Ryan McGinnis
EF5
Okay, Rdale, it's 0% effective. That sounds plausible.
Okay, Rdale, it's 0% effective. That sounds plausible.
Dan Robinson
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.
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.
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
EF5
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
EF5
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2006
- Messages
- 783
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.
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
Supporter
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.
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.
Patrick Marsh
EF5
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2006
- Messages
- 783
First I would like to state that I am a member of WAS*IS. It has it's pros and cons in my opinion, but it's a good start.
Second, and in response above, I would like to see some sort of study on how many TV mets actually do "repeat or paraphrase" the CTA statements and how many would say these things regardless of the CTA being there. Since most TV stations have graphics with statements in them for various situations, I find it hard to believe they were made on the spot. My opinion is that TV mets would do the exact same thing regardless of the CTA statements being present or not. It would be an interesting experiment.
Dan Robinson
FYI, for anyone who is interested, here's the data for this winter:
http://icyroadsafety.com/data/stats1-bystate.xls
http://icyroadsafety.com/stats2008.php
I'm updating the web page and Excel file every few days. You can type each one of those incidents into Google News and get the newspaper or TV story directly from the source on each one. At least 35% and possibly as many of 50% of those occured during freezing rain/drizzle in progress. When I started the list, I didn't record the responsible ptype (which I now wish I had), but I do know that since mid-December, the vast majority of the incidents happened in high concentrations during freezing rain events - the worst example in that list being December 23. (When I get a free day or two on my schedule, I'll go back and try to get the ptype data entered in for each of those.) There are very few non-precip-in-progress (non-freezing rain or non-snowfall) related fatalities in that list. The only ones I can think of off hand are the sprinkler system ice death in Seagoville, TX and a death from frozen runoff from a hillside in Vanderbilt, PA on a clear but cold day. Snowfall has a high toll, but snow-related risks tend to be more numerous, spread out over large areas and over longer time periods. In other words, there are a lot more snow events than freezing rain events, but snow accident rates are much lower (drivers can see snow on the road, they can't see ice from ZR). The freezing rain incidents are in high concentrations and frequencies during a relatively much lower number of events. The injuries and deaths per mile driven in freezing rain/drizzle are the highest of any other weather condition.
I wish I had the time to add injury stats to the data, but they are too numerous to count, and many injury accidents don't make the news. I can estimate based on reports from the larger events that the death to injury ratio is about 1 to 50, so one could estimate there have been as many as 13,000 icy road injuries this season.
http://icyroadsafety.com/data/stats1-bystate.xls
http://icyroadsafety.com/stats2008.php
I'm updating the web page and Excel file every few days. You can type each one of those incidents into Google News and get the newspaper or TV story directly from the source on each one. At least 35% and possibly as many of 50% of those occured during freezing rain/drizzle in progress. When I started the list, I didn't record the responsible ptype (which I now wish I had), but I do know that since mid-December, the vast majority of the incidents happened in high concentrations during freezing rain events - the worst example in that list being December 23. (When I get a free day or two on my schedule, I'll go back and try to get the ptype data entered in for each of those.) There are very few non-precip-in-progress (non-freezing rain or non-snowfall) related fatalities in that list. The only ones I can think of off hand are the sprinkler system ice death in Seagoville, TX and a death from frozen runoff from a hillside in Vanderbilt, PA on a clear but cold day. Snowfall has a high toll, but snow-related risks tend to be more numerous, spread out over large areas and over longer time periods. In other words, there are a lot more snow events than freezing rain events, but snow accident rates are much lower (drivers can see snow on the road, they can't see ice from ZR). The freezing rain incidents are in high concentrations and frequencies during a relatively much lower number of events. The injuries and deaths per mile driven in freezing rain/drizzle are the highest of any other weather condition.
I wish I had the time to add injury stats to the data, but they are too numerous to count, and many injury accidents don't make the news. I can estimate based on reports from the larger events that the death to injury ratio is about 1 to 50, so one could estimate there have been as many as 13,000 icy road injuries this season.
Last edited by a moderator:
Dan Robinson
Reviving this thread to point out an event in progress that illustrates the subject of this thread. ZR threat this morning across E KY, OH and WV - models had precip drying up, but it has continued to advance into the region of subfreezing surface temps.
SPS is finally out for most of the region - but this would be a classic example of an instance where a 'road icing warning' would be warranted and appropriate. Everyone went to bed last night with no indication of this occuring. Hopefully this does not end up being a deadly event, but the ingredients are certainly present for it to happen.
SPS is finally out for most of the region - but this would be a classic example of an instance where a 'road icing warning' would be warranted and appropriate. Everyone went to bed last night with no indication of this occuring. Hopefully this does not end up being a deadly event, but the ingredients are certainly present for it to happen.
Stephen Levine
EF4
Here in the Dallas area, the NWS includes the phrase "avoid all travel if possible" during their winter weather warnings. This includes the liklihood of sleet and freezing rain.
I think that this is a reasonable phrase that highlights the dangers.
I also believe that I have heard them warn of slippery spots on the highways when such a risk has occured, due to whatever condition happening that provoked the liklihood of this event - be it freezing fog, frozen puddles, freezing drizzle or whatever.
Of course, I have seen businesses close during the first snow flurries of an anticipated snowfall, even before any snow has accumulated. The entire city can shut down on 1/4" of snow.
I think that this is a reasonable phrase that highlights the dangers.
I also believe that I have heard them warn of slippery spots on the highways when such a risk has occured, due to whatever condition happening that provoked the liklihood of this event - be it freezing fog, frozen puddles, freezing drizzle or whatever.
Of course, I have seen businesses close during the first snow flurries of an anticipated snowfall, even before any snow has accumulated. The entire city can shut down on 1/4" of snow.
Randall Marable
EF1
Just my opinion...
Not necessarily. It appears you're describing a situation where the general public may not be aware of the threat of icy roads when they wake up before they get out and about. A 'road icing warning' issued by the NWS would make little to no difference because most people don't get their info directly from NWS issued products, as has already been mentioned here in this thread. The people who do actually take the time to check up on the weather usually get their info from one of the local media outlets or the internet. The responsible local media, in all likelihood, will pass along any SPS to the viewing or listening public accordingly. The responsible public usually adjust their plans and behavior accordingly based upon these new changes in the forecasted conditions. Nine times out of ten, the responsible general public responds accordingly by making the necessary adjustments to keep themselves and their loved ones safe. For the most part these type of people will take the time to see what's going on weatherwise and plan accordingly. In addition, usually these type of people will also notify other friends and family members of this new developing weather threat accordingly. Unfortunately, we need many more of these type of people in the general public.
It appears you are more concerned with getting the word out to the uninformed general public in situations like you describe above. Meaning, the members of the general public who hardly ever pay attention the weather regardless of what's going on. These are the ones that usually just jump up and go about their day without ever attempting to stay abreast on what may be happening with the weather. These are the type to people who get their weather info from other friends, family members, and hearsay. These are the exact same ones that will be caught off guard when they get on the road and hit a patch of ice possibly causing harm to themselves and others on the road in the process. Most likely these are the people that will be complaining that they were totally unaware that the threat ever existed. For these types of people, a 'road icing warning' will be of little to no use because they are not paying attention to any type of weather information in the first place. We all have friends, family members, and co-workers that fit this profile so you all know I'm not exaggerating.
As far as the issues with school districts, school buses etc., the appointed administrators should always be aware of the latest weather conditions regardless of how and when the forecast changes. Ideally, based upon these weather changes there should already be plans in place to make the necessary adjustments to school district protocol accordingly. Safety should always be a top priority when comes to hazardous weather. Regarding the situation you describe above, the appropriate school district administrators should be aware of the unexpected chance of frozen precip and/or hazardous roads and plan accordingly. There shouldn't be any exceptions or excuses for these administrators not being aware of changing weather conditions. The same should be true for any city, county, and state official responsible for the safety of the general public with respect to travel. In other words, it shouldn't take a strongly worded NWS statement for these persons to make decisions accordingly. The threat for ice on the roads should be understood.
As far the issue with media coverage, the NWS should work with the local media in order to make sure their products are presented to public correctly and within a timely manner. Ideally the local media should emphasize the threats of hazardous travel accordingly to it's viewers and listeners. It shouldn't take a strongly worded SPS for the local media to broadcast this information effectively to the public. Based upon the scenario you described above, the biggest threat may come from those who plan on getting out on the roads in the pre-dawn hours, who may be initially taken off-guard by the new threat. However, if these drivers are paying attention to the updated news and weather, there should be some form of local media or medium highlighting this newly formed threat by now. Don't necessarily think the local media need to go with wall-to-wall coverage to highlight this new threat. As far the drivers that aren't paying attention to the news, a 'road ice warning' from the NWS will do them do no good either, because the type of media coverage is irrevelant with these type of people.
And as far as the issue with travelers passing through this threat area unaware of the theat from ice on the road, unfortunately, a NWS enhanced weather warning will probably do them little good either being that they are on the road. Even assuming they get weather alerts sent to their cell phone, these alerts, in all likelihood, will only apply to the their home city or region unless they took the time to have multiple alerts set up.
Freezing rain is freezing rain. Ice on the roads is ice on the roads. If these threats exist, then travel may become hazardous at times, which is what the NWS expresses within their products today. So in essence, it shouldn't matter how the information is presented by the NWS, everyone concerned should fully understand what the threat of freezing rain and/or icy roads will mean to travel. Bottomline, as a driver of a motor vehicle, it's ultimately up to the driver to be aware of the dangers and consequences of driving on icy roads. Therefore, it's his or her responsibility to keep abreast on changing weather conditions that may cause hazardous driving conditions. We all know this isn't the case, but people need to be more aware of all potential weather hazards before they hit the road.
Dan you bring up some good points regarding this issue and I agree more can be done with respect to reducing the fatalities associated with icy roads. However, I just don't think enhanced NWS statements and warnings will be the answer to this issue.
Here is why I say this. According to this website,http://icyroadsafety.com/stats.shtml, it appears that out of the 99 icy road fatalities during the winter of 2009/2010, around 75% of them were caused by snow. As a matter of fact, according to that site, only 11% were caused by freezing rain or freezing drizzle. (Actually only 3 instances of freezing rain being the culprit of the accident.) Though there were a few accidents unclassified, this still gives us a fairly good idea. Assuming these stats are accurate, this means that freezing rain is not the main culprit of icy road fatalities this year. Based upon the title of this thread, you feel the NWS needs more strongly worded products with respect to threat of freezing rain. It appears you may be focusing your energies in the wrong direction. The NWS appears to be doing their jobs with respect to getting the word out to the public and the media. In my opinion, you may want to focus more on educating drivers on the dangers of frozen melted snow and ice mixed with snow.
Here in Southeast Texas we had a few inches of snow in isolated parts of the region on 12/04/2009. The next morning there were numerous accidents across the area due to ice on overpasses and roads due to the frozen melted snow from the day before. Most of the drivers were aware of the cold temperatures and threat for icy roads that morning. However, most were unaware just how dangerous it was to drive on those roads until they lost control of their vehicles. I think the same may apply for these other states as well. People don't see snow, frozen melted snow, or ice mixed with snow as a real 'threat' since freezing rain was not in the forecast. I am almost willing to bet people actually drive more carefully when freezing rain or drizzle is in the forecast versus the threat of just 'plain old snow'. It appears some people are letting their guard down since snow is not notorious for causing 25 and 30 car pile-ups on the highway like freezing rain and ice storms have done in the past. I don't think they realize just how dangerous frozen melted snow or ice mixed with snow can be while driving. I may be wrong, but I think the perception is that snow is not nearly as threatening as freezing rain. Those icy road fatality stats say otherwise.
The city, county, state, and broadcast media may want to promote websites such as these to the general public in order to increase the awareness of icy roadways before and during the winter season. And they may want to emphasize the dangers with respect to just 'plain snow'. The city, county, and state also may want to make more of a conserted effort to clear the ice mixed snow off of these highly travel roadways if they are serious about reducing ice related fatalities.
Another helpful suggestion may be to utilize all of those state and county digital road signs to alert drivers of changing weather conditions that may be hazardous. This may be a solution to the 'drivers passing through the region unaware of the icy road theat' issue. Maybe the NWS can coordinate something with the county and/or state to broadcast appropriate alerts on these signs when the potential exists for driving conditions to become hazardous. This also may be a solution to the issue of drivers getting out on the roads in the pre-dawn hours unaware of the changing weather threat like the one described above. I know some counties and states post weather alerts like these on their signs today, but I don't think there is an official protocol in place with respect to these alerts. I don't know how feasible this would be for it is just something I felt may help reduce the number of traffic fatalities related to ice on the road.
Not necessarily. It appears you're describing a situation where the general public may not be aware of the threat of icy roads when they wake up before they get out and about. A 'road icing warning' issued by the NWS would make little to no difference because most people don't get their info directly from NWS issued products, as has already been mentioned here in this thread. The people who do actually take the time to check up on the weather usually get their info from one of the local media outlets or the internet. The responsible local media, in all likelihood, will pass along any SPS to the viewing or listening public accordingly. The responsible public usually adjust their plans and behavior accordingly based upon these new changes in the forecasted conditions. Nine times out of ten, the responsible general public responds accordingly by making the necessary adjustments to keep themselves and their loved ones safe. For the most part these type of people will take the time to see what's going on weatherwise and plan accordingly. In addition, usually these type of people will also notify other friends and family members of this new developing weather threat accordingly. Unfortunately, we need many more of these type of people in the general public.
It appears you are more concerned with getting the word out to the uninformed general public in situations like you describe above. Meaning, the members of the general public who hardly ever pay attention the weather regardless of what's going on. These are the ones that usually just jump up and go about their day without ever attempting to stay abreast on what may be happening with the weather. These are the type to people who get their weather info from other friends, family members, and hearsay. These are the exact same ones that will be caught off guard when they get on the road and hit a patch of ice possibly causing harm to themselves and others on the road in the process. Most likely these are the people that will be complaining that they were totally unaware that the threat ever existed. For these types of people, a 'road icing warning' will be of little to no use because they are not paying attention to any type of weather information in the first place. We all have friends, family members, and co-workers that fit this profile so you all know I'm not exaggerating.
As far as the issues with school districts, school buses etc., the appointed administrators should always be aware of the latest weather conditions regardless of how and when the forecast changes. Ideally, based upon these weather changes there should already be plans in place to make the necessary adjustments to school district protocol accordingly. Safety should always be a top priority when comes to hazardous weather. Regarding the situation you describe above, the appropriate school district administrators should be aware of the unexpected chance of frozen precip and/or hazardous roads and plan accordingly. There shouldn't be any exceptions or excuses for these administrators not being aware of changing weather conditions. The same should be true for any city, county, and state official responsible for the safety of the general public with respect to travel. In other words, it shouldn't take a strongly worded NWS statement for these persons to make decisions accordingly. The threat for ice on the roads should be understood.
As far the issue with media coverage, the NWS should work with the local media in order to make sure their products are presented to public correctly and within a timely manner. Ideally the local media should emphasize the threats of hazardous travel accordingly to it's viewers and listeners. It shouldn't take a strongly worded SPS for the local media to broadcast this information effectively to the public. Based upon the scenario you described above, the biggest threat may come from those who plan on getting out on the roads in the pre-dawn hours, who may be initially taken off-guard by the new threat. However, if these drivers are paying attention to the updated news and weather, there should be some form of local media or medium highlighting this newly formed threat by now. Don't necessarily think the local media need to go with wall-to-wall coverage to highlight this new threat. As far the drivers that aren't paying attention to the news, a 'road ice warning' from the NWS will do them do no good either, because the type of media coverage is irrevelant with these type of people.
And as far as the issue with travelers passing through this threat area unaware of the theat from ice on the road, unfortunately, a NWS enhanced weather warning will probably do them little good either being that they are on the road. Even assuming they get weather alerts sent to their cell phone, these alerts, in all likelihood, will only apply to the their home city or region unless they took the time to have multiple alerts set up.
Freezing rain is freezing rain. Ice on the roads is ice on the roads. If these threats exist, then travel may become hazardous at times, which is what the NWS expresses within their products today. So in essence, it shouldn't matter how the information is presented by the NWS, everyone concerned should fully understand what the threat of freezing rain and/or icy roads will mean to travel. Bottomline, as a driver of a motor vehicle, it's ultimately up to the driver to be aware of the dangers and consequences of driving on icy roads. Therefore, it's his or her responsibility to keep abreast on changing weather conditions that may cause hazardous driving conditions. We all know this isn't the case, but people need to be more aware of all potential weather hazards before they hit the road.
Dan you bring up some good points regarding this issue and I agree more can be done with respect to reducing the fatalities associated with icy roads. However, I just don't think enhanced NWS statements and warnings will be the answer to this issue.
Here is why I say this. According to this website,http://icyroadsafety.com/stats.shtml, it appears that out of the 99 icy road fatalities during the winter of 2009/2010, around 75% of them were caused by snow. As a matter of fact, according to that site, only 11% were caused by freezing rain or freezing drizzle. (Actually only 3 instances of freezing rain being the culprit of the accident.) Though there were a few accidents unclassified, this still gives us a fairly good idea. Assuming these stats are accurate, this means that freezing rain is not the main culprit of icy road fatalities this year. Based upon the title of this thread, you feel the NWS needs more strongly worded products with respect to threat of freezing rain. It appears you may be focusing your energies in the wrong direction. The NWS appears to be doing their jobs with respect to getting the word out to the public and the media. In my opinion, you may want to focus more on educating drivers on the dangers of frozen melted snow and ice mixed with snow.
Here in Southeast Texas we had a few inches of snow in isolated parts of the region on 12/04/2009. The next morning there were numerous accidents across the area due to ice on overpasses and roads due to the frozen melted snow from the day before. Most of the drivers were aware of the cold temperatures and threat for icy roads that morning. However, most were unaware just how dangerous it was to drive on those roads until they lost control of their vehicles. I think the same may apply for these other states as well. People don't see snow, frozen melted snow, or ice mixed with snow as a real 'threat' since freezing rain was not in the forecast. I am almost willing to bet people actually drive more carefully when freezing rain or drizzle is in the forecast versus the threat of just 'plain old snow'. It appears some people are letting their guard down since snow is not notorious for causing 25 and 30 car pile-ups on the highway like freezing rain and ice storms have done in the past. I don't think they realize just how dangerous frozen melted snow or ice mixed with snow can be while driving. I may be wrong, but I think the perception is that snow is not nearly as threatening as freezing rain. Those icy road fatality stats say otherwise.
The city, county, state, and broadcast media may want to promote websites such as these to the general public in order to increase the awareness of icy roadways before and during the winter season. And they may want to emphasize the dangers with respect to just 'plain snow'. The city, county, and state also may want to make more of a conserted effort to clear the ice mixed snow off of these highly travel roadways if they are serious about reducing ice related fatalities.
Another helpful suggestion may be to utilize all of those state and county digital road signs to alert drivers of changing weather conditions that may be hazardous. This may be a solution to the 'drivers passing through the region unaware of the icy road theat' issue. Maybe the NWS can coordinate something with the county and/or state to broadcast appropriate alerts on these signs when the potential exists for driving conditions to become hazardous. This also may be a solution to the issue of drivers getting out on the roads in the pre-dawn hours unaware of the changing weather threat like the one described above. I know some counties and states post weather alerts like these on their signs today, but I don't think there is an official protocol in place with respect to these alerts. I don't know how feasible this would be for it is just something I felt may help reduce the number of traffic fatalities related to ice on the road.
rdale
EF5
Randall - good points, but Dan moved the discussion to http://stormtrack.org/forum/showthread.php?t=22493
Randall Marable
EF1
Yea, I caught that after reading all of the pages in that thread.
Mike Smith
By definition, a severe thunderstorm is a thunderstorm that contains any one or more of the following three weather conditions:
Hail that is 3/4 of an inch or greater in diameter
Winds 58 miles per hour or greater
Tornadoes
From: www.weather.com/encyclopedia/thunder/svrtstm.html
The reason you almost never see a tornado kill 32 people anymore is because of the warning system. Take away the warning system and you will see that tornadoes will kill 100 people at a time like they did before the warning system existed.
I get very concerned when I hear comments like this from the meteorological community. A surprising number of us seem to believe the warning system is (as one put it) "a failure." Nothing could be further from the truth! The warning system is extremely effective (tornado deaths per 1,000,000 population cut 94%) at very low cost to society.
rdale
EF5
Excellent point. I applaud Dan's passion for the subject. I think the ST forum is not the place where you'll get confirming data and the people who can change things though.
As Greg mentioned - WAS*IS is the place to go with this topic. Their forum has been quiet for a while, I'd lay odds this would bring people back out of the woodwork. Without social aspects being analyzed and studied, this topic moves nowhere ever. I'd highly suggest that Dan head to WAS*IS and post there for further evaluation.
As Greg mentioned - WAS*IS is the place to go with this topic. Their forum has been quiet for a while, I'd lay odds this would bring people back out of the woodwork. Without social aspects being analyzed and studied, this topic moves nowhere ever. I'd highly suggest that Dan head to WAS*IS and post there for further evaluation.
Clarence Bennett
EF3
Please see the two links just below. The first is the story of the freezing rain event in Pittsburgh this morning. The second link is the 5:46AM AFD from NWS Pittsburgh.
http://www.wpxi.com/news/21953826/detail.html
http://forecast.weather.gov/product...&format=CI&version=6&glossary=1&highlight=off
http://www.wpxi.com/news/21953826/detail.html
http://forecast.weather.gov/product...&format=CI&version=6&glossary=1&highlight=off
Similar threads
