Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,584
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    LopezElliana
    Newest Member
    LopezElliana
    Joined

2/26 Fluffer, Light Snow Event


Baroclinic Zone

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 208
  • Created
  • Last Reply

We warn and advise for everything nowadays. Overload and public is immune to it. You get in the car , it's fooking snowing....you go slow. Period. Nobody should require a phone alert to tell them how to slow down. Good grief. How stupid are we then?

What if you are driving down 95 at 70 mph and run into a squall, do you think a heads up would have helped? I guess we really don"t need any warnings, everyone for them self. I get what you are saying but some people are scared to death of winter driving and opt to stay home if snow is coming, elderly won"t go out for fear of slipping. The warning system is transitioning to impact based which it should rather than some silly scientific line in the sand. The job is to advise and protect. Not everyone is as astute as Scooter, doesn't mean they are dumb just means they like to be advised and pay for that advice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What if you are driving down 95 at 70 mph and run into a squall, do you think a heads up would have helped? I guess we really don"t need any warnings, everyone for them self. I get what you are saying but some people are scared to death of winter driving and opt to stay home if snow is coming, elderly won"t go out for fear of slipping. The warning system is transitioning to impact based which it should rather than some silly scientific line in the sand. The job is to advise and protect. Not everyone is as astute as Scooter, doesn't mean they are dumb just means they like to be advised and pay for that advice.

Steve, I see a squall...I slow down. How is some sort of warning going to help me? What am I going to drive 25mph on 93 with my head spazzing in all directions looking for the infamous squall? C'mon. Common sense has completely gone out the window around here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We warn and advise for everything nowadays. Overload and public is immune to it. You get in the car , it's fooking snowing....you go slow. Period. Nobody should require a phone alert to tell them how to slow down. Good grief. How stupid are we then?

Judging from all the accidents today very stupid! People don't get it, they don't slow down...we crash!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We warn and advise for everything nowadays. Overload and public is immune to it. You get in the car , it's fooking snowing....you go slow. Period. Nobody should require a phone alert to tell them how to slow down. Good grief. How stupid are we then?

 

Every time it snows, every new season, I am astonished how many stupid drivers there are.

 

Biggest danger of driving in snow is other drivers, imo. 1" at 29F can be just as treacherous, and rookie drivers just don't have the common sense... text alerts will eventually be ignored just like all the other tweets and status updates and tv warnings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What if you are driving down 95 at 70 mph and run into a squall, do you think a heads up would have helped? I guess we really don"t need any warnings, everyone for them self. I get what you are saying but some people are scared to death of winter driving and opt to stay home if snow is coming, elderly won"t go out for fear of slipping. The warning system is transitioning to impact based which it should rather than some silly scientific line in the sand. The job is to advise and protect. Not everyone is as astute as Scooter, doesn't mean they are dumb just means they like to be advised and pay for that advice.

 

 

The more advisories you put out, the fewer the public will pay attention. The value of them gets diluted.

 

You save it for the true impact events where constant plowing is needed and pedestrian foot traffic really becomes impeded . I feel like most of your generation would have laughed someone out of the building 30-40 years ago if they were touting needing advisories for 1.5" of snow.

 

 

We don't need advisories to tell the public that driving in snow requires caution. There's a reason that the limit is 3"+ in over 50% of the aerial coverage of the advisory zone and that a warning requires double that in <12 hours.

 

 

But maybe I'm the bad guy in this convo...trying to ressurrect some common sense and self initiative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The more advisories you put out, the fewer the public will pay attention. The value of them gets diluted.

 

You save it for the true impact events where constant plowing is needed and pedestrian foot traffic really becomes impeded . I feel like most of your generation would have laughed someone out of the building 30-40 years ago if they were touting needing advisories for 1.5" of snow.

 

 

We don't need advisories to tell the public that driving in snow requires caution. There's a reason that the limit is 3"+ in over 50% of the aerial coverage of the advisory zone and that a warning requires double that in <12 hours.

 

 

But maybe I'm the bad guy in this convo...trying to ressurrect some common sense and self initiative.

My generation had travelers advisories whenever slippery driving was possible. The quaint science non impact based logic days are over. Again you are a stats guy, look up the accident rate of snow for the first inch versus 6 inches, the impact is greater for obvious reasons, getting stuck should be warned, knowing slippery conditions could impact driving deserves a advisory , in fact NWS can issue advisories as needed now not strictly based an hard numbers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My generation had travelers advisories whenever slippery driving was possible. The quaint science non impact based logic days are over. Again you are a stats guy, look up the accident rate of snow for the first inch versus 6 inches, the impact is greater for obvious reasons, getting stuck should be warned, knowing slippery conditions could impact driving deserves a advisory , in fact NWS can issue advisories as needed now not strictly based an hard numbers.

 

 

We'll agree to disagree....we'd be issuing advisories with every 21F coating if we went with that logic.

 

When we issue advisories for every nuisance event....that will be the day the public completely ignores the advisory for the 3-6" event that does a lot more "damage" to the commute. Most can handle 1-2" of snow. There's more accidents in 1-2" of snow because there's way more drivers on the road. Just like there's more accidents on a regular work commute than days where we have 10"+ of snow because the latter has so few drivers on the road.

 

But there's no sense continuing the argument since there's a subjective interpretation of the value of putting an advisory out for 1.5" of snow....and clearly we have differing interpretations of it.

 

 

Regardless, my "no headliens needed" comment was clearly based on the criteria for advisory snowfall as defined by the 3"+ threshold. That wasn't met in the area in question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah if you can't learn to drive in 1-2" of snow, don't go out on the road or move out of the region. Lol.

I've always felt we need fewer headlines. Not more. More of them tends to numb the public to them.

 

Our most popular VTEC product (watch, warning, advisory) is a small craft advisory. We've become numb to issuing them, so how does the public feel when they hear "small craft advisory in effect" on the evening news?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Never ever understood why snow amount was a measurement of advisory level, anyone who drives knows that first inch is the most dangerous. Of course headlines for slippery driving conditions were warranted in many areas today, foolish to think they were not

 

It's what we hear from state officials all the time too. I mean any amount of measurable snow can have an "impact," but so can black ice, flash freezes, ponding in poor drainage areas, sun glare driving west on a clear day, etc.

 

We can't really advise on every contingency. If we had products out for every 1 inch snow event, we'd be topping 25 headlines easily. Because as with any product, a certain number will "bust" and we'll have headlines out for a half inch of snow.

 

I think this current state of advisories are geared towards significant impacts. Many accidents/slide offs, a more continuous level of snow removal, etc.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What if you are driving down 95 at 70 mph and run into a squall, do you think a heads up would have helped? I guess we really don"t need any warnings, everyone for them self. I get what you are saying but some people are scared to death of winter driving and opt to stay home if snow is coming, elderly won"t go out for fear of slipping. The warning system is transitioning to impact based which it should rather than some silly scientific line in the sand. The job is to advise and protect. Not everyone is as astute as Scooter, doesn't mean they are dumb just means they like to be advised and pay for that advice.

 

This is true, to a point. It is and should be impact based, but not to the point of desensitizing the public. There is a happy medium somewhere between over-warning and under-warning.

 

This is percentage of time a WFO has a watch/warning/advisory in effect.

 

post-44-0-36206300-1425053184_thumb.png

 

49% for SNE is a huge number. That's half the year that BOX has a headline out. I'm not saying it's the right or wrong amount of time, I'm just saying it's already a large amount of time. Adding advisories I don't think will help the problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...