Stronger NWS wording needed for freezing rain

[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?

 

[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.