On Saturday, January 12, 2013 3:10:38 PM UTC, Dave Ludlow wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 04:03:25 -0800 (PST), willie eckerslike


Is it necessary to have blanket warnings for half the country, just to tell people what they know? Just so that the media can have a "field day" exaggerating everything to extremes?



Sorry, I know that I am being a kind of Devils Advocate here, but do not the proliferation of ordinary warnings reduce the impact of severe warnings?



Half the problem is that the yellow awareness 'warnings' aren't really

warnings at all, they are just "keep an eye on tomorrow's forecast"

bulletins. They should call them something less dramatic than warnings

IMO, to lessen the "cry wolf" syndrome.




The problem they would have with calling them 'advisories' or some other such name, is that no one would take any notice of them, and they would be accused of "nanny-ing" the public.

Although from what I have witnessed on previous occasions, only a small percentage of the public take notice of even the severe weather warnings, and still try to carry on as normal in blizzards, black ice and/or freezing fog.

In my day, for car travel in snow/ice conditions we were taught to remember the five S's - Soup, Shovel, Sack, Sleeping bag and above all Slow down.