Well finally got some feedback from contacts in the Met Office (both
official and ...ahem... others).

You remember I and others on here (e.g. Norman) queried why fog warnings
were never issued for hill fog depite the fact that there are some busy
roads above 400 metres in the UK. E.g. in Derbyshire. Even if visibilities
are less than 100 metres no warnings are issued if it is caused by low
cloud.

Official answer is that my query caused a lot of discussion and the
conclusion was that since the warning system is impact based and fog on
high ground is low impact then no warnings will be issued. They also said
that impacts are low presumably because people who drive and live at
altitude are "used to it".

What a load of tosh that is. We now have an amber warning for wind in
northern Scotland, surely folk who travel and work up there are "used to
it". We will get snow warnings no doubt later for Highland region in winter,
are they not "used to it" as well? Sorry that argument doesn't wash.

Interestingly the unofficial answer from my contacts is that it would be too
much work. The dangers and risks are understood but they do not want to
overload the system by issuing a lot of fog warnings per year. I can accept
that reluctantly. But why not say that officially?

Will
--
http://www.lyneside.demon.co.uk/Hayt...antage_Pro.htm
Will Hand (Haytor, Devon, 1017 feet asl)
---------------------------------------------

On 12/11/2015 10:59, Eskimo Will wrote:
Well finally got some feedback from contacts in the Met Office (both
official and ...ahem... others).

You remember I and others on here (e.g. Norman) queried why fog warnings
were never issued for hill fog depite the fact that there are some busy
roads above 400 metres in the UK. E.g. in Derbyshire. Even if
visibilities are less than 100 metres no warnings are issued if it is
caused by low cloud.

Official answer is that my query caused a lot of discussion and the
conclusion was that since the warning system is impact based and fog on
high ground is low impact then no warnings will be issued. They also
said that impacts are low presumably because people who drive and live
at altitude are "used to it".

What a load of tosh that is. We now have an amber warning for wind in
northern Scotland, surely folk who travel and work up there are "used to
it". We will get snow warnings no doubt later for Highland region in
winter, are they not "used to it" as well? Sorry that argument doesn't
wash.

Interestingly the unofficial answer from my contacts is that it would be
too much work. The dangers and risks are understood but they do not want
to overload the system by issuing a lot of fog warnings per year. I can
accept that reluctantly. But why not say that officially?

Will

Pardon my ignorance, but would'nt it be simpler to announce the probable
cloud base height and leave it up to the individual to do his own
analyse,i.e if you know where you live and its above the cloud base it
will be foggy !

RonB

"Ron Button" wrote in message
...
On 12/11/2015 10:59, Eskimo Will wrote:
Well finally got some feedback from contacts in the Met Office (both
official and ...ahem... others).

You remember I and others on here (e.g. Norman) queried why fog warnings
were never issued for hill fog depite the fact that there are some busy
roads above 400 metres in the UK. E.g. in Derbyshire. Even if
visibilities are less than 100 metres no warnings are issued if it is
caused by low cloud.

Official answer is that my query caused a lot of discussion and the
conclusion was that since the warning system is impact based and fog on
high ground is low impact then no warnings will be issued. They also
said that impacts are low presumably because people who drive and live
at altitude are "used to it".

What a load of tosh that is. We now have an amber warning for wind in
northern Scotland, surely folk who travel and work up there are "used to
it". We will get snow warnings no doubt later for Highland region in
winter, are they not "used to it" as well? Sorry that argument doesn't
wash.

Interestingly the unofficial answer from my contacts is that it would be
too much work. The dangers and risks are understood but they do not want
to overload the system by issuing a lot of fog warnings per year. I can
accept that reluctantly. But why not say that officially?


Pardon my ignorance, but would'nt it be simpler to announce the probable
cloud base height and leave it up to the individual to do his own
analyse,i.e if you know where you live and its above the cloud base it
will be foggy !



To be fair Ron, forecasts do mention hill fog, both auto and human. But I'm
talking about the warning system which does not warn for low cloud - full
stop.

Will
--
http://www.lyneside.demon.co.uk/Hayt...antage_Pro.htm
Will Hand (Haytor, Devon, 1017 feet asl)
---------------------------------------------

I'm with you on this Will. I am well used to driving in fog, understand where it's likely to be, but hate the bloody stuff.
If there was a warning system in place, it may well help people to consider an alternative route, as a detour on lower ground could well prove to be quicker, safer and far more pleasurable. When driving West from Exeter home to Cornwall I'd often take the A38 rather than the A30 as it's far less likely to be fog bound.
I will dispute your 400m though. Most of the Wolds roads are 100m or less and prone to fog, we're only 70m and are regularly affected, but I use alternatives when and where I can.
The problem with the warning system though, is the way they map the areas, which are predominantly done using county boundaries, which are in no way related to topography. This is what needs amending, with fog and snow being particularly related to height (low or high), for example, when they forecast snow above 2/300m, how many people actually know what altitude they're likely to be driving at?

On Thu, 12 Nov 2015 11:06:48 +0000
Ron Button wrote:

Pardon my ignorance, but would'nt it be simpler to announce the
probable cloud base height and leave it up to the individual to do
his own analyse,i.e if you know where you live and its above the
cloud base it will be foggy !

Because some of the drivers won't be local and won't know the height
they're at?


--
Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks. [Retd meteorologist/programmer]
http://www.scarlet-jade.com/
I wear the cheese. It does not wear me.
Posted with Claws: http://www.claws-mail.org/

Graham P Davis wrote:

On Thu, 12 Nov 2015 11:06:48 +0000
Ron Button wrote:

Pardon my ignorance, but would'nt it be simpler to announce the
probable cloud base height and leave it up to the individual to do
his own analyse,i.e if you know where you live and its above the
cloud base it will be foggy !

Because some of the drivers won't be local and won't know the height
they're at?


That's the point around here. Two nearby roads that are often affected are the
A6 (Derby to Stockport/Manchester) and the A623 (Chesterfield to
Stockport/Manchester). Both are busy main roads reaching more than 350m above
sea level and a lot of the traffic on them is through traffic with journeys
beginning and ending at relatively low levels.

--
Norman Lynagh
Tideswell, Derbyshire
303m a.s.l.
http://peakdistrictweather.org

Official answer is that my query caused a lot of discussion
and the
conclusion was that since the warning system is impact based
and fog on high ground is low impact then no warnings will be
issued. They also said that impacts are low presumably because
people who drive and live at altitude are "used to it".

What a load of tosh that is. We now have an amber warning for
wind in northern Scotland, surely folk who travel and work up
there are "used to it". We will get snow warnings no doubt
later for Highland region in winter, are they not "used to it"
as well? Sorry that argument doesn't wash.

Even if one is used to it (which I assuredly am) it is still
helpful to have the warnings. However they are far from being
consistent.

There is a custard warning for here, with forecast wind speeds
from 15 gusting 30 to 25 gusting 46 highlighted. On Saturday, 20
gusting 39 is not included in the warning.

Rothes, 10 miles away by road, has a custard warning from 12
gusting 33 to 20 gusting 42. On Saturday, there is no warning,
but forecast wind speeds of up to 19 gusting 36.

Grantown, another 30 miles or so, has an amber warning of wind
speeds of 13 gusting 30 to19 gusting 40, but only a custard
warning later on with forecast wind speed of 19 gusting 40. No
warnings for Saturday, with forecast wind speed of 17 gusting
32.

I am confused. If 13 gusting 30 at 07:00 on Friday justifies an
amber warning for Grantown, why does 20 gusting 39 on Saturday
at 00:00 not justify even a custard warning for here?

Anne B

On Thursday, November 12, 2015 at 1:59:37 PM UTC+3, wrote

Official answer is that my query caused a lot of discussion and the
conclusion was that since the warning system is impact based and fog on
high ground is low impact then no warnings will be issued. They also said
that impacts are low presumably because people who drive and live at
altitude are "used to it".

What a load of tosh that is. We now have an amber warning for wind in
northern Scotland, surely folk who travel and work up there are "used to
it". We will get snow warnings no doubt later for Highland region in winter,
are they not "used to it" as well? Sorry that argument doesn't wash.

Although aren't you always claiming just that, that you are 'used to it'?

Col

wrote in message
...
On Thursday, November 12, 2015 at 1:59:37 PM UTC+3,
wrote

Official answer is that my query caused a lot of discussion and the
conclusion was that since the warning system is impact based and fog on
high ground is low impact then no warnings will be issued. They also said
that impacts are low presumably because people who drive and live at
altitude are "used to it".

What a load of tosh that is. We now have an amber warning for wind in
northern Scotland, surely folk who travel and work up there are "used to
it". We will get snow warnings no doubt later for Highland region in
winter,
are they not "used to it" as well? Sorry that argument doesn't wash.

Although aren't you always claiming just that, that you are 'used to it'?


Yes but so what? I know how to drive in hill fog, and so does Norman, and so
does Ken and David, but folk going from say Chesterfield to Manchester may
not be that familiar, or from Exeter to Launceston on the A30 or Exeter to
Plymouth on the A38. All these roads are prone to hill fog and folk may not
expect it, but there will be no warning as there would be for lowland roads
in radiation fog. So as I argued above it is not simply good enough to say
that people in the area are "used to it", it is nothing to do with us.

Will
--
http://www.lyneside.demon.co.uk/Hayt...antage_Pro.htm
Will Hand (Haytor, Devon, 1017 feet asl)
---------------------------------------------

Eskimo Will wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Thursday, November 12, 2015 at 1:59:37 PM UTC+3,
wrote

Official answer is that my query caused a lot of discussion and the
conclusion was that since the warning system is impact based and fog on
high ground is low impact then no warnings will be issued. They also said
that impacts are low presumably because people who drive and live at
altitude are "used to it".

What a load of tosh that is. We now have an amber warning for wind in
northern Scotland, surely folk who travel and work up there are "used to
it". We will get snow warnings no doubt later for Highland region in
winter, are they not "used to it" as well? Sorry that argument doesn't
wash.

Although aren't you always claiming just that, that you are 'used to it'?


Yes but so what? I know how to drive in hill fog, and so does Norman, and so
does Ken and David, but folk going from say Chesterfield to Manchester may
not be that familiar, or from Exeter to Launceston on the A30 or Exeter to
Plymouth on the A38. All these roads are prone to hill fog and folk may not
expect it, but there will be no warning as there would be for lowland roads
in radiation fog. So as I argued above it is not simply good enough to say
that people in the area are "used to it", it is nothing to do with us.

Will

Of course, there is the argument that warnings need not be issued for any
conditions that are fairly normal for the time of year. Warnings would be
reserved for fairly extreme conditions that have an average return period of,
say, once in 20 years or longer. That way the warnings would likely have much
more impact and we wouldn't get the "warning fatigue" that must inevitably set
in with the constant barrage of warnings that we get under the present system.

There's no "right" answer, of course.

--
Norman Lynagh
Tideswell, Derbyshire
303m a.s.l.
http://peakdistrictweather.org