Stronger NWS wording needed for freezing rain

[Dan Robinson]

(I also posted this on my blog, but I wanted to get some insight from ST members.)

On Tuesday, December 23, 2008, freezing rain took the lives of 32 people in the midwest. It happened again on Friday, December 26, when 10 people died - 7 in Indiana alone. Hundreds if not thousands of accidents - too numerous to realistically count - resulted in countless more injuries and no doubt millions of dollars in damage. The tractor-trailer crashes alone easily resulted in millions of dollars lost in equipment and shipments combined. Entire cities and counties were shut down. People were stranded on highways in traffic jams for hours.

Tornadoes, of course, are a fearsome and deadly phenomena. Decades of research, funding, forecasting and warning priority have been given to the cause of protecting life and property from this danger. Television stations go wall-to-wall when a tornado warning is issued. Sirens sound. People stop what they are doing and take cover. And as a result, lives are saved every year.

Freezing rain accidents are the most severe of all weather-related crashes because drivers can't see the hazard. And consequently, they are traveling faster, caught completely by surprise, and when their vehicles lose control, impacts are some of the most severe of all collisions. It doesn't take a well-warned ice storm - all it takes is a little freezing drizzle, a little rain shower that no one is watching.

So my question is, why does a developing freezing rain scenario get little more than a last-minute advisory? I've watched time and time again this winter as National Weather Service advisories are quietly issued in the middle of the night, during rush hour, in mid-afternoon - with little fanfare. Rain moves in with temperatures below 32 degrees, and no one notices - no wall-to-wall TV coverage, no sirens, no warning tones, nothing. People then get in their cars and get on the interstates, oblivious to the fact that they are facing a danger that is more likely to kill them that day than a tornado, hurricane, lightning strike or flood (or any other weather phenomena) in their entire lifetime.

So what can be done? Granted, it is well-known that even tornado warnings have a hard time getting to the people who need to hear them, as they often aren't prepared with the means to receive them. We've discussed that issue plenty. But at least the warnings are there. Freezing rain is a weather phenomena that definitely deserves much stronger wording and more aggressive public dissemination of the warnings than it's getting now.

For starters, I'm offering these suggestions:


Expand and emphasize HPC freezing rain outlooks - NOAA's Hydrometeorological Prediction Center (http://www.hpc.ncep.noaa.gov/wwd/winter_wx.shtml) currently issues outlooks for freezing rain twice a day for the continental US (similar to the SPC convective outlooks - Day 1 (http://www.hpc.ncep.noaa.gov/wwd/day1_pice_gt_25.gif), Day 2 (http://www.hpc.ncep.noaa.gov/wwd/day2_pice_gt_25.gif), and Day 3 (http://www.hpc.ncep.noaa.gov/wwd/day3_pice_gt_25.gif)). However, the outlooks only denote areas that are at risk from receiving a quarter of an inch or more of ice. The outlooks are more geared at alerting for ice storm potential, not icy roads. The criteria for an outlooked area needs to be expanded to include any area that is at risk for receiving light freezing rain - anything that could cause road hazards.

More aggressive warning dissemination - No more "freezing rain advisories" - I think we need to see something akin to '(life-threatening) road ice warnings'. Sirens would be inappropriate, of course - but I think at the very least, tones should go out on commercial radio and TV airwaves. Anything to alert the public of the gravity of the situation. This hazard needs to be given the same treatment as a 'tornado emergency' - it's taking two to three times as more lives.

More aggressive awareness campaigns - Awareness campaigns are already in effect for lightning, tornadoes, floods, severe weather and winter weather. I recommend that freezing rain and icy roads be given their own emphasis separate from the winter weather umbrella. I believe that the public needs to develop the same respect for icy roads as they do tornadoes and hurricanes, to the point of recognizing the warning signs and chainging their decision making process when icy roads threaten.

I'd be interested to hear any other ideas.

[Jim Saueressig]

To me freezing rains and icy roads are a given threat. If the road ices over it will be slippery. If there is an advisory its probably gonna happen, if there is a warning its happening.

This is just one of them things that people know and don't care about. If you do not realize that icy roads are dangerous then an enhanced warning will not do you much good.

T storms can range in severity, I would go as far as having a derecho warning if the wind might exceed 80 or something else we currently do not have .......

but Ice is Ice is Slippery!

[Chris Allington]

I'm not sure what you can do either other than road closures to stress the severity of the event.

[rdale]

On Tuesday, December 23, 2008, freezing rain took the lives of 32 people in the midwest.

I disagree with your premise right off the bat.

Tornadoes take lives. Lightning takes lives. Driving too fast for road conditions takes lives. Freezing rain DOES NOT take lives...

What would wall-to-wall TV coverage do? People know it's icy - they know the threat - yet they decide to hit the roads anyways... Interrupting all programming to say that over and over accomplishes nothing (other than a boatload of irate phone calls to the newsroom!)

HPC outlooks are general ideas for local offices to look at, nothing more. I don't see how that product could change any decisions - will you call in to work tomorrow and tell them you aren't coming if the HPC outlook says 1/10" of ice possible?

[Robert Dewey]

To me freezing rains and icy roads are a given threat. If the road ices over it will be slippery.

Same to me as well. However, it could be argued that heavy rains and water rushing across the road are also a given (or hand-in-hand) threat... but one that's obviously given a higher level of attention.

Ice is a lot more deceptive than street flooding, since you usually can't see the ice... hence I would think it would require even more attention.

[rdale]

I would go as far as having a derecho warning if the wind might exceed 80 or something else we currently do not have .......

Not to venture off-topic, but many offices (Michigan in particular) are adding special EAS phrases to SVR's with extreme winds. NWS HQ will not allow a "derecho" type warning because that would decrease the usefulness of "regular" SVR warnings.

[Dan Robinson]

Tornadoes take lives. Lightning takes lives. Driving too fast for road conditions takes lives. Freezing rain DOES NOT take lives...

Freezing rain causes accidents without any abnormal driver behavior, accidents that would not happen if the phenomena was not present. People presently are not trained in awareness of the situation and cannot visually identify the hazard until it is too late.

If awareness levels of the hazard were elevated, people could be given a chance to respond and change their behavior (IE, slow down).

[Bob Hartig]

I don't see freezing rain as being in the same league as a 1.7-mile-wide, violent tornado approaching a Kansas community. I don't think it merits what would be considered an enhanced warning. The scenarios are very different.

That being said, it couldn't hurt to reconsider the nomenclature. "Freezing rain" sounds pretty bland. As a Michigander, I can't imagine anyone living in my home state for any length of time who isn't familiar with the term. We make our choices to hit the road, freezing rain or not. But the wordsmith in me can't help but think it would be easy to add more muscle to the verbiage. Not enhanced wording, just different wording. Why not have a "black ice warning" instead of "freezing rain"? That switches public awareness from a weather phenomenon to the immediacy of actual road conditions. I mean, "black ice" just plain sounds dangerous, right?

Just a thought. Shoot it down and I won't care. I feel more strongly about enhanced language for "tornado emergencies," but that's a different topic, and, as I've said, a very different situation.

[rdale]

Freezing rain causes accidents without any abnormal driver behavior, accidents that would not happen if the phenomena was not present.

...and so does a quick burst of just 1-2" of snowfall... Freezing rain doesn't form out of thin air. It's rare that people have no idea the rain is freezing on the ground. Black ice is one thing - but that's not really predictable.

It comes back to predictability (hard to do on minor events) impacts on the public (they aren't going to change their driving needs based on a forecast) and getting that info to the public (I'd bet if you reviewed weathercasts from the areas in question they would have been talking up the ice threat.)


If awareness levels of the hazard were elevated, people could be given a chance to respond and change their behavior (IE, slow down).

If I could tell you the number of times I've been driving in a chain of cars at 35mph on the highway during snow events, and seen someone fly past me -- only to end up in the ditch -- you might change your mind. Somehow a majority of people knew to drive 35mph, even without the "icy road warning."

[Dan Robinson]

I don't see freezing rain as being in the same league as a 1.7-mile-wide, violent tornado approaching a Kansas community.

I would agree with that fact, except that one is currently producing two to three times the fatalities.


As a Michigander, I can't imagine anyone living in my home state for any length of time who isn't familiar with the term. We make our choices to hit the road, freezing rain or not.

There is truth to that. The numbers I'm seeing indicate that most of the deaths are occuring in a band of the midwestern states (Indiana, Illinois, Ohio, Pennsylvania) that are outside of the 'traditional' snow belt areas of the north - places where people apparently don't have the same type of awareness levels as a Michigan or Minnesota resident would have. Like you say, northerners don't need awareness campaigns - but people to the south do.

I'm looking at it purely from a numbers standpoint. The deaths are happening, and they happen at astounding rates and concentrations when freezing rain occurs.

[rdale]

In an average year, wind gusts kill more than all winter weather hazards combined...

http://www.weather.gov/os/hazstats/images/67-years.pdf

I don't suggest we start going wall-to-wall and shutting down travel when it gets breezy ;)

[Dan Robinson]

...and so does a quick burst of just 1-2" of snowfall... Freezing rain doesn't form out of thin air. It's rare that people have no idea the rain is freezing on the ground. Black ice is one thing - but that's not really predictable.

It comes back to predictability (hard to do on minor events) impacts on the public (they aren't going to change their driving needs based on a forecast) and getting that info to the public (I'd bet if you reviewed weathercasts from the areas in question they would have been talking up the ice threat.)



If I could tell you the number of times I've been driving in a chain of cars at 35mph on the highway during snow events, and seen someone fly past me -- only to end up in the ditch -- you might change your mind. Somehow a majority of people knew to drive 35mph, even without the "icy road warning."

I see what you're saying - but snow is easily identified visually. Upon seeing snow on the road, a driver can make a choice to slow down (as you did when you slowed to 35mph). If another driver doesn't choose to slow down, then whatever happens is purely their responsibility. The accident rates during snowfall are much lower simply because it is visually apparent.

Black ice (created by freezing rain/drizzle) is not visually identifiable, and therefore people don't have the opportunity to adjust their speed before they encounter it. The data shows a huge spike in the accident/death rate during freezing rain as opposed to snowfall.

You're always going to have the people that ignore warnings (both visual and from media sources) and keep on going to their own peril. I'm more concerned with the people that would change their behavior if they knew what they were facing.

[Dan Robinson]

In an average year, wind gusts kill more than all winter weather hazards combined...

http://www.weather.gov/os/hazstats/images/67-years.pdf

I don't suggest we start going wall-to-wall and shutting down travel when it gets breezy ;)

Maybe! I do think tornadoes and severe weather get a disproportionate amount of attention compared to other weather hazards that are more likely to kill or injure.

I don't think TV stations should go wall-to-wall with road ice - but at least give it more attention.

Does that chart take into account auto accidents caused by ice/snow? Those yearly numbers for winter deaths look way too low.

[rdale]

I guess to get much traction you'd need to have some actual research behind the cause...

I spend most of my 2:30 telling the viewers "we are getting ice tomorrow, slow down on the morning drive" that they will think extra in the morning. Then they tune in on the morning show and we have video of some slideoffs and the morning guy saying "roads are horrible, drive slow."

If ice that causes travel trouble is in the forecast, regardless of the amount, it's going to lead all our newscasts and be crawled periodically day and night.

I don't think that we also need to say "there is a traffic warning in effect" to get the point across as well... Either they heard it and didn't care, or they didn't check ANY forecasts, or we didn't forecast it and regardless of what phrase you use, it wouldn't matter anyways.

[Bob Hartig]

The numbers I'm seeing indicate that most of the deaths are occuring in a band of the midwestern states (Indiana, Illinois, Ohio, Pennsylvania) that are outside of the 'traditional' snow belt areas of the north - places where people apparently don't have the same type of awareness levels as a Michigan or Minnesota resident would have. Like you say, northerners don't need awareness campaigns - but people to the south do.

Seems like a legitimate point to me. Icy roads are part of Michigan culture, so to speak, but the same doesn't hold true outside the snow belt.

However, Dan, reread what I had to say about revisiting the terminology, because I think it speaks to your concern. Whether "black ice warning" is the right language isn't my point. Call it a "killer icy roads from Mars warning" if that's what it takes to get the idea across to the public. The point is, find a term that anyone--snow-belter or non-snow-belter--can connect instantly with potentially lethal driving conditions. And even as I suggest this, I agree with Rob that local stations are no doubt already warning the crap out of people to for crying out loud be careful on the roads.

[Dan Robinson]

Again, I'm going just by the numbers. From news articles alone I've found 244 documented deaths since October, most of those in the midwest and a large percentage of those from freezing rain. TV may very well be doing what they can, and my post here is no way a slam on either the media or the NWS. I just think that's a pretty high number for a weather-related hazard and wonder what can be done (if anything).

I know I've personally seen many instances where the smaller events go unnoticed by everyone. Even more so when I'm the only one who apparently knows about it and I'm out in the middle of the event watching oblivious drivers heading for black ice at 70mph. The bigger events aren't the problem - those get plenty of coverage. It's the light events that sneak in and cause the biggest 'outbreaks'. Those are the ones that get the last-minute advisory that goes unnoticed until half of a state is shut down with crashes. It's those cases that I think there is room for the most improvement.

I do appreciate the insight and debate!

[SMOK]

"Freezing Rain EMERGENCY" would be strong enough wording and NWS seems to like to dramatize marginal situations of late. Seems to be a perfect fit to me.

[Chris Allington]

"Freezing Rain EMERGENCY" would be strong enough wording and NWS seems to like to dramatize marginal situations of late. Seems to be a perfect fit to me.

Or they could just issue the current Ice Storm Warnings for lower end events... isn't the criteria now like .5 inches of ice accrual. Why not lower it to .2 & > events or something since that is a fairly solid glaze on everything. Much lower than that and it seems like the accrual on surfaces is rather inconsistent and doesn't really warrant anything more than a Winter Weather Advisory.

[Andrew Ryan]

I liked the wording "black ice warning." It certainly got my attention the first time I read it. But the problem with it is that black ice can occur in different ways. It can occur during an ice storm or after rain when the temperatures dip below freezing. I think that may become confusing. But I like that wording regardless.

[mikegeukes]

Besides freezing rain and freezing drizzle. I have seen black ice with windy conditions with snow, especially a light snowfall and lake effect. moisture refreezing on the roads, from sleet, rain, melted snow. Bridges and overpasses are real problem with black ice, then again you usually have signs saying Watch for Ice.

The media usually does a good job telling the public, watch for icy road conditions.

[Jim Saueressig]

Not to venture off-topic, but many offices (Michigan in particular) are adding special EAS phrases to SVR's with extreme winds. NWS HQ will not allow a "derecho" type warning because that would decrease the usefulness of "regular" SVR warnings.

I know that adding extras will cause people to not pay attention to what they already have but I will often sleep through a severe as will many others but If I know its going to be extreme winds I will usually take a few extra precautions and I think the public would as well.

[Paul Hadfield]

I'm with Dan on this one, we had an incident on December 08 that clearly should've gotten more attention as well as prompted a school delay but didn't and as result, many paid the price; all because of a little shower lifting in advance of a warm front. Adults are one thing, we seem to think we are invincible but it's a real problem when buses with kids are out in this garbage.

[Tom Van Kuiken]

Freezing rain is certainly a know event here in Michigan. If it enters the forecast my wife freeks out and contemplates changing her plans. My son jumps for joy as he thinks school will be cancelled. The word is the warning.

[Jason Boggs]

I don't have a whole lot to say about this topic really. I guess I will say that the NWS or whatever outlet that gives the warning can only do so much. If I told you that a bee just landed on your shoulder, you can either protect yourself from a sting, or keep doing what you were doing and let it go right down you collar. Ok, that was a bad analogy, but you get the point.

I guess my biggest point here is, you can give warnings until you're blue in the face, but it's ultimately up to the public how serious they take the warning.

[Angie Norris]

As easy as it is to think that if NWS issues a freezing rain warning (which does sound like a good idea), and if the local media pushes the event, that's not going to take care of the problem. It all comes down to personal responsibility. The responsible person will asses the situation (raining or even "just drizzling", the temperature is below freezing, that means there could be ice, I'd better slow down) and respond appropriately, and the irresponsible person will disregard the situation, assume the laws of physics do not apply to them as they drive their truck, SUV, sports car well over the speed limit (heavy truck and/or 4 wheel drive does NOT equal traction contrary to popular belief) and then end up on the news.

It's pretty much like flash flooding...as much as we push "turn around, don't drown", there's always some person who thinks the situation does not apply to them and ends up on the news and/or in the obituary section.

[Matthew Harding]

I completely agree with Jason. The entire premise of the warning system is to give the public-at-large the information and a recommendation of what they can do to protect themselves in all types of severe weather. What the public does with that information once it is dispersed is entirely up to them. I believe that the NWS shouldn't step up their verbage unless its a situation where the probability for mass casualties are high. If they issued a warning for every little thing, then they just look like Chicken Little and soon nobody is going to listen to them or the media as a whole.

[rdale]

I'm with Dan on this one, we had an incident on December 08 that clearly should've gotten more attention as well as prompted a school delay but didn't and as result, many paid the price; all because of a little shower lifting in advance of a warm front.

I guess I still don't see the point of the "enhanced warning"? I assume for this event the meteorologists on TV said "the shower will cause ice on the roads." You are saying had they went with "the shower will cause ice on the roads, I am issuing a black ice warning" then people would have responded different?

Many outlets don't use any of the NWS winter warnings since they just cause confusion, so I don't see how NWS issuing another type of winter warning will even get to most people. Remember we here are weather-weenies. We know a Winter Storm Watch from a Winter Weather Advisory. Joe Public does not...

[Jesse Risley]

I really don't believe that enacting more strongly worded warnings will compel the public to take additional precautions (i.e. the debate over tornado emergency wording). I say just leave the current system alone and, if anything needs to be done, focus more on education and precautionary measures.

On a side note, I don't believe the NWS should become overly involved in focusing specifically on road hazards. While I understand that they do forecast and warn for weather hazards that may interrupt travel, they are not the DOT. I've found that creating more bureaucratic regulations, rules and/or warnings rarely encourages more personal accountability.

[Paul Hadfield]

It's pretty much like flash flooding...as much as we push "turn around, don't drown", there's always some person who thinks the situation does not apply to them and ends up on the news and/or in the obituary section.

True, you can't save everyone but there are far fewer people willing to take the risk because of it. If the campaign is going to work, it needs to be simple, catchy and something Dave Schwartz might've had fun with...

"Black Ice... It's not nice"

or maybe

"When it's 32 or lower, Please drive slower"

you get the idea :cool:

[Paul Hadfield]

I guess I still don't see the point of the "enhanced warning"? I assume for this event the meteorologists on TV said "the shower will cause ice on the roads." You are saying had they went with "the shower will cause ice on the roads, I am issuing a black ice warning" then people would have responded different?

Possibly, hopefully... there really is no way of knowing at this point but in any event, school buses should be kept in. We equip them with high-tech lights and gadgets yet send them out in the worst imaginable driving conditions with our kids inside..? makes no sense to me.


Many outlets don't use any of the NWS winter warnings since they just cause confusion, so I don't see how NWS issuing another type of winter warning will even get to most people. Remember we here are weather-weenies. We know a Winter Storm Watch from a Winter Weather Advisory. Joe Public does not...

Very true... Scanners on the other hand don't lie so if as an event is unfolding and numerous police, fire and EMT responders are out assisting wrecks, perhaps the civil alert system be activated so to broadcast immediate warning via tv, radio and internet? Gets me to thinking now if this issue might be in line more as an EMA disaster response initiative instead of NWS responsibility?

[rdale]

in any event, school buses should be kept in. We equip them with high-tech lights and gadgets yet send them out in the worst imaginable driving conditions with our kids inside..? makes no sense to me.

What I'm saying is that if the superintendent decided they needed to go out even though the forecast said ice was coming, he would have decided to send them out if the forecast said "road ice warning" too...

[Robert Dewey]

That being said, it couldn't hurt to reconsider the nomenclature. "Freezing rain" sounds pretty bland....

But the wordsmith in me can't help but think it would be easy to add more muscle to the verbiage. Not enhanced wording, just different wording. Why not have a "black ice warning" instead of "freezing rain"? That switches public awareness from a weather phenomenon to the immediacy of actual road conditions. I mean, "black ice" just plain sounds dangerous, right?

I agree with this. Believe it or not, there are still people out there who don't know the difference between freezing rain and sleet. They think freezing rain is just that - frozen rain drops (which would probably fit the definition of sleet).

Hell, I even hear people say "it's ice raining out."

[Jesse Risley]

Possibly, hopefully... there really is no way of knowing at this point but in any event, school buses should be kept in. We equip them with high-tech lights and gadgets yet send them out in the worst imaginable driving conditions with our kids inside..? makes no sense to me.



The whole school bus thing is a very difficult call for many superintendents. They have to base their decision on several factors:

1. How many kids will be at home all day without any meals until parents get home at supper time and/or how many kids will have no supervision? (an obvious parenting issue, but our district weighs this heavily with a >50% poverty populace)

2. What are the current road conditions in the city? In rural areas? What percentage of students are bussed from rural areas with generally poorer road conditions?

3. What is the weather forecast for the remainder of the school day?

You're never going to make everyone happy with your call when you're in their position.

[Jeff Duda]

I agree with those who say it is a matter of each individual's responsibility. I think the warnings and advisories that are currently issued by the NWS are adequate. If a freezing rain advisory or ice storm warning or winter storm warning, blizzard warning, or any of the other plethora of warnings that imply the roads could be slippery are in effect, a smart person would know to take it easy on the roads. Even if you told a moron, "HEY! The roads are going to be icy! Drive carefully!" he/she might still go way too fast and crash.

[Sarah Glenn]

From the OUN WFO:

Ice Storm Warning: Heavy ice accumulations will cause extremely dangerous and damaging situations, such as icy roads and downed power lines.

I am sure Norman is not the only WFO in the area that I have seen issue these. I am fairly sure I have also seen ICT, SGF, and TSA issue them as well. I know there are some inconsistencies between WFOs, but I would assume that all warnings are standard, as there is certain criteria for each. Although I guess something that may be seen as a "Winter Wx Advisory" in Nebraska would be equivalent to a "Winter Storm Warning" in Arkansas! So I suppose there are regional differences to consider as well.

[rdale]

Here is the official NWS wording for an Ice Storm Warning:

Ice Storm Warning
Ice accumulation meeting or exceeding locally defined warning
criteria (typical value is 1/4 inch or more).

[Jarrod Cook]

I see people keep mentioning using an Ice Storm Warning rather than a freezing rain advisory, etc. That is the problem with ice - it's different than other phenomenons. It doesn't matter if you're talking about 0.05" or 0.5" of ice, it still creates the same danger on the road. That is what makes this topic more interesting/challenging than snow or severe weather. Therefore, it seems to me the only real way to improve on the fatalities is education - but even than only gets you so far - the rest is just common sense. Some will drive on ice no matter what you tell them.

Also, driving habits only will help you to an extent, especially with black ice. You can be driving slow and in a straight line and if you hit a patch of ice you can still loose control of your car - it's happened to me before. Scary stuff.

[Paul Hadfield]

Perhaps it's pointless to be so bent over buses since obviously buses have been carting kids around for decades but a recent event was kind of was an eye opener to me at a time when i'm older and seeing life as a parent. Was reluctant to show this clip since I sound like a dweeb not to mention it's close to home. I'm not going to be here much longer so it's cool now. Prime example of what it is to be in a situation as what Dan mentions when otherwise, it is dismissed as insignificant. Bus episode is at the end and though kind of funny and minor, there were handicapped kids on board. Imagine if it was a ditch, bridge, busy intersection, etc.

http://www.vimeo.com/2464264

[rdale]

Prime example of what it is to be in a situation as what Dan mentions when otherwise, it is dismissed as insignificant.

So had their been a "black ice road travel" warning - the bus wouldn't have been out there?

[Paul Hadfield]

So had their been a "black ice road travel" warning - the bus wouldn't have been out there?

I don't know though perhaps stronger wording would've led to administrators using some common sense and least issuing a delay. To wait until temps hit 34 and above makes all the difference. "Advisory" just sounds so pansy like "don't forget your umbrella and galoshes". For example, a dense fog "advisory" is significant yet pales in comparison because at least at low speed, you still have contact with the pavement. Ice is just so under rated. A few years back when I was part of the beta testing team for the espotter program with ILX before it went public, I sent in an ice report. They in turn called my house for a testimonial. I was impressed then as is now because they all take it serious. Boils down to focusing public awareness as well as of that of those in charge of public safety beyond what is being done now.

Dan?

[Dan Robinson]

I think simply going from 'advisory' to 'warning' would be a good start. Before you can even start working on public awareness, you have to have the wording from an official source that conveys the danger. That's all I'm getting at.

We know (and have many threads discussing) that even with tornado warnings, a large percentage of the population will either not receive them or not take them seriously. But that's no reason to not issue the warning. The starting point, I believe, is accurately communicating the danger. This kills and injures more people than tornadoes - a fact that an advisory simply doesn't communicate.

Rob's right. Ice storm criteria is way too high to catch road dangers,- ice storms are in a whole other league. A millimeter-thick coating is all it takes to create the road hazard.

[rdale]

Do the research and I'll jump on-board with you, but until we can see some social evidence of change I have to say it's not a big deal. If we start issuing "black ice road warnings" EVERY time there's a patch of black ice, those warnings are going to pop up like flies... Then they'll get ignored. Then we're back to square one.

Right now we have a 'freezing rain advisory' with 0.05" of ice expected overnight. I'm not mentioning the advisory, but I am leading the show because of the potential. Should we call in manpower to be here overnight when the icing starts? Should we keep a crawl up continuously? How would you handle a case like this?

[Chris Allington]

R. Dale- we had the drizzle here in Omaha earlier today and got just enough to make everything an ice rink. It was actually pretty bad... alot of things were closed and my 10 minute work commute around 4:30 pm turned into 25 minutes.

[rdale]

...which happened with a Freezing Rain Advisory -- are you saying you would have stayed home had their been a "black ice road travel warning"?

I'm not saying ice isn't bad. I'm saying that we shouldn't go making new warnings up just to cover something that happens EVERY winter and is already covered quite dramatically by news and weather outlets. If you can show that lives would be saved by it - then I'll listen. But my experience says it's just another winter weather product. That's why we don't show NWS winter weather products in the first place. They don't tell the story any better than 3 minutes off the top of the show saying "ice is coming."


This kills and injures more people than tornadoes - a fact that an advisory simply doesn't communicate.

I haven't seen any proof that saying "warning" will reduce the deaths and injuries. Sort of like a Dense Fog Advisory. Do people care about that? No. If they go out and see fog, but there's no advisory, do they say "well the NWS didn't issue a DFA, so I'll keep the cruise at 70"? Or do they hear the advisory, look out the window and see sunshine but say "I'm not going to work today, there's a DFA." No and no. They use that as part of the decision process...

[Dan Robinson]

Should we call in manpower to be here overnight when the icing starts? Should we keep a crawl up continuously?

My question is, what is the difference between freezing rain and a tornado outbreak in terms of human impacts? Why are extra staffing and crawls necessary for tornado events? In both situations you have a weather phenomena that is directly responsible for death, injury and destruction. And the ice causes more of it than tornadoes do.

I'm not advocating shutting down a local area for an ice threat - I'm saying get the word out so that people are more acutely aware of the situation. That's what is done for a tornado outbreak, and I'm assuming it's done because it's effective. So why not for this?

Case in point - look at the obs over WV/PA right now and the KJKL radar. Temps are in the 20s in central/northern WV and PA with rain moving in. No advisories, warnings, nothing for that area. One may be issued later tonight, but everyone's in bed now. When people wake up there tomorrow they will have no clue what they may be facing.

[rdale]

The tornado comes with no warning (well, maybe a minute if you're lucky.) It's our job to say "Get to shelter NOW, you can't see it, but there's a tornado headed your way!" There's nothing you can do to prevent a tornado from hitting you.

Freezing rain happens outside your window. You know it when you walk out the door, even if you don't pay attention to the forecast. If you do pay attention to the forecast, you heard the "freezing rain advisory" and you planned. If you drive out and see it's icy, you change your driving or you head home. I have no problem (guessing) that a LARGE percentage of the deaths and injuries could have been prevented if people slowed down.

So with the Nebraska example Chris posted - the word got out. The freezing rain advisory was well advertised. I'll assume local TV mets talked about ice potential. But people still drove. I don't see any evidence that had the NWS issued a "black ice roadway hazard warning" that people who got into accidents would have not gotten into a wreck.

Regarding PA/WV -- I think there is no advisory because a warm front is moving the rain showers in, so temps climb through the 30's and 40's once the ice starts and then it melts.

But let's say it doesn't warm up fast enough, and people wake up to icy roads.

They will know it when they walk out to their cars and slide across the driveway, or have to chip it off their windshield. Then they can decide if it's worth driving or not. Any chance they might say "NWS didn't issue a freezing rain advisory last night, so I'm going to drive like the roads are just a little damp"? No.

[Chris Allington]

So with the Nebraska example Chris posted - the word got out. The freezing rain advisory was well advertised. I'll assume local TV mets talked about ice potential. But people still drove. I don't see any evidence that had the NWS issued a "black ice roadway hazard warning" that people who got into accidents would have not gotten into a wreck.



I think he has a point here. It was well talked about... road crews were out, and if anything people were like cool I want to go check this out. It was slippery and I drove slow and made my destination just fine with no accidents or spin outs. Just kept the car in low gear and let the engine slow me down rather than the brakes. Maybe the real issue at hand is peoples driving? haha.

You can harp about the ice on the roads all you want, but any normal person with any experience will know... hey the road is icy, I better exercise caution. People know its icy cause they don't just get in their cars and drive off. Like he said you have to chip off the ice and walk across the parking lot or driveway. Its more of a personal decision... 'Hey, should I really be driving or not?' then a responsibility of the nws to warn them. I think the burden in this one is placed on the individual, you need to know your own limitations when it comes to driving.

[Dan Robinson]

You know it when you walk out the door, even if you don't pay attention to the forecast.

The problem is that the worst-impact events is aren't like that at all. They're patchy - the ice isn't everywhere - just on bridges or at random spots on the road. Many times there are no indicators or warning signs that people can identify beforehand.

You could say that most tornadoes have plenty of their own warnings. Most supercells don't exactly come in quietly - there is thunder, lightning, hail, dark skies. More than enough for the average person to suspect something's going on and to turn on the TV or radio.

The more I look at it, the more I see no difference in public impact between these two hazards. Both cause death and injury. Both cause economic loss - 15 or so totaled cars costs the same as one average-sized house leveled. But both are not handled the same by the NWS, the media, or the general public.

Sometimes, like in the Omaha example, word does get out. But many times, it doesn't. Looking at the news reports out of Omaha, there were plenty of injuries and totaled cars. It could have been worse.

[Chris Allington]

Yeah... and people also know that when it is hovering around 32 and it is raining... they can expect ice?

EDIT: Most every car has a thermometer these days. Mine even flashes 'ICE Possible' in the mileage display anytime the temp drops below 36 at any point.

EDIT 2:


Sometimes, like in the Omaha example, word does get out. But many times, it doesn't. Looking at the news reports out of Omaha, there were plenty of injuries and totaled cars. It could have been worse.

A vast majority were seriously bad driving. This is Nebraska... people that have lived here for any amount of time should know what it takes to drive on ice and snow. Especially with the media hype we had most of the day. Even so, parents are allowing their kids to go to the mall and such here today. Thats not the media/ NWS's fault, its the lapse in individual judgement.

[rdale]

The problem is that the worst-impact events is aren't like that at all. They're patchy - the ice isn't everywhere - just on bridges or at random spots on the road. Many times there are no indicators or warning signs that people can identify beforehand.

What I'm trying to get across is that there are a LOT of times when patchy ice could be on the roads. If you issue a Death & Destruction Warning for EVERY time that could happen - well, there would be very few days that it's NOT in effect for many states ;)


You could say that most tornadoes have plenty of their own warnings. Most supercells don't exactly come in quietly - there is thunder, lightning, hail, dark skies. More than enough for the average person to suspect something's going on and to turn on the TV or radio.

I don't see the connection... Hearing thunder and lightning is not a proxy for thinking there is a tornado coming...


But both are not handled the same by the NWS, the media, or the general public.

Because it's not needed. I interrupt Survivor because the tornado is coming NOW and you wouldn't otherwise know about it. I don't need to interrupt Days of Our Lives to tell you that when you drive on the roads, you might have some patchy ice.


It could have been worse.

But COULD it have been made better if a "black ice road travel warning" was issued, and TV stations went wall-to-wall, and sirens sounded? I've yet to see the evidence... That's all I'm saying.

[Dan Robinson]

Yeah... and people also know that when it is hovering around 32 and it is raining... they can expect ice?

EDIT: Most every car has a thermometer these days. Mine every flashes 'ICE Possible' in the mileage display anytime the temp drops below 36 at any point.

That's true - and the 'ice warning' feature would be nice to see expanded. But most people simply don't make the connection between <32F + precip = ice. If they did, we wouldn't already have 244 people dead since October. No 32 people killed in one day. Those numbers say that there is room for improvement somewhere.

[Dan Robinson]

What I'm trying to get across is that there are a LOT of times when patchy ice could be on the roads. If you issue a Death & Destruction Warning for EVERY time that could happen - well, there would be very few days that it's NOT in effect for many states ;).

That's true for northern states. I'd think the criteria would be discretionary for different regions, just like they currently are for winter weather advisories in Louisiana vs Montana, for example.

Again, I'm not saying go insane with death and destruction warnings. I'm saying give this the same level of attention that a supercell coming through town gets. The human impacts are identical.

[Chris Allington]

That's true - and the 'ice warning' feature would be nice to see expanded. But most people simply don't make the connection between <32F + precip = ice. If they did, we wouldn't already have 244 people dead since October. No 32 people killed in one day. Those numbers say that there is room for improvement somewhere.

Then teach people how to drive. I don't see a way to improve the warning, especially in my example today. People heard about the news & advisory, they knew Omaha Police weren't responding to property damage only accidents because there were so many, they knew things were closing down but they still choose to drive. People had alot of indications that travel was hazardous, but they still chose to drive. There isn't a way to make people not drive, but we can prepare people to drive in the conditions and I really don't believe that it is by stressing the severity of the situation through wording that the public might see as just another weather service warning.

[Dan Robinson]

Then teach people how to drive. I don't see a way to improve the warning, especially in my example today. People heard about the news & advisory, they knew Omaha Police weren't responding to property damage only accidents because there were so many, they knew things were closing down but they still choose to drive. People had alot of indications that travel was hazardous, but they still chose to drive. There isn't a way to make people not drive, but we can prepare people to drive in the conditions and I really don't believe that it is by stressing the severity of the situation through wording that the public might see as just another weather service warning.

The key with the Omaha event is that it was already in progress before people started hearing about it. They didn't get a warning until there were already too many crashes for the police to handle. Those initial crashes are where the real risk is - people who have no awareness of what is happening. The fact that no one was killed in the more serious crashes was a stroke of chance.

I agree that driver education is half of the battle - just as it has been for severe weather warnings.

[rdale]

The advisory was issued at 10am, prior to the accidents.

Here's what is included in the text of the advisory:

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.

Seems to be exactly what happened...

[Chris Allington]

Our surface temp didn't really jump below freezing till the coldfront passed through about 1:30 pm.

[Dan Robinson]

How many of the accident victims knew about the advisory? How was the advisory communicated to the public, and how does that communication compare with, for example, the last time a tornado warning was issued?

Was the advisory reiterated as the threat approached?

[rdale]

The difference is that they knew there was ice on the roads when they started driving. It wasn't a shocker. They don't need an "advisory" to know that when you see ice on roads and your car starts slipping, that you must slow down.

I just don't see how sounding the sirens and interrupting all programming on TV and radio stations would make things better. I venture to say it'd make things MUCH worse.

[Dan Robinson]

The difference is that they knew there was ice on the roads when they started driving. It wasn't a shocker. They don't need an "advisory" to know that when you see ice on roads and your car starts slipping, that you must slow down.

I just don't see how sounding the sirens and interrupting all programming on TV and radio stations would make things better. I venture to say it'd make things MUCH worse.

I know of few cases where drivers were aware of ice and continued to drive at full speed. Reading the articles about the Omaha event, people were quoted as saying everything happened suddenly.

I'm not advocating sirens and widespread panic - just a stronger wording from official sources that matches the threat. Just as we do with tornadoes.

[Chris Allington]

How many of the accident victims knew about the advisory? How was the advisory communicated to the public, and how does that communication compare with, for example, the last time a tornado warning was issued?

Was the advisory reiterated as the threat approached?

Major headlines on every local media website read... "Freezing Rain Advisory makes travel Hazardous.' The advisory was disemminated on radio, local media, and both local and nws websites. Every local TV station had the little raindrop logo with bold text 'Freezing Rain Advisory' in the top right corner and a bar of cancellations on closures scrolled across the bottom of the screen. Overhead road signs on I-80 say 'Ice Possible- Slow Down.' Police sat on some major roads with their lights on to warn drivers to slow down... what else could've been done besides shutting everything down?

[Dan Robinson]

Major headlines on every local media website read... "Freezing Rain Advisory makes travel Hazardous.' The advisory was disemminated on radio, local media, and both local and nws websites. Every local TV station had the little raindrop logo with bold text 'Freezing Rain Advisory' in the top right corner and a bar of cancellations on closures scrolled across the bottom of the screen. Overhead road signs on I-80 say 'Ice Possible- Slow Down.' Police sat on some major roads with their lights on to warn drivers to slow down... what else could've been done besides shutting everything down?

But most of that was after the fact - not beforehand. All of that happens with every icing event - the accidents start happening and only then do all the information sources, news reports and police reponses start jumping on the bandwagon. By then, the worst of the crashes have already happened. I've personally seen this happen again and again.

The public is simply not 'trained' to recognize freezing rain as a significant weather-related threat on par with a tornado. And weakly-worded advisories don't help that. A little icon on a web page doesn't trigger the proper response. That's what I'm getting at - for instance, make that little raindrop something bigger - something that matches the threat level.

That, and changing NWS wording, is not going to be a huge thing to implement. If it, in tandem with awareness compaigns, saves a few dozen lives a year, why not?

Tornadoes kill an average of 62 people per year in the US. The icy road toll for this season could end up being eight times that! Why should we not consider ways to make improvements to that number, or are icy road deaths just meaningless and/or an acceptable status quo compared to tornado deaths?

[Chris Allington]

That, and changing NWS wording, is not going to be a huge thing to implement. If it, in tandem with awareness compaigns, saves a few dozen lives a year, why not?



What are you going to do to change the wording and make people not think... just another warning?

[Dan Robinson]

What are you going to do to change the wording and make people not think... just another warning?

The same thing that is done for blizzard warnings, tornado warnings, hurricane warnings and flood warnings. All of those include wording stressing the life-threatening aspect of each hazard. Freezing rain is certainly deserving of that. Even a severe thunderstorm warning mentions 'deadly lightning'.

For any given area (outside of the northern states), there are only a handful of these events every season. I believe communities would benefit from not only the enhanced NWS wording, but the trickle-down effect that would have in the media and public perception of the hazard. I think people need to develop the same respect for this as they do for tornadoes.

It's ironic how people think we're crazy for chasing tornadoes, yet they subject themselves to an even greater weather risk several times every winter. It's that I'd like to see change.

[Chris Allington]

The same thing that is done for blizzard warnings, tornado warnings, hurricane warnings and flood warnings. All of those include wording stressing the life-threatening aspect of each hazard. Freezing rain is certainly deserving of that. Even a severe thunderstorm warning mentions 'deadly lightning'.



The same thing is already done unless I'm mistaken. My weather radio goes off for a freezing rain advisory. The local media tells me about the threat for freezing rain and reiterates the ongoing conditions. A little icon displays on my local media channels including a flashing map of the included counties. The only thing that doesn't happen that happens with tornado or severe thunderstorm warnings here is interuption of live programming. I don't think its a necessity. Like rdale pointed out earlier. I go outside and slide down my driveway to get the mail, or have to chip the ice off my car. Freezing rain doesnt really happen on an instantaneous basis like the other phenomenon. Most people already know you can die from being in a car accident... so a freezing rain advisory lets us know that roads might be slick, which by all reasonable accounts can lead to an accident. It explains itself... its sad to me if weve reached a time where people are really that oblivious and unable to reason.



It's ironic how people think we're crazy for chasing tornadoes, yet they subject themselves to an even greater weather risk several times every winter. It's that I'd like to see change.

Exactly, they subject themselves. Its not different than the local yo-hoos that try to film a tornado from there front porch even though the wall to wall coverage on their tv is telling them to get in their basement. Or the people who go to check out the creek in the flood warning and get up to their windshield in water.

[mikegeukes]

Here is an example of an freezing rain advisory that was cancelled, but the NWS in Omaha mentions untreated roads and streets likely remain extremely slick and hazardous though...so if you still need to travel tonight...be prepared for icy conditions in many areas.
http://weather.cod.edu/kamala/offs/KOAX/0901040204.wwus43.html

Short Term Forecasts are useful in mentioning about freezing rain.
Examples:
http://kamala.cod.edu/offs/KMKX/0901040345.fpus73.html
http://kamala.cod.edu/offs/KGRR/0901040513.fpus73.html

Some offices are probably better than others, when it comes to issuing products concerning winter weather.

[Bob Hartig]

But COULD it have been made better if a "black ice road travel warning" was issued, and TV stations went wall-to-wall, and sirens sounded? I've yet to see the evidence... That's all I'm saying.

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.

What I find myself wondering is, what kind of thought went into developing the existing terminology? I'm guessing (though I don't know) that it was somewhat arbitrary--not that thought didn't go into it, but I wonder if the thinking behind it was as meticulous as this thread has been. Once it becomes entrenched, the status quo has a lot of staying power, but where did it come from in the first place? We tend to not give these matters much thought, if any, until someone raises an issue that calls them into question, as Dan has done here. 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? Would it be identical to what's currently in use, or would it be different--and if it were different, how and why?

I agree with Dan that geography plays a big role in winter driving awareness. I do think the media do their utmost to get the word out and warn the public, and ultimately, all the media squawk in the world can't cure a bad case of The Stupids. But again, I don't think it could hurt to revisit the terminology.

[mikegeukes]

I remember in Norman Oklahoma, the forecast was for a ice storm, which did happen, did not get the accumulated amount that was forecasted. The public was well aware of the storm. In fact the Walmart store on the east side of Norman, was almost wiped out of food and supplies. There was hardly a vehicle on the roads in Norman, during the ice storm, but some did go out anyways driving. No matter, what the wording, is people will still drive somewhere if its in ice storm, freezing rain, snow, blizzard, etc.

Mike
Lansing, MI

[Paul Hadfield]

Right now we have a 'freezing rain advisory' with 0.05" of ice expected overnight. I'm not mentioning the advisory, but I am leading the show because of the potential. Should we call in manpower to be here overnight when the icing starts? Should we keep a crawl up continuously? How would you handle a case like this?

Keep watch on ground level conditions via spotter, coop, EMA, police, fire, etc. from their respective locations and the moment ice is being reported on non-elevated surfaces, immediately upgrade to warning. Announce conditions via the Emergency Broadcast System advising people to stay off roadways till conditions improve etc. Perhaps even place a "W" on the upper right of the tv screen as is for severe tstorm warnings. Ice affects more square mileage than any single thunderstorm so how is taking extra precaution on such a far reaching phenomena a nuisance?

[Chris Allington]

I agree with Dan that geography plays a big role in winter driving awareness. I do think the media do their utmost to get the word out and warn the public, and ultimately, all the media squawk in the world can't cure a bad case of The Stupids. But again, I don't think it could hurt to revisit the terminology.

This has been a good discussion and I agree. But, what can you do to change the wording. Saying roads will be icy, means I should drive accordingly or I might get in a accident, accidents cause injury or death. It seems like a no-brainer to me. I just don't know what you could change it too and it not be one extreme or the other. It sounds like you want to warn of the potential for injury or death... but you can't really say, 'road surfaces will become deadly and dangerous.' Then if no one gets hurt or killed, people just go back to ignoring the wording and it just seems a little harsh. The wording now says it could be slick, dont travel unless you need to. I just think eventually one would have to put 2 and 2 together and realize ice ='s drive safely or you might crash. Plus, my confidence in my driving and yours could be completely different.

[mikegeukes]

On the other hand, how many people really pay attention to Flash Flood Watches, Flood Watches, Flash Flood Warnings, Flood Warnings, etc.
People will still drive around barricades and drive through flooded areas.

[Dan Robinson]

Most people don't go out in freezing rain thinking 'this could kill me'. Who better to help change that than the NWS and media - the very sources people already get their weather information from? I'm thinking of the mom with kids in car seats. I know most people like that would take a warning that mentioned a life-threatening situation more seriously.

And it often does happen very fast - I've watched (and videotaped) bridges get icy in a matter of minutes.

[Chris Allington]

Most people don't go out in freezing rain thinking 'this could kill me'.

Most people shouldn't because if they drive according to the conditions and use common sense it won't affect a vast vast majority. By the same token how many people drive smart and never have an accident in adverse weather conditions?

[Joel Wright]

Around here people seem to freak out everytime the words freezing rain are mentioned. I think people who have had to deal with it (which is everyone around here) are well aware of how much fun it is to try to commute in icy conditions.

During the winter months there almost seems to be an overload of advisories/watches/warnings etc. For the most part the NWS does a great job at issuing what's needed for a given event. I hear people say the wrong watch/advisory all the time for what's actually been issued. I've heard a lot of people say there's a warning out for something when in reality all that's been issued was a watch or advisory.

Freezing rain advisories seem to cause a lot of fear whenever they're issued. At least around here. Ice storm warnings really make everyone go nuts. News media really pounds the story too. So I'd have to think at least when it comes to freezing rain the public seems to take it pretty seriously from what I've seen. Other winter type advisories maybe not so much.

The way I look at it is there are lots of traffic accidents everyday even in good driving conditions. Unfortunate but true. Adverse winter precip just amplifies the risk that's always there everytime you leave your driveway.

[Dan Robinson]

Most people shouldn't because if they drive according to the conditions and use common sense it won't affect a vast vast majority. By the same token how many people drive smart and never have an accident in adverse weather conditions?

That's part of the goal. Awareness of the hazard that results in a change in behavior, IE, slow down.

Freezing rain's biggest threat is its element of surprise - it produces ice that is not visually apparent. Therefore most accidents don't involve people who are aware of the conditions and choose to carelessly drive normally anyway. Most involve people who encounter ice unexpectedly - they never had a chance to evaluate the conditions and slow down accordingly. You have to know the conditions are there before you can know to adjust your driving behavior.

[Dan Robinson]

Around here people seem to freak out everytime the words freezing rain are mentioned. I think people who have had to deal with it (which is everyone around here) are well aware of how much fun it is to try to commute in icy conditions.

Exactly That's the way it should be everywhere, and what the primary goal of my suggestion is. Incidentally, there have been very few fatalities in northern Illinois compared to the rest of the state. Unfortunately, people in say, Indianapolis, Cincinnati and St. Louis don't have that same respect for the hazard.

[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.

[DNeal]

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?

[DNeal]

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...

[DNeal]

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.

[DNeal]

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.

[QUOTE=rdale;207135]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.

[DNeal]

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

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.

[Patrick Marsh]

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.)
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.

[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.

[Stephen Levine]

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.

[Randall Marable]

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.

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]

Randall - good points, but Dan moved the discussion to http://stormtrack.org/forum/showthread.php?t=22493

[Randall Marable]

Yea, I caught that after reading all of the pages in that thread.

[Mike Smith]

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.


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]

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.

[Clarence Bennett]

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.php?site=NWS&issuedby=PBZ&product=AFD&format=CI&version=6&glossary=1&highlight=off