warnings" and non-stop TV coverage of the freezing rain event.

Talking to a few drivers who see you on the side of the road telling them to slow down is not the same thing.

One thing I have noticed is there is no mention of here: (maybe I missed it) What about the people that may be just traveling to or through an area affected by icing that are not from anywhere around these parts?

Probably about the same as people passing through a PDS Tornado Watch in the summertime... If they don't take a minute to check the forecast, they may be in a BAD position. Should TV stations outside the watch area go wall-to-wall for those traveling towards the watch zone? Or should people take the initiative before a cross-country trip to check the weather?

 

[Dan Robinson]

Meritless because you didn't ask them if they knew ice was in the forecast. Odds are they would say YES. Then you need to find out why they were driving unprepared when they knew roads could be icy?

What I'm saying is that normal people do not knowingly subject themselves to situations that they know to be extremely life-threatening. If they knew it was icy and they knew exactly how deadly driving in freezing rain can be, they would be behaving differently. The fact that they do not behave differently proves that they must either be unaware of the presence of the hazard, unaware of its significant threat to them, or both.

It's the same reason people always call me crazy for chasing tornadoes. They think I am knowingly putting myself in a life-threatening situation, the inference is that they would not do the same thing. Yet they do, unwittingly, every time they drive normally in freezing rain.

 

[Paul Hadfield]

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.

Exactly, if any of you watched my video to see me go sideways up my wimpy little driveway, there's nothing idiot about driving in ice. The two exceptions would be excessive speed or tailgating. Regardless of how careful and conscientious one is, the laws of physics still dominate. You can be doing 10MPH or less and still have zero control. There isn't a soul on this forum who at one point or other in their driving history hasn't experienced an unexpected loss of control due to the elements. Wouldn't that make us all idiots?

Obviously we're not idiots but the problem remains... How do we create the social perception that driving in ice is a unique circumstance that must be addressed differently than rain or snow? For one, we need to change social attitudes. In other words, make it ok for people and businesses to stay put until conditions improve. We close schools when there's 4 inches of snow on the ground yet most would agree, it's far more desirable to drive in nearly any measure of snow than a glaze of ice. People also need to be reminded that although present day cars offer a great deal of confidence and security, the age old fact remains that no automobile can conquer ice. This would be especially true for young people who weren't around to experience driving in cars without front wheel drive and anti-lock brakes. The only option besides do nothing and watch as more people get hurt would be to legalize studded tires which as everyone knows will never happen again.

This is why starting at the top (NWS) and altering the wording is necessary because through dissemination of the campaign via Government entities, media outlets and educational institutions, the point gets across and lives are saved.

 

[Danny Neal]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXFZMGddENA - You don't even need to be in a winter storm for ICE to become a factor.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZIvPG5Tv2s&feature=related

 

[Penny Lehner]

People do know there is ice on the roads and refuse to drive slower. While a majority of the people will be more cautious, there are always those few who think they know how to drive on ice. I can't tell you how many times we responded to accidents where the driver said "but I had it in 4 wheel drive". I just had it happen this past Saturday night. We had freezing drizzle all evening that had been forecasted. The roads were a mess. I was creeping along at 30 mph, half on the road and half on the gravel shoulder wondering why I don't find a job with normal hours. I came up on a SUV on its lid in the median. I stop, call it in to the local county dispatcher and go check for injuries. It was a local gentelman who has lived in Iowa all his life and was well aware of the hazards. And he stated to me "I don't know how it happened. I had it in 4 wheel drive." I pretty much called him a dumbass and told him 4 wheel drive does nothing on ice. The county sheriff found he was going at least 50 on pure ice when the accident happened.

While I agree there could be stronger wording to get the publics attention on the dangers during freezing rain, you can't fix stupid. There will always be that 10% of the public who thinks they know how to drive better than anyone else on the planet and because of their superb driving skills, they don't need to slow down for bad roads. Like I said, you can't fix (or warn) stupid.

 

[Dan Robinson]

Take a look at some of the wording in other types of warnings:

THE SAFEST PLACE TO BE DURING A TORNADO IS IN A BASEMENT. GET UNDER A WORKBENCH OR OTHER PIECE OF STURDY FURNITURE. IF NO BASEMENT IS AVAILABLE...SEEK SHELTER ON THE LOWEST FLOOR OF THE BUILDING IN AN INTERIOR HALLWAY OR ROOM SUCH AS A CLOSET. USE BLANKETS OR PILLOWS TO COVER YOUR BODY AND ALWAYS STAY AWAY FROM WINDOWS. IF IN MOBILE HOMES OR VEHICLES...EVACUATE THEM AND GET INSIDE A SUBSTANTIAL SHELTER. IF NO SHELTER IS AVAILABLE...LIE FLAT IN THE NEAREST DITCH OR OTHER LOW SPOT AND COVER YOUR HEAD WITH YOUR HANDS.

NEVER DRIVE CARS THROUGH FLOODED AREAS!! THE WATER MAY BE TOO DEEP TO ALLOW SAFE PASSAGE. MOST DEATHS THAT OCCUR DURING FLOODING ARE
RELATED TO VEHICLES TRYING TO CROSS FLOODED ROADWAYS.

SEVERE THUNDERSTORMS PRODUCE WINDS IN EXCESS OF 60 MPH... DESTRUCTIVE HAIL...DEADLY LIGHTNING AND TORRENTIAL RAIN. FOR YOUR PROTECTION...SEEK SHELTER IN A STRONG BUILDING. STAY AWAY FROM WINDOWS AND AVOID USING TELEPHONES...COMPUTERS OR OTHER ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT UNTIL THE STORM HAS PASSED.

Now, look at a typical Freezing Rain Advisory:

A PERIOD OF FREEZING RAIN IS EXPECTED THIS EVENING THROUGH SUNDAY MORNING. ICE ACCUMULATIONS OF UP TO ONE TENTH OF AN INCH WILL BE POSSIBLE...WITH THE HIGHEST AMOUNTS LIKELY ACROSS PORTIONS OF NORTHEAST INDIANA...NORTHWEST OHIO AND SOUTHERN MICHIGAN. ROADWAYS ARE EXPECTED TO BECOME HAZARDOUS IN SOME AREAS...MAKING TRAVEL DIFFICULT. TEMPERATURES WILL WARM ABOVE FREEZING SUNDAY MORNING ENDING ALL ICING. && A FREEZING RAIN ADVISORY MEANS THAT PERIODS OF FREEZING RAIN OR FREEZING DRIZZLE WILL CAUSE TRAVEL DIFFICULTIES. BE PREPARED FOR SLIPPERY ROADS. SLOW DOWN AND USE CAUTION WHILE DRIVING.

Why not add something like the following:

THIS IS A POTENTIALLY LIFE-THREATENING SITUATION FOR MOTORISTS. FREEZING RAIN FREQUENTLY CAUSES DEADLY MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENTS. REMEMBER THAT YOU CANNOT SEE ICE PRODUCED BY FREEZING RAIN - THE ICE WILL APPEAR EXACTLY LIKE WET PAVEMENT. REMEMBER THAT FOUR-WHEEL DRIVE VEHICLES ARE NOT IMMUNE TO LOSING CONTROL ON ICE. POSTPONE TRAVEL OR STAY OFF OF THE ROADS IF AT ALL POSSIBLE UNTIL THE THREAT PASSES. IF YOU MUST TRAVEL, PROCEED SLOWLY AND WITH EXTREME CAUTION.

 

[rdale]

CTA's are a whole 'nother story... The trend is towards removing them from products and concentrating that sort of info on the educational aspect ahead of time. If you have no idea what to do in a tornado, going online and reading the 8th paragraph down won't help you

 

[Patrick Marsh]

I specifically avoided going into CTAs in one of my posts, but since it has come back up, I'll just say this:

• If you don't know what to do when a warning is issued, it's too late. The time to know figure out what to do is well before a warning is issued...
• What do you do when you have two warnings in affect and the CTAs contradict each other? Having a Tornado Warning (CTA: go to basement) and Flash Flood Warning (CTA: seek higher ground) in affect at the same time is common for a slow moving HP supercell...

 

[Dan Robinson]

True, but the CTAs routinely influence how the media portrays the warning. TV, radio and online sources (both national and local) often quote or paraphrase the CTAs. I've heard even CNN and TWC do it, sometimes reading the statement word-for-word. If it's coming from 'the' official source, the likelihood of the end user hearing it increases.

 

[Patrick Marsh]

True, but the CTAs routinely influence how the media portrays the warning. TV, radio and online sources (both national and local) often quote or paraphrase the CTAs. I've heard even CNN and TWC do it, sometimes reading the statement word-for-word. If it's coming from 'the' official source, the likelihood of the end user hearing it increases.

You're missing the point. I don't care if the end-user ever does hear the CTA statement. I think they should be removed all together. If an end-user is waiting for someone to tell them what to do, after a warning is issued, then it is too late. CTA statement do not address the needs of everyone who is in that warning. If I'm sitting in a certified "Safe Room" when a tornado warning is issued and a CTA says "seek shelter in a basement", is it better for me to stay put in the Safe Room, or should I follow the advice of the CTA and go to a basement...which might requre me to go outside and across the street to a neighbor since I don't have a basement, but they do. So who then are CTAs geared toward, since it is unfeasible to have a CTA for every need?

You mention that CTAs are geared toward the media, etc to help get the message out. There are a lot more tools at the NWS's disposal now for communicating with EMs and media than CTA statements. NWS chat is one specifically geared toward this need. Plus, I've been in TV stations during severe weather and ice storms. Most local TV mets don't read the CTAs...they have their own graphics, pre-made, that they show viewers. The TV mets don't have time to custom make graphics to every CTA that comes out... (and if an end-user is waiting for the national media to read a CTA to them, then I think there are bigger issues at hand...)

 

[Ryan McGinnis]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXFZMGddENA - You don't even need to be in a winter storm for ICE to become a factor.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZIvPG5Tv2s&feature=related

I was watching that first one with the audio off and thought: "Man, this really needs the Benny Hill theme!" I turn the speakers on, and lo.

 

[Ryan McGinnis]

Why not add something like the following:

THIS IS A POTENTIALLY LIFE-THREATENING SITUATION FOR MOTORISTS. FREEZING RAIN FREQUENTLY CAUSES DEADLY MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENTS. REMEMBER THAT YOU CANNOT SEE ICE PRODUCED BY FREEZING RAIN - THE ICE WILL APPEAR EXACTLY LIKE WET PAVEMENT. REMEMBER THAT FOUR-WHEEL DRIVE VEHICLES ARE NOT IMMUNE TO LOSING CONTROL ON ICE. POSTPONE TRAVEL OR STAY OFF OF THE ROADS IF AT ALL POSSIBLE UNTIL THE THREAT PASSES. IF YOU MUST TRAVEL, PROCEED SLOWLY AND WITH EXTREME CAUTION.

I think this is an extremely good idea. You've recognized a statistical risk that has gone under the radar somehow. I know that some well placed people within the NWS read this list; hopefully your sugestions will be taken on board.

There are other solutions to the icing problem (more money put into road deicing, more money put into car technologies that warn of icing), but the enhanced wording in FRAs costs almost nothing and at least gives people the information they need to make more informed decisions.

 

[Patrick Marsh]

Why stop at freezing rain advisories? Melted snow that refreezes does the same thing. Do we need to include this message in ALL winter products now? Where do you draw the line with the CTAs? Even if we add this line to ALL winter weather products, how many people will actually read down that far? (Not to mention, what about people travelling who didn't even know there was a chance of ice / snow? Including this information only works if someone bothers to check that far into the product to see it - chances are people won't bother.

The only way you can address this issue is through the education of end users. The statement above should be a part of a winter weather safety program...not the actual product. The safety program can (and should) be put together by meteorologists (in charge of the science) and communications experts (in charge of making sure the message isn't lost in communication and how to target specific groups). If you want to make sure that people see this information at least once use this information to ask a mandatory question on every state's driving test. The key is education WELL BEFORE an event - not immediately before / during an event.

Education - not CTAs - is the way forward with both the winter weather, convective weather, and hydrogical issues.

 

[Ryan McGinnis]

Why stop at freezing rain advisories? Melted snow that refreezes does the same thing. Do we need to include this message in ALL winter products now?

Nope, we'd have enough slippery slope covered by putting the language into the FRAs.

Where do you draw the line with the CTAs? Even if we add this line to ALL winter weather products, how many people will actually read down that far?

I would guess that, by far, most people do not get their warnings, watches, and advisories as static text products. They get the advisories from talking heads, EAS radio break-ins, or from scrolling TV text. But your argument smacks of "it isn't 100% effective so why bother!" To take the slippery slope the other way, then why have a weather service? People can stick their head out the window.

The only way you can address this issue is through the education of end users. The statement above should be a part of a winter weather safety program...not the actual product.

First, one can easily do both; they're not mutually exclusive. Second, the FRA text product would be mostly free. "Educational outreach" would not be free. And, to be honest, I can't remember the last time governmental PSA campaigns were ever deemed terribly effective. Most people still think you should dive under the nearest highway overpass in a tornado warning. I'd hazard the only reason most people know to go to a basement is because the weatherman on TV tells them to. I mean, really, when was the last time a guy was going to drive through a flash flood, but then remembered "Oh, yeah! The National Weather Service Flash Flood Awareness Week Pamphlet says not to do that!" You don't need a bunch of degreed nerds farting around on a government committee for five years to figure out that adding a free line of safety text about a specific threat to an advisory that will be read out over the public airwaves on all channels every time that threat comes around is a good idea.

The safety program can (and should) be put together by meteorologists (in charge of the science) and communications experts (in charge of making sure the message isn't lost in communication and how to target specific groups). If you want to make sure that people see this information at least once use this information to ask a mandatory question on every state's driving test. The key is education WELL BEFORE an event - not immediately before / during an event.

Again, potentially good ideas, though it does not exclude the possibility of attaching wording to the FRAs, too. I'm not sure why there is such resistance to the idea; it's not like an extra sentence or two of text is going to cost anything or hurt anyone. Maybe make your HDTV go into SDTV mode for an additional 5 seconds, but that's about it.

 

[Dan Robinson]

Melted snow that refreezes does the same thing.

No. The accident/death rates during freezing rain in progress are higher than any other type of road ice situation, including snow. There have only been a handful of fatalities due to road ice from water runoff, and none that I have seen so far this winter from 'flash freezing' (freezing of residual rainwater). It's falling and freezing liquid precip (freezing drizzle and freezing rain) that account for as much as half of the current 267 deaths this winter.

I'm looking at severe thunderstorm warnings and trying to figure out what the difference is. There are currently thousands of SVR warnings issued every year. How many deaths are there from severe thunderstorms? There aren't that many freezing rain advisories by comparison, which would account for 90% of the time that a stronger warning for road ice should be issued. It just doesn't happen that often (unless you're in the snow belt states).

 

[rdale]

I would guess that, by far, most people do not get their warnings, watches, and advisories as static text products. They get the advisories from talking heads, EAS radio break-ins, or from scrolling TV text. But your argument smacks of "it isn't 100% effective so why bother!"

It's 0% effective - that's the problem. As you noted - NOBODY gets the fifth paragraph of even a tornado warning. So they sure aren't going to get it from the WSW.

To take the slippery slope the other way, then why have a weather service? People can stick their head out the window.

Huh? What slope did you slip on to say something like that?

 

[Patrick Marsh]

Nope, we'd have enough slippery slope covered by putting the language into the FRAs.

I'm not sure that I agree with this. What about freezing fog - that causes ice buildup? Just this week both the Norman, Tulsa, and Little Rock WFOs issued Winter Weather Advisories for freezing rain / sleet. I guess people under these advisories don't need to be warned about ice since they didn't have a freezing rain advisory...

I would guess that, by far, most people do not get their warnings, watches, and advisories as static text products. They get the advisories from talking heads, EAS radio break-ins, or from scrolling TV text. But your argument smacks of "it isn't 100% effective so why bother!" To take the slippery slope the other way, then why have a weather service? People can stick their head out the window.

My argument smacks of, "Get rid of CTAs all together", regardless of if someone thinks they are 100% affective - not the "it isn't 100% effective so why bother". I can say this because it is fundamentally impossible to put enough CTAs in a product to cover every possibility so 100% effectiveness is out of the question. Furthermore, I know of several instances where following the prescribed CTA actually put people in harms way...not taking them out of it.

I love the "slippery slope" argument, but this one just doesn't apply. At no point did I say issuing advisories / warnings is unnecessary. I said that telling people what to do is unnecessary. Giving people information is great, I'm all for that. Telling people what to do is a different story.

First, one can easily do both; they're not mutually exclusive.

I don't recall saying that they were mutually exclusive. I do recall saying that I don't see adding extra text doing anything.

Second, the FRA text product would be mostly free. "Educational outreach" would not be free. And, to be honest, I can't remember the last time governmental PSA campaigns were ever deemed terribly effective. Most people still think you should dive under the nearest highway overpass in a tornado warning.

I'm not aware of a concerted program dedicated to reversing this wrong.

I'd hazard the only reason most people know to go to a basement is because the weatherman on TV tells them to.

Further proof that CTAs aren't necessary.

I mean, really, when was the last time a guy was going to drive through a flash flood, but then remembered "Oh, yeah! The National Weather Service Flash Flood Awareness Week Pamphlet says not to do that!"

Honestly, we have no clue. No one goes out and finds the people who did the right thing, because they didn't become another fatality statistic. We have no idea how affective the Turn Around, Don't Drown campaign is. I can say that I do know a lot of people who aren't weather savvy who know the saying... Just because someone doesn't take the proper course of action, doesn't mean they didn't know what the proper thing to do.

You don't need a bunch of degreed nerds farting around on a government committee for five years to figure out that adding a free line of safety text about a specific threat to an advisory that will be read out over the public airwaves on all channels every time that threat comes around is a good idea.

The "degreed nerds" you refer to as "farting around" are the ones who are trained to do these tasks. However, I'll stipulate that 5 years of government committee work won't do the job. That's where non-profits, weather programs, etc can do things much faster than the government.

Also, who is going to read this proposed line on the airwaves? The last TV meteorologist I talked to said get rid of the CTAs. He wants to know what the warning is, when it expires, and what the threat is. He doesn't read CTAs. Plus, I can't remember the last time a long fuse product (which winter weather products are) was read on air...

Again, potentially good ideas, though it does not exclude the possibility of attaching wording to the FRAs, too. I'm not sure why there is such resistance to the idea; it's not like an extra sentence or two of text is going to cost anything or hurt anyone. Maybe make your HDTV go into SDTV mode for an additional 5 seconds, but that's about it.

Because if there is a need to do this then there is an underlying issue that needs to be addressed. We can add all the extra text that people want to all the extra products, but then next winter/tornado/hurricane/etc people will want to add more text for things that come up between now and then. If people don't understand that when freezing rain is forecast that roads will potentially be icy, we need to address the issue of why they don't equate the two. Below is text from several current and recent Freezing Rain Advisories and Ice Storm Warnings. If this text doesn't adequately convey the threat, then adding the line people keep referencing isn't going to add any value.

A FREEZING RAIN ADVISORY MEANS THAT PERIODS OF FREEZING RAIN OR FREEZING
DRIZZLE WILL CAUSE TRAVEL DIFFICULTIES. SLOW DOWN AND USE CAUTION WHILE
DRIVING. BRIDGES AND OVERPASSES WILL BE THE FIRST PLACES THAT ICY SPOTS
WILL DEVELOP

[FONT=lucida sans typewriter, lucida console, courier]
[/FONT]

AN ICE STORM WARNING MEANS A SIGNIFICANT...AND POSSIBLY
DAMAGING...AMOUNT OF FREEZING RAIN IS EXPECTED. ICE ACCUMULATIONS
WILL LIKELY LEAD TO SNAPPED TREE LIMBS AND POWER OUTAGES. IN
ADDITION...TRAVEL ON UNTREATED ROADS WILL BE DANGEROUS OR
IMPOSSIBLE. STAY TUNED TO NOAA WEATHER RADIO OR YOUR FAVORITE
SOURCE OF WEATHER INFORMATION FOR THE LATEST UPDATES. ADDITIONAL
DETAILS CAN ALSO BE FOUND AT...WEATHER.GOV/STATECOLLEGE.

 

[Patrick Marsh]

No. The accident/death rates during freezing rain in progress are higher than any other type of road ice situation, including snow. There have only been a handful of fatalities due to road ice from water runoff, and none that I have seen so far this winter from 'flash freezing' (freezing of residual rainwater). It's falling and freezing liquid precip (freezing drizzle and freezing rain) that account for as much as half of the current 267 deaths this winter.

You can take my quote out of context all you want. However, the fact remains that frozen water is frozen water. I don't make a distinction as to how it got there. If you only put the text in freezing rain advisories then you are implicitly saying that freezing rain causes ice on roadways and that snow cannot. (I'm not even going into the fact that a lot of times snowflakes melt on initial contact and eventually freeze.)

Here's an analogy. Significant opposition to the original Bill of Rights to the constitution was not the result of people not wanting these rights. It was grounded in that if we specifically grant these rights, then that is all the rights we have. Tying that back to this situation, if you specifically state that freezing rain causes icy roads and dangerous driving conditions, then you imply that other types of winter weather do not.

I'm looking at severe thunderstorm warnings and trying to figure out what the difference is. There are currently thousands of SVR warnings issued every year. How many deaths are there from severe thunderstorms? There aren't that many freezing rain advisories by comparison, which would account for 90% of the time that a stronger warning for road ice should be issued. It just doesn't happen that often (unless you're in the snow belt states).

If you were to take all the hazards from a severe thunderstorm (including flash flooding and other effects from rain, such as hydroplaning) then severe thunderstorms would kill more people than freezing rain. Problem is, most of these deaths are recorded as traffic fatalities, not weather related fatalities.

Also, I've seen it mentioned several times that the "snow-belt" is most at risk for "freezing" precipitation. This is simply not true. Freezing rain climatologies actually favor the southern plains and the eastern side of the Appalachians...not the "snow-belt".

 

[Ryan McGinnis]

It's 0% effective - that's the problem.

Okay, Rdale, it's 0% effective. That sounds plausible.

 

[Dan Robinson]

However, the fact remains that frozen water is frozen water. I don't make a distinction as to how it got there.

Frozen water is frozen water, but the facts are that deadly accidents happen at very high rates during freezing rain and freezing drizzle. They do not happen at the same high rates during snowfall, refreezing of snow/rain/slush/sleet.

Also, I've seen it mentioned several times that the "snow-belt" is most at risk for "freezing" precipitation. This is simply not true. Freezing rain climatologies actually favor the southern plains and the eastern side of the Appalachians...not the "snow-belt".

True. The reason I keep bringing that up is that the opposition to road ice warnings/enhanced wording is that the northerners would be seeing it all the time. In reality this would be something that north Texas, for example, would see maybe five times a year.

If you were to take all the hazards from a severe thunderstorm (including flash flooding and other effects from rain, such as hydroplaning) then severe thunderstorms would kill more people than freezing rain. Problem is, most of these deaths are recorded as traffic fatalities, not weather related fatalities.

The deaths/accidents are not as concentrated and as frequent during a severe thunderstorm. You never see a thunderstorm day kill 32 people and cause thousands of accidents over a small region.

I just keep going back to what is already done for other weather risks. Why the enhanced wording in a PDS severe or PDS tornado watch? How does the NWS make decisions on what risks get the stronger emphasis?

Convective severe weather has been put on such a pedestal - media coverage, warnings, enhanced wording, PDS watches, awareness campaigns, six-part TV documentaries, research projects, funding, grants, etc. And rightly so- I'm not advocating downplaying that risk. I'm just trying to understand the emphatic resistance to putting another, more life-threatening risk factor on the same type of "pedestal".

Case in point - another ten people died from freezing rain today in AR, IN, IL and OH. Where are the headlines on CNN? If a tornado outbreak does that, its top news for three days. People will never make the necessary connection between road ice and risk of death if the official portrayal and reporting of the hazard never changes. Freezing rain advisories, both in their current state and in their handling by the media, conveys a message that it's merely a nusiance weather phenomena affecting the evening commute, not the killer that it really is.

 

[rdale]

Okay, Rdale, it's 0% effective. That sounds plausible.

Come up with a number then... You've said 100%, but common sense (and a great reply by Patrick) shows that not to be the case. How much impact would a CTA that users never see have on the situation?

 

[Patrick Marsh]

The difference is that a tornado outbreak can, and does, kill people who are at home, minding their business. A freezing rain event most likely won't cause fatalities - unless people are out and about. Trust me, when ice storms start affecting people who are stuck at home (large numbers of people without power) then it is plastered all over the news.

Note, I'm not saying if one is right and another isn't. It's just the truth of the matter. Ten traffic fatalities isn't as "sexy" news-wise as a tornado killing 10 or 10 people dieing in their homes from cars driving into houses as a result of icy roads. I distinctly remember that during the 5 Feb 08 tornado outbreak most of the major news networks didn't cover it. Why? There was something more sexy ongoing - the primaries.

 

[John Farley]

Wow! So much to comment on for a weather-weenie retired sociologist who has actually done research on call-to-action statements. So, a few thoughts . . .

1. With regard to the debate on whether most people who have wrecks during freezing rain events were or were not aware of the hazard - I've heard lots of lively expressions of opinions, but the only way to know is to ask people who have had such wrecks whether they were aware of the hazard, and if so, why they ventured out and why they drove the speed they did. This would be a great project for an aspiring young disaster sociologist, or for anyone involved in WAS-IS. I believe this was mentioned earlier in this thread, but for those of you unfamiliar with it, WAS-IS is an effort to create collaborations among scientists in meteorology, climatology, and related fields with social scientists to better understand how to issue and disseminate forecasts and warnings in ways that reduce deaths, injuries, and other harmful consequences of weather and climate hazards. You can rad more about it at:

http://www.sip.ucar.edu/wasis/

2. I understand the point many have made about call-to-action statements being "too late" to make any difference, and certainly agree on the importance of teaching people what to do BEFORE the storm hits. This said, it IS true that the media often repeat or paraphrase the CTA statements during warnings, and I believe it is better to get this information late than never. (This would be another good WAS-IS or disaster research project - asking people about whether they heard CTA statements and whether it affects what they do.)

3. I think, from my own research in part, that the bigger problem with CTA statements is that they often give questionable recommendations, partly becasue they are too "blanket" and not situation-specific enough. The "get to the lowest place" and "move to higher ground" simultaneous recommendations during a tornado warning and flash flood warning are a great example. There needs to be more situational variation in CTA statements - something that current computer technology probably makes more feasible to do in the short time available. But to make it happen, someone needs to make a push on this issue.

Other issues occur to me, but I will stop here.