NWS and Red Cross Reconcile Their Automobile Tornado Safety Recommendation
Our guest on WeatherBrains Monday night will be a timely one. Dr. Thomas Schmidlin from Kent State University will talk about his thought provoking paper on tornadoes and automobiles.
Several months ago, the American Red Cross followed Dr. Schmidlin’s line of thinking and broke rank with traditional NWS safety rules. They changed their advice to recommended that instead of leaving your vehicle if you find yourself being overtaken by a tornado with no shelter available, that the car provided more safety than being outside in the open, even in a ditch.
The NWS didn’t follow suit and continued with their same call to action statements and safety rules during this tornado season.
The contrasting information presented a potentially confusing situation for broadcasters and the public.
On June 22nd, the National Weather Service and the American Red Cross issued a joint statement on tornado safety. The release reiterated what the best options in a tornado are (an underground shelter, basement or safe room.) The next best option is a small, windowless room or hallway on the lowest floor of a sturdy building. People in mobile homes should go to the nearest sturdy building or shelter.
If you are caught outdoors, the new safety rules say that you should quickly walk or run to a nearby basement, shelter or sturdy building, If you cannot walk to a shelter in time, it is advisable to get in a vehicle, buckle your seat belt and drive to the closest sturdy shelter. If flying debris occurs, pull over and park, and consider the better of the following two options:
1. Stay in the car. Put your head down underneath window level, cover your head with hands or a blanket
2. If you can get noticeably lower that the level of the roadway, exit your car and lie in that area, covering your head with your hands.
The choice is yours based on the situation.
From the statement: The important thing to understand is that if you find yourself outside or in a car with a tornado approaching and you are unable to get to a safe shelter, you are at risk from a number of things outside your control, such as the strength and path of the tornado and debris from your surroundings. This is the case whether you stay in your car or seek shelter in a depression or ditch, both of which are considered last resort options that provide little protection. The safest place to be is in an underground shelter, basement or safe room.
I think that the joint statement is an accurate, reasonably understandable set of rules that cover a very complex subject. My commitment will be to continually hit these items in our releases during severe weather events.
It will be a lively and interesting discussion Monday night.
Participate in the debate by weighing in on our blog poll question before Monday night on what your instinctive action would be. Also: Is the message too complicated? What other tornado safety issues confuse you? Can you see any ways for us to communicate weather safety messages?
July 19th, 2009 at 9:50 am
I would make the decision based on what I think would be best at the time. I did vote to leave the car for a ditch.
July 19th, 2009 at 10:42 am
it’s called common sense. use yours.
the ditch is really the last resort effort. if you’re in a ditch you’re exposed to many different dangerous elements. hail. flooding water in the ditch. lightning. i’ve seen pictures of ditches after tornadoes and there are shards of metal, glass, wood and other things impaled into the windward side of the ditch. that can be you.
so i can understand how one would be hesitant to recommend getting out of your car to run to a ditch, it could cost someone their life.
July 19th, 2009 at 2:02 pm
finebammer….I have seen houses after a tornado.
You first sentence says it all…. common sense and hope you make the correct decision.
July 19th, 2009 at 2:45 pm
if you are in a vehicle and a tornado is bearing down on you either way chances are not all that good but my instincts would tell me to shelter myself from debris. i would most likely hunker down in the floorboard of my car
July 19th, 2009 at 2:59 pm
Yep, common sense. If you can find a “fraidy hole” get in it and if not, the next best thing. We have to make those quick decision inside the home or structure, same thing for outside, go to the safest place, hopefully if it is drilled into our head by repeatedly being told, we will do so by instinct.
July 19th, 2009 at 5:40 pm
In the sixties, we all went to the southwest corner of the house and opened windows. Things change. First aid/CPR has changed too. What a nice day! I was outside a lot. Does anyone have some good ideas for places to eat (authentic, not expensive)in Atlanta? I have surfed the Southern Living/Atlanta (AJC)newspaper/Rachel Ray routine. Thanks! We are going to pick up special guests at the Atlanta airport in a couple of weeks.
July 19th, 2009 at 5:46 pm
If i were in a car, i would probably pull off the road in a clear area (no trees or power lines)and turn off the engine and hunker down. If i could see a roadside rest or restaurant, safe bldg – i would try to go indoors.
July 19th, 2009 at 7:06 pm
Yes, I think it’s far too confusing. The general public does not think nearly as much as we do about these things . . . they want a short, quick answer. So I think the solution is for someone to take all this information and condense it and simplify it so that “Joe Q. Public” understands it. And that person is certainly not me. But I think as it’s stated here . . . it’s going to be too confusing for most people. It’s good that they’re thinking more about this and trying to give better advice . . . but I think for it to do the good it’s meant to, it’s going to have to be . . . reduced to simplest form, for lack of a better term.
July 19th, 2009 at 10:53 pm
well put matt i think it needs to become as close to a “one or the other” as possible, the one element that should be looked at here is that with either decision chances of survival are minimal and of the two having cover from flying debris such as a vehicle would make sense.This is not an easy topic to get an answer for but it definitely needs for investigation and thought.
July 19th, 2009 at 11:48 pm
First of all, I also believe it is confusing. From talking to friends and family who are not as weather obsessed as myself, even simple tornado safety measures are not well understood, despite the fact that anyone who has lived in Alabama more than a few months have heard them several times. I think we have to underestimate the intelligence of the general public when it comes to this. Also, we must consider the fact that it only takes one person to become a fatality, so clarity to everyone must be what we strive for, not just the majority.
This is slightly off topic, but it relates. On this blog a few months ago, an discussion was brought up concerning basketball and weather coverage, and how we must decide what do to with the live coverage. From talking to the aforementioned friends and family, I have come up with some interesting thoughts. It seems for most people, the commonly used text at the top of the screen is, for the most part, ignored. From what I understand, it is usually just the NWS statement, which for most people, is undigestable, particularly in a time of emergency. My idea is that there should be two tiers of severity of tornado warnings, based on the evidence of a tornado, its location, any eyewitness evidence, etc., a bit like the “PDS” of today. This tier-ing should shouldn’t be over advertised to the public. For the higher tier tornadoes, live coverage should be used, regardless of the programming. In the case of the lower tier, live coverage would not have to be used, depending on programming. When it isn’t live, live weather updates, mostly text could be used. At the bottom of the screen, an area is reserved for text updates from the staff meteorologists. Possibly, the meteorologists could post important information, such as location, communities in danger, storm strength, every 30 seconds or a minute, depending on need. Their post could follow their name and time, so the public recognizes that the information is live and important. Also, a picture of the meteorologist could be beside the post, to further increase the credibility. After a post, that post would stay on the screen until the next post, at which point it could disappear, or get smaller, fade, etc. This text would only utilize the bottom fourth or fifth of the screen, and do away with the scrolling text from the NWS. Also, live updates could be done during commercial breaks, or at regular intervals, depending on the severity. With experienced meteorologists like James, many of the case to case decisions could be made at the moment, based on his discretion.
Just my thoughts, goodnight everyone.
July 20th, 2009 at 2:06 am
In the poll and on a previous blog entry, I chose to stay in the car. I also said it is something that requires people to think about what is their best option and to go with that.
I understand that there are a lot of people that aren’t “interested” in weather.. but for the life of me, I can’t figure out how this new message is confusing. I’m sure there are some people who will be confused – there always are some people no matter what the issue or how simple the explanations.
I think that the average person would understand this information if they are given it, especially if someone like James reminds everyone when he comes on during severe weather.
If the public is made away of these recommendations before the severe weather event, then reminded during it, that should be enough. Yes, some people will be confused. But during a time of an emergency people like James, et al. should not have to worry about if this is confusing people or not. The weather people are doing their best to keep everyone safe and informed. The general public should have some responsibility for their own safety and if they don’t understand or grasp the concept then it is up to them to ask the questions.
July 20th, 2009 at 4:28 pm
Based on personal experiences, I would always try to find a basement or below-ground shelter if time was available. Being raised in Wisconsin, I’ve never known anyone to perish in a tornado that had taken shelter below-ground–including the F4/F5 tornado that hit Oakfield http://www.crh.noaa.gov/mkx/document/tor/oakfield_7-18-96.php
If caught in a car, I would likely look for a deep ditch that I could potentially drive my car into if a tornado was in sight or reported to be very close. If there wasn’t a low spot large enough for my car, I’d likely leave it and take cover without it–and hope for the best. Judging from the pics from the Oakfield storm report, being in a car that’s at ground level isn’t safe to be at all.