AARoads Forum

Good idea? Bad idea? Prudent use of executive orders or overreaction and an unnecessary infringement on freedom to travel?

We should never evaluate things by results instead of process, but it's going to be really hard to do that here.

If things work out as forecasted, it's probably a good idea because it will save taxpayer dollars in emergency response- if we wanted to be really fair about it, you could say something like "travel at your own risk, but you have to foot the entire bill for emergency response if you end up stranded" but that's politically dicey too- there's really no way to win.

Ohio has three levels of snow emergency, with level 3 banning travel, but it's handled by the county sheriff.  Ours stated once he would never declare one because his people have to be out there too, but some of the rural counties have done so.  And I think that's where I draw the distinction in my head - in a city one can expect more access to goods and services, so maybe a travel ban is unnecessary.  A more rural area might be more of a hazard to the public since you running off the road is more dangerous to both you and the people coming to get you.

That said, all the plows in the world don't help here when it snows at rush hour and they pull the trucks off the road rather than having them sit on the freeway.

Wyoming would close intercity roads all the time unless you could get a gate pass (which you'd call the sheriff with a good excuse and then you could drive behind the plow on their next pass)- I remember going days with I-80 and 287 closed in and out of Laramie and the grocery stores not having much food on the shelves.

Typically they waited until it was really bad though- I left to go to Cheyenne once about 5 minutes before the freeway closed (I heard after I left) and that was the scariest drive I've ever had by far (dark, snow coming down hard, windy- couldn't see more than ten feet n front of you or where the road ended- it was Laramie to Cheyenne at 15 MPH and even then I may have been going too fast) and I've driven in some pretty bad conditions.

I think it's a good idea, it keeps the roads open for emergency vehicles and the plows can plow on open roads.

I do find myself looking at the VMSs and the traffic cams in my state of CT via their website's interactive map.  Cool to see the roads empty and once inawhile i see a lone truck driving. 

Also, the local station said a truck driver got stuck on I-84 in Waterbury bc of a 5 foot snow drift. 

I think back to that famous picture of a lone truck on I-10 in Louisianna hanging off one of the bridges with Katrina. 

http://www.ct.gov/dot/cwp/view.asp?a=2354&Q=290242

Governor Dannell P. Malloy (D-CT) has a complete statewide ban in effect and a state of emergency was already declared. Bradley International (BDL) is also closed until further notice. Only essential vehicles are allowed on the interstates and state highways.

At present, I can't even see out of my windows to my left unless I stand up. New Britain, CT has at least 17 inches of snow. There was none as recently as this time yesterday. :(

I'm still looking for camera shots of the Long Island Expressway.

Quote from: hbelkins on February 08, 2013, 10:23:21 PM
Good idea? Bad idea? Prudent use of executive orders or overreaction and an unnecessary infringement on freedom to travel?

Good idea, based on what I have seen - and heard (from friends in southeast New Hampshire).

Problem is people driving in this type of storm tend to get stuck, which then hampers snow clearing operations.

Quote from: D-Dey65 on February 09, 2013, 08:05:10 AM
I'm still looking for camera shots of the Long Island Expressway.

http://www.sigalert.com/Map.asp#lat=40.85846&lon=-72.8443&z=0

Check out the camera at N. Ocean Avenue in Patchogue: [image link removed]

Quote from: hbelkins on February 08, 2013, 10:23:21 PM
Good idea? Bad idea? Prudent use of executive orders or overreaction and an unnecessary infringement on freedom to travel?

I don't think  banning driving is an infringement on one's freedom to travel. That's what feet are for.

Quote from: empirestate on February 09, 2013, 10:06:25 AM
Check out the camera at N. Ocean Avenue in Patchogue: (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpub2.camera.trafficland.com%2Fimage%2Flive.jpg%3Fsystem%3Dsigalert%26amp%3Bwebid%3D6265%26amp%3Bsize%3Dfull%26amp%3Bpubtoken%3Dd0828f5118f40bc99540f921e7b8ad31%26amp%3Baffiliate%3D%26amp%3Bcb%3D1360422178433&hash=6262fef41e41da00b962a4ff10ca220c9a79aad7)

Okay, thanks. I see that's completely closed.


Hey, I also see that link has the un-built Northern Brookhaven Bypass that was supposed to be designated Suffolk County Road 26 that the North Shore anti-highway zealots brag about thwarting because they thought it was going to bring suburban sprawl, only to find they have suburban sprawl regardless of whether the road was built or not.

Quote from: papaT10932 on February 09, 2013, 11:13:18 AM

Quote from: hbelkins on February 08, 2013, 10:23:21 PM
Good idea? Bad idea? Prudent use of executive orders or overreaction and an unnecessary infringement on freedom to travel?

I don't think  banning driving is an infringement on one's freedom to travel. That's what feet are for.

There is a difference between having the freedom to do something, and having that freedom provided for without exception by an outside entity such as the government. We have the freedom of religion, but the government doesn't build churches. We have the freedom of speech, but the government doesn't schedule each of us a 30-minute slot every Tuesday at the town park.

Also, I'm not sure the freedom to travel is enumerated specifically enough that the government has a duty to maintain it, at least above its duty to provide for our safety.

Quote from: papaT10932 on February 09, 2013, 11:13:18 AM

Quote from: hbelkins on February 08, 2013, 10:23:21 PM
Good idea? Bad idea? Prudent use of executive orders or overreaction and an unnecessary infringement on freedom to travel?

I don't think  banning driving is an infringement on one's freedom to travel. That's what feet are for.

I was unaware that I'm able to walk faster than about 5mph.  Most places are unreachable at such low speeds.  Up here in Potsdam I can't even get to WalMart (safely, at least - some people don't mind walking on major US routes through corn fields in the middle of the night, apparently) without a car.

Quote from: corco on February 08, 2013, 11:20:54 PM
Wyoming would close intercity roads all the time unless you could get a gate pass (which you'd call the sheriff with a good excuse and then you could drive behind the plow on their next pass)- I remember going days with I-80 and 287 closed in and out of Laramie and the grocery stores not having much food on the shelves.

Typically they waited until it was really bad though- I left to go to Cheyenne once about 5 minutes before the freeway closed (I heard after I left) and that was the scariest drive I've ever had by far (dark, snow coming down hard, windy- couldn't see more than ten feet n front of you or where the road ended- it was Laramie to Cheyenne at 15 MPH and even then I may have been going too fast) and I've driven in some pretty bad conditions.

I knew someone who was stationed in Cheyenne, I forget where and with what branch, and he'd tell me stories of how they were sent out onto highways during snowstorms in that part of Wyoming getting stranded motorists and that it was basically a continous operation during the heart of the storm. He made it sound like something that he and his other cohorts didn't enjoy doing, they did it with no argument, but they would be mad at the motorists afterwards, putting themselves in that position where the military had to go out and save them when they could have been doing something else (not sure what that would have been however, in a snowstorm I'd imagine there's not a lot you could do.)

In Kentucky, I have navigated some pretty good snowstorms in years past. We had more than two feet of snow on the ground on Valentine's Day in either 1985 or 1986. I had no trouble getting around, driving an Old Cutlass with rear-wheel drive and studded snow tires.

In March 1993, we had a blizzard and ended up with nearly two feet of snow on the ground. The SEC basketball tournament was being played at Rupp Arena but the snow didn't keep UK fans from filling the arena when the Cats played. I had no trouble getting around in a Chevy S-10 Blazer.

In 1994, we had a huge snowstorm which was followed by subzero temperatures. The governor closed the interstates (but not the parkways, nor the surface highways). Again, I had no trouble getting anywhere I needed to go in my S-10 Blazer.

I have been told by KYTC personnel that the Toyota plant in Georgetown was not happy with the decision to close the interstates, and made it known that should it ever happen again, there would be a strong likelihood that the factory would be shut down and operations moved elsewhere. Whether coincidental or not, our interstates have never been ordered closed again.

For the record, I disagree with the decisions of the New England governors. I think people are generally smart enough to know if they can travel or not. Lots of people won't travel in snowstorms anyway and traffic is usually much lighter. If I was traveling in that area and wasn't allowed to leave, I'd be pissed.

Cars are still occasionally driving past my home here in central CT, now with partial sunshine! Massachusetts was supposed to lift their ban at 4 PM ET.

QuoteFor the record, I disagree with the decisions of the New England governors. I think people are generally smart enough to know if they can travel or not. Lots of people won't travel in snowstorms anyway and traffic is usually much lighter. If I was traveling in that area and wasn't allowed to leave, I'd be pissed.

Just out of curiosity, what is your opinion on those people who do opt to get travel, get stuck, and cost taxpayer dollars to get un-stranded? Even if you make them pay the bill for labor or whatever, it still slows down clearing the road because road crews are focused on pulling idiots out of the ditch instead of clearing the road.

For the record, I don't know what a good solution is- making executive orders for the dumbest common denominator seems like a bad idea, but at the same time it's a huge efficiency boost in terms of getting the roads accessible again and a lot cheaper for everyone if they just shut down travel.

I'd tend to think it's a threshold thing- in Wyoming, even where most were very very libertarian, I don't remember anybody complaining about the roads being closed because they really needed to be closed when they were closed. It doesn't sound like that's what happened in Kentucky.

Quote from: corco on February 09, 2013, 02:19:08 PM

QuoteFor the record, I disagree with the decisions of the New England governors. I think people are generally smart enough to know if they can travel or not. Lots of people won't travel in snowstorms anyway and traffic is usually much lighter. If I was traveling in that area and wasn't allowed to leave, I'd be pissed.

Just out of curiosity, what is your opinion on those people who do opt to get travel, get stuck, and cost taxpayer dollars to get un-stranded? Even if you make them pay the bill for labor or whatever, it still slows down clearing the road because road crews are focused on pulling idiots out of the ditch instead of clearing the road.

For the record, I don't know what a good solution is- making executive orders for the dumbest common denominator seems like a bad idea, but at the same time it's a huge efficiency boost in terms of getting the roads accessible again and a lot cheaper for everyone if they just shut down travel.

I'd tend to think it's a threshold thing- in Wyoming, even where most were very very libertarian, I don't remember anybody complaining about the roads being closed because they really needed to be closed when they were closed. It doesn't sound like that's what happened in Kentucky.

Isn't that the point of a travel ban? I don't think it's entirely to do with actually prohibiting travel, but rather with reducing the government's obligation toward those who do. (In CT, for example, you see the signs all the time: "Road closed-state liability limited".)

What, in fact, are the enforcement practices on a travel ban? Anybody here ever been called out for violating one?

The subway in New York managed to keep running through the night last night with only minor disruptions. After being out at a party last night I got home at around 10:30 and the train was empty, but running. Streets, similarly, were empty but passable. But then, NYC only got 8 inches. Most of New England saw 2 feet or more. Metro-North suspended service at 10 PM last night, but restored most of it this morning. It's all back except for the New Haven line north of Stamford now.

Looking at the traffic cams for Connecticut, it seems that things get worse as you head north and east. My parents in Stamford say they got about a foot and I-95 is open and clear there. Up in Milford it's still partially blocked and east of New Haven it's still closed.

Quote from: corco on February 09, 2013, 02:19:08 PM
Just out of curiosity, what is your opinion on those people who do opt to get travel, get stuck, and cost taxpayer dollars to get un-stranded? Even if you make them pay the bill for labor or whatever, it still slows down clearing the road because road crews are focused on pulling idiots out of the ditch instead of clearing the road.

Around here, in general, road crews don't pull people out of the ditch. That's left to the private towing companies.

Quote from: Duke87 on February 09, 2013, 04:01:46 PM
The subway in New York managed to keep running through the night last night with only minor disruptions. After being out at a party last night I got home at around 10:30 and the train was empty, but running. Streets, similarly, were empty but passable. But then, NYC only got 8 inches. Most of New England saw 2 feet or more. Metro-North suspended service at 10 PM last night, but restored most of it this morning. It's all back except for the New Haven line north of Stamford now.

It never got all that bad in NYC, and the worst of it was in the wee hours anyway. In addition, I noticed a very conscientious effort from the people in my neighborhood, as well as city crews, at keeping sidewalks, driveways and roads clear. Folks were at it well into Friday night, and back in action early this morning.

QuoteAround here, in general, road crews don't pull people out of the ditch. That's left to the private towing companies.

Then maybe that's the threshold for closure- when the roads closed in Wyoming, there was no way Joe Tow Truck was going to risk their own life to come get you- if you got stuck you weren't getting out unless you were in the way of a road crew- it wasn't a put some studs/chains on and drive slow and you'll be okay type of bad, it was a "holy crap where is the edge of the road this is a whiteout ohhhhh no it's a random 5 foot snow drift in the middle of the highway" bad. When I left to go to Cheyenne that day right before the freeway closed, I did make it safely, but I'd bet 30% of the time I end up stuck, and I've never gotten myself stuck. A good portion of me not driving myself off the road was sheer luck, which tells me that I probably shouldn't have been allowed to be on it.

(Side argument pro-closure: When I left Laramie, I knew it was going to be bad but had no idea quite how bad it was going to be- I know trusting the government to make those calls isn't really a desirable thing, but in a case like that, they are more likely to know what's up than the average citizen)

In general, 2 feet of snow wouldn't warrant a highway closure because as you said you can just throw some studs/chains on, drive slow, and get there eventually- 2 feet of snow + 50 MPH winds would warrant a highway closure.

I would be against what it sounds like was a threshold for road closure in Kentucky too- if you can put studs on and drive slow, that's just part of winter. Without being in New England, I don't know if that was the case there or if the general skill level:weather ratio of that area warranted it.

The closures in Wyoming always happened when the road was literally impassable by a regular car- no amount of skill could make it passable. A car just can't get over a three foot snow drift. My guess would be that since a heck of a lot more people live in New England than Wyoming, the number of cars on the interstate would have been greater, which means more accidents and less chance that the road is passable since an accident renders a road impassable. Even if the road is good enough that some folks could get through safely, they wouldn't be able to because of the idiots that got themselves into an accident, clogging up the road. I'm not sure if New England hit that threshold, but if it did then a closure makes sense. Unfortunately there's no way to know without trying both scenarios.

QuoteWhat, in fact, are the enforcement practices on a travel ban? Anybody here ever been called out for violating one?

In Wyoming things were signed on the way out of town, usually with a sheriff sitting at the gate, and then the road crews would call in if they saw any violators. I have no idea how that would work in an urban area- maybe put a sheriff at every interchange? In Wyoming you could get a gate pass if there was an absolute emergency that required you to leave town- you'd call sheriff and they would let you go behind the next plow- but you had to have a really really good reason with documentable proof ("I'm passing through and I need to get out of town" is not a good reason- "my father is in a hospital bed in Cheyenne and he is dying and I won't see him unless I get there" is a good reason) and it's not something that to my knowledge is advertised because they really don't want people doing it.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.corcohighways.org%2Fhighways%2Fwy%2F25%2F258to253%2F2.jpg&hash=32a84464cc690358aced01b2478dd8bd9ed52f53)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.corcohighways.org%2Fhighways%2Fwy%2F287%2F80toco%2F2.JPG&hash=8c5188bb045ffc233ca0bc6e7f3bbeceb7e970a7)

Most (major) highways in the United States are under the control of state governments or political subdivisions of state governments. 

If the governor of a state makes an informed decision that the state cannot keep it in safely passable condition, even if that is due to a snowstorm, then I believe the governor has the right and the power to close it.   

I do not see this as being much different from a state posting a highway bridge with weight limits, or outright closure if the bridge is deemed to be at risk of failure. 

Another analogy - states close highways if they have to hang steel for a new overpass.  These operations are usually done when the traveling public is likely to be minimally inconvenienced, but there are impacts.  Just this past week, I happened to be driving I-95 in Prince George's County, Maryland late at night when  the northbound lanes were subject to a 30 minute total shutdown for the contractor to hang steel stringers for a bridge associated with the Md. 200 Contract D/E project.  Even in the middle of the night, in February, with plenty of advance warning, the resulting queue of traffic was miles long.

Had a meeting Thursday with some of my counterparts from the eastern part of the state, and one of the subjects that came up was, who has the authority to close a state highway, the state police or the highway department?

Some in KYTC make the assertion that the Kentucky State Police have no authority to close a state highway. I have never heard a definitive answer to this question and wouldn't know where to ask, since KSP would probably claim it has the authority and KYTC might not want to make a black-and-white declaration.

Of course if a governor orders a road closed, it becomes a moot point, but this would be a decent topic of discussion.

Quote from: corco on February 09, 2013, 07:09:07 PM
In general, 2 feet of snow wouldn't warrant a highway closure because as you said you can just throw some studs/chains on, drive slow, and get there eventually

See, right there is a key difference between Wyoming and New England: people in New England have no concept of adding something to their tires for better traction. Nobody owns tire chains, and nobody would know how to put them on if they had them. The only vehicles you ever see sporting chains are maintenance trucks and sometimes buses. People in their cars either get enough traction with just their bare tires or they slip and slide.

Quote from: empirestate on February 09, 2013, 03:44:05 PM

What, in fact, are the enforcement practices on a travel ban? Anybody here ever been called out for violating one?

In Ohio you are threatened with arrest during a level 3 emergency, but I've never heard of anyone actually being arrested.

Quote from: hbelkins on February 09, 2013, 01:48:12 PM
In Kentucky, I have navigated some pretty good snowstorms in years past. We had more than two feet of snow on the ground on Valentine's Day in either 1985 or 1986. I had no trouble getting around, driving an Old Cutlass with rear-wheel drive and studded snow tires.

Lemme tell you, son, I used to walk to school in snow over my head  :)  But seriously, when I lived in Virginia we had one of these come through and drop a couple feet overnight.  Me, the dumb Ohioan with a Jeep decided to go to work the next morning anyway, and it was obviously closed.  On the way back home I was stopped at the county line by the state police who said "Sorry, county's closed."  I explained I was from Ohio and had 4-wheel drive.  He poked his head in the window to see the 4WD indicator, said "Ohio?  Alright, I ain't pulling you out." and sent me on my way.

edit: haha, someone sent me this link, from 1978 in Toledo.

QuoteSee, right there is a key difference between Wyoming and New England: people in New England have no concept of adding something to their tires for better traction. Nobody owns tire chains, and nobody would know how to put them on if they had them. The only vehicles you ever see sporting chains are maintenance trucks and sometimes buses. People in their cars either get enough traction with just their bare tires or they slip and slide.

Since that's the case then a closure is definitely warranted because not closing the roads is just going to lead to enough accidents that the road is effectively closed anyway.

In upstate NY most people don't even know about these things called "snow tires", which is most unfortunate.  Nearly every winter storm the main challenge has not been to stay on the road but to pass all the people driving 15 mph because they don't have snow tires.  This once even resulted in me having the Thruway to myself for about 20 miles.

One time going up I-81, the road was completely passable at high speeds with snow tires but everyone was going 20 because of the multi-car pileups that inevitably happen when people forget what "winter" is.  A large accident even resulted in the closure of southbound I-81 between Sandy Creek and Pulaski.

I don't have snow tires.

I routinely drive 45+ on snow-covered roads. Yes, even I-81.

I have never put a car in a ditch. Ever. Or been in an accident.

The trick is knowing how to drive in the winter- which a lot of people don't. You don't need snow tires. :)

QuoteI routinely drive 45+ on snow-covered roads. Yes, even I-81.

I have never put a car in a ditch. Ever. Or been in an accident.

The trick is knowing how to drive in the winter- which a lot of people don't. You don't need snow tires.

Agreed that once you're moving tires don't matter unless you're trying to stop, but if you're stopped at the bottom of a snow covered hill and have to drive up it and don't have a way to get a good running start, no amount of driving skill is going to get you up to the top of that hill unless you have good tires. I'll go 70 on US-93 in Nevada on snow on a clear day without snow tires- there's no cars on that road and you can see a mile ahead but snow tires do make that a safer proposition.

That's not the issue though. I-81 is probably plowed/packed to the point that you're driving on a solid surface when you're going 45 down it. The issue here is what happens when I-81 isn't plowed or even really compacted down and there's been a massive dumping of snow.

Rural Idaho/Montana/Wyoming doesn't have reliable plowing, and I'm guessing rural Kentucky doesn't either, so when two feet of snow fall you're stuck with trying to drive through several inches of snow (usually some function of amount of snow fallen-amount of snow blown off by wind into the ditch-how much it's been compacted by other cars), and that's where you need snow tires.

A snowstorm a la the one that happened a couple days ago is probably going to leave the roads much like that- hence the need for snow tires. Now, sure, you might be able to pass it with some decent all-seasons and a lot of skill depending on the car, but that's a tiny subset of drivers. Snow tires aren't magical, but they do make life a lot easier.

Where I live in Montana right now, they don't even plow city streets- we have more snow on the roads right now than we do on the ground!

Quote from: cu2010 on February 10, 2013, 02:26:22 PM
I don't have snow tires.

I routinely drive 45+ on snow-covered roads. Yes, even I-81.

I have never put a car in a ditch. Ever. Or been in an accident.

The trick is knowing how to drive in the winter- which a lot of people don't. You don't need snow tires. :)

You also don't need e-mail or a phone to send somebody a message. But it is easier.

I'll give you this, though: snow tires don't replace good winter judgment. They enable you to move through some areas you otherwise mightn't, but accidents are not about tires. After all, even the awesomest tires in the world are only any good if they're still connected to the road.

It's funny about areas like Upstate NY, which are used to snow. The locals always guffaw about how poorly places like Texas and Georgia handle small amounts of snow or ice, yet every winter in Upstate NY, you look around at the other drivers and just can't believe how much everyone seems to have forgotten!

My general rule for winter driving is this: go no faster than you want to be going when you hit something.

Being in Rhode Island last weekend, my understanding was that if we attempted to drive during the ban, we would be stopped and ticketed - at least in Connecticut, and maybe in RI as well. CT was still digging out all over the place yesterday morning, so if it was that bad after a full day of plowing, it must have been impassable Saturday.

Quote from: corco on February 09, 2013, 07:09:07 PMI have no idea how that would work in an urban area- maybe put a sheriff at every interchange?

yep.  once I-10 was closed in Louisiana due to ice, and the sheriffs were out in huge numbers, diverting traffic onto US-61.  I have no idea what the penalty was; since there was an alternate, there was no reason to attempt to get on the freeway.

The way I see it, when it's 90 degrees and sunny, people have no problem calling out 'sick' from work and spend the day at the beach, the lake, etc.

When it's 20 degrees in a blizzard, everyone feels they have to be a hero, and their international company will collaspe if they're not in the office. 

So sometimes, the travel ban just needs to be in place to encourage people that, yes, really, the world will survive if you're not in the office to answer the phones.

Quote from: corco on February 09, 2013, 08:49:04 PM

QuoteSee, right there is a key difference between Wyoming and New England: people in New England have no concept of adding something to their tires for better traction. Nobody owns tire chains, and nobody would know how to put them on if they had them. The only vehicles you ever see sporting chains are maintenance trucks and sometimes buses. People in their cars either get enough traction with just their bare tires or they slip and slide.

Since that's the case then a closure is definitely warranted because not closing the roads is just going to lead to enough accidents that the road is effectively closed anyway.

Realize as well, the nearest comparison to this storm was the Blizzard of '78.  Most people are not going to have chains to get their cars thru the snow when a storm of this magnitude occurs every 35 years.  And when the storm does occur, we're talking 2 days at most to plow out the main roads and get traffic moving. 

This particular storm was very severe, especially in Southern New England and on Long Island.  People really needed to be off the roads for their own good.   There were some qualms about the 'one size fits all' road closure in MA at 4 pm on Friday, but by Friday evening it was clear that nobody should be out there unless absolutely necessary (i.e. first responders and cleanup crews).   And, in a storm like this, snow tires, chains and even 4WD weren't going to make a bit of difference for you.   Best advice: go home or to a hotel. 

Wyoming and Colorado are correct in what they do: they have gates and flashing signs.  If they close the highway, you don't want to be on it.  And they do this because no only are these areas prone to heavy snow, but to wind as well.  Stretches of highway that are plowed, then often covered by drifts a short time later.  Better to close the road than to pick dead bodies off of it 12 hours later.  If you're a traveler, you settle in and deal with it.  It is for your own good. 

Now, this answer does run contrary in some ways to my self-professed conservatism/libertarianism.  But, then again, driving is a priviledge and not a right.  The roads are ultimately state property. 

One ot the truly comical side effects of the travel ban in Massachusetts was that, two hours after the ban went into effect, the local stations were still broadcasting traffic reports.

Quote from: corco on February 10, 2013, 02:50:28 PM
That's not the issue though. I-81 is probably plowed/packed to the point that you're driving on a solid surface when you're going 45 down it. The issue here is what happens when I-81 isn't plowed or even really compacted down and there's been a massive dumping of snow.

I-81 is located in the locally infamous Lake Ontario snowbelt and gets TONS of lake effect snow during the winter and frequent blizzards.  I have had the pleasure of driving down it in conditions similar to Nemo many times.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 11, 2013, 11:12:48 AM
The way I see it, when it's 90 degrees and sunny, people have no problem calling out 'sick' from work and spend the day at the beach, the lake, etc.

When it's 20 degrees in a blizzard, everyone feels they have to be a hero, and their international company will collaspe if they're not in the office. 

So sometimes, the travel ban just needs to be in place to encourage people that, yes, really, the world will survive if you're not in the office to answer the phones.

Probably because they used so many "sick" days to spend on the beach that they fear being fired if the don't show up.

Quote from: roadman on February 11, 2013, 12:50:09 PM
One ot the truly comical side effects of the travel ban in Massachusetts was that, two hours after the ban went into effect, the local stations were still broadcasting traffic reports.

Did you by any chance see the front page of Friday's Boston Herald?  It showed an old Blizzard of '78 photo of the I-93 (MA 128)/MA 28 interchange (Exit 5/then-Exit 67) in Randolph complete w/the 1960s era MA 28 BGS' overheads that were still present at the time.

Quote from: PHLBOS on February 11, 2013, 01:29:02 PMDid you by any chance see the front page of Friday's Boston Herald?  It showed an old Blizzard of '78 photo of the I-93 (MA 128)/MA 28 interchange (Exit 5/then-Exit 67) in Randolph complete w/the 1960s era MA 28 BGS' overheads that were still present at the time.

It's the still raw memories of scenes like this...

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.theatlanticcities.com%2Fimg%2Fupload%2F2013%2F02%2F06%2Fweather%2520forecast%2520new%2520england%2520winter%2520storm%2520blizzard%2520boston%2520new%2520york%2520february%25202013%2520weekend%2520friday%2520saturday%2520noreaster%2520BOSTON%2520GLOBE.JPG&hash=a883366fe9c08b833520641ddefae8474ba52068)

...that prompted the mandatory road closures in MA (not to mention the 99 deaths from the 1978 storm).  And while not saying that the ends necessarily justified the means, this morning most main roads were down to bare pavement.  Sometimes you need to get ahead of some people's stupidity.

By contrast, as I write this, portions of the Long Island Expressway in eastern Suffolk County are still impassable due to stuck vehicles.

I'll bet that's a state-named shield there...

Travel shouldn't be 100% banned, but it should be strongly discouraged when the weather gets really bad.  Sometimes, one has to be on the road if they're trying to get home, for example.  What else are they going to do, pull over at the state line and freeze to death in their car?

Quote from: papaT10932 on February 09, 2013, 11:13:18 AM

Quote from: hbelkins on February 08, 2013, 10:23:21 PM
Good idea? Bad idea? Prudent use of executive orders or overreaction and an unnecessary infringement on freedom to travel?

I don't think  banning driving is an infringement on one's freedom to travel. That's what feet are for.

Are you going to walk 300 miles in the snow?

Quote from: SidS1045 on February 11, 2013, 03:26:15 PMIt's the still raw memories of scenes like this...

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.theatlanticcities.com%2Fimg%2Fupload%2F2013%2F02%2F06%2Fweather%2520forecast%2520new%2520england%2520winter%2520storm%2520blizzard%2520boston%2520new%2520york%2520february%25202013%2520weekend%2520friday%2520saturday%2520noreaster%2520BOSTON%2520GLOBE.JPG&hash=a883366fe9c08b833520641ddefae8474ba52068)

...that prompted the mandatory road closures in MA (not to mention the 99 deaths from the 1978 storm).  And while not saying that the ends necessarily justified the means, this morning most main roads were down to bare pavement.  Sometimes you need to get ahead of some people's stupidity.

By contrast, as I write this, portions of the Long Island Expressway in eastern Suffolk County are still impassable due to stuck vehicles.

Note: the then-fairly new BGS' at the I-95 interchange w/the 95 NORTH Dedham NH-Maine legend and the back of an I-93 shield.  These were one of the first overhead BGS' to show the I-95/93 shields for the 128/YDH section.

Quote from: Stalin on February 11, 2013, 04:09:02 PM
Are you going to walk 300 miles in the snow?

I don't have a say in this, do I, comrade Stalin?

I applaud the decision.  After the Blizzard of '78, lessons were learned.  It's too bad that the bans didn't extend to the Long Island Expwy...that looked like a complete clusterf***.  The N.E. roads (which fared far worse) looked A LOT better than I-495!

Quote from: deanej on February 10, 2013, 01:25:36 PM
In upstate NY most people don't even know about these things called "snow tires", which is most unfortunate.  Nearly every winter storm the main challenge has not been to stay on the road but to pass all the people driving 15 mph because they don't have snow tires.  This once even resulted in me having the Thruway to myself for about 20 miles.

One time going up I-81, the road was completely passable at high speeds with snow tires but everyone was going 20 because of the multi-car pileups that inevitably happen when people forget what "winter" is.  A large accident even resulted in the closure of southbound I-81 between Sandy Creek and Pulaski.

As a teen I used to make a little pocket cash pulling cars out of the ditch on I-81 between Sandy Creek and Pulaski in the mid 80s. I didn't demand money but the frightened motorist would be so grateful that we pulled them out that they'd give us a little cash. I'd turn it down but they'd insist.

A LOT of the time the cars had out of state tags on them. We'd ask them why they were out in bad conditions and they didn't think it got that bad.

That all being said, I don't agree with the ban on travel from the governors. I think there should be very strong suggestions that folks don't travel, but if they do and they get stranded it's their own fault. I think the fines are ridiculous.That's like driving beyond the gates out west when the lights are flashing. If you get stuck, you're on your own. Rescue should be when they can get out there and should never endanger the lives of the rescuers to do it.

Perhaps I'm heartless.

Quote from: StogieGuy7 on February 11, 2013, 12:48:59 PM
This particular storm was very severe, especially in Southern New England and on Long Island.  People really needed to be off the roads for their own good.   There were some qualms about the 'one size fits all' road closure in MA at 4 pm on Friday, but by Friday evening it was clear that nobody should be out there unless absolutely necessary (i.e. first responders and cleanup crews).   And, in a storm like this, snow tires, chains and even 4WD weren't going to make a bit of difference for you.   Best advice: go home or to a hotel.

That's an important point: much of Connecticut got in the neighborhood of forty inches. It takes less snow than that wedged up under your car, lifting your tires off the road altogether. Chains, studs, whatever...they won't make any difference if they're spinning in midair!

Quote from: empirestate on February 11, 2013, 09:41:26 PM
That's an important point: much of Connecticut got in the neighborhood of forty inches. It takes less snow than that wedged up under your car, lifting your tires off the road altogether. Chains, studs, whatever...they won't make any difference if they're spinning in midair!

I strongly agree.

I drive a Ford F-250 4x4 pickup with a 7.3L Diesel V8 engine (that motor is heavy, so I have decent weight over the front axle) and reasonably new mud+snow tires all around. 

In spite of all that, I am not driving my truck through 40 inches (yikes, that's more than 1 meter) of snow, even though the wheels are pretty tall and this vehicle sits high (it does not have a lift kit).

Quote from: Stalin on February 11, 2013, 04:06:55 PM
Travel shouldn't be 100% banned, but it should be strongly discouraged when the weather gets really bad.  Sometimes, one has to be on the road if they're trying to get home, for example.  What else are they going to do, pull over at the state line and freeze to death in their car?

We have now seen the results of not banning road travel outright.  I'll take the ban, and I'll be damned if my taxes are going to pay to rescue other people from their own stupidity.

No one HAS to get home that badly that they should risk getting stuck in the middle of nowhere, with their car becoming an impediment to emergency vehicles or snowplows.  I'd rather my wife know that I was safe and warm and out of harm's way somewhere, even if I'm sacking out on the floor of my office, instead of driving in the middle of a blizzard and risking not making it home.

The ban was correct.  If you need to get home, well, no you don't.  You can stay in a hotel.  If you needed to get home that badly, then you should've left earlier.

If the ban was voluntary, many people would think it doesn't apply to them.  Then they drive along, and the car slides.  They get stuck.  They block the other traffic that believed they didn't need to abide by the voluntary vehicle ban.  Then the plows can't get thru to plow the road because of the stuck traffic.  And every one of those drivers aren't getting home now, because of the conditions.

Look at the LI Expressway.  Every person on there probably thought the same thing - I NEED to get home.  And their cars are still stuck out there.

Quote from: Stalin on February 11, 2013, 04:06:55 PM
Travel shouldn't be 100% banned, but it should be strongly discouraged when the weather gets really bad.  Sometimes, one has to be on the road if they're trying to get home, for example.  What else are they going to do, pull over at the state line and freeze to death in their car?

Well, a 11 year old boy died from carbon dioxide poisoning while his dad shoveled snow away from the vehicle.  So yes, death in a vehicle is a real possibility.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 12, 2013, 12:46:51 PMWell, a 11 year old boy died from carbon dioxide poisoning while his dad shoveled snow away from the vehicle.  So yes, death in a vehicle is a real possibility.

Minor point, but I believe you meant that the boy died of carbon monoxide poisoning not dioxide.  CO vs. CO2.

What if you were on a day trip and didn't bring the supplies needed to stay overnight?  I don't take stuff like contact lens solution/cases, my pills, etc. with me on day trips.  If I were stranded without supplies, I would be in no position to get to the next day.  For example, without my contact lens stuff, I would have to choose between being blind now (from not being able to see without my lenses, which are soft and would have to be thrown out if not stored in solution) and being blind later (from eye damage from wearing the lenses more than 14 hours).  Additionally, I would be in no way presentable the next day.

Plus hotels are expensive.  At present, I can't afford them.  I don't have $100 just lying around that I can blow off due to unanticipated delays.

As for the carbon monoxide poisoning, looks like the dad forgot to clear the tail pipe.

Quote from: Stalin on February 11, 2013, 04:09:02 PM

Quote from: papaT10932 on February 09, 2013, 11:13:18 AM

Quote from: hbelkins on February 08, 2013, 10:23:21 PM
Good idea? Bad idea? Prudent use of executive orders or overreaction and an unnecessary infringement on freedom to travel?

I don't think  banning driving is an infringement on one's freedom to travel. That's what feet are for.

Are you going to walk 300 miles in the snow?

The question is not, Are you going to walk 300 miles in the snow?.  The question is, Is it possible and legal to walk 300 miles in the snow?  The answer to the latter question is Yes, which means your supposed freedom to travel is not being infringed upon.

Quote from: deanej on February 12, 2013, 05:57:59 PM
I don't take stuff like contact lens solution/cases, my pills, etc. with me on day trips.  If I were stranded without supplies, I would be in no position to get to the next day.  For example, without my contact lens stuff, I would have to choose between being blind now (from not being able to see without my lenses, which are soft and would have to be thrown out if not stored in solution) and being blind later (from eye damage from wearing the lenses more than 14 hours).  Additionally, I would be in no way presentable the next day.

for this exact reason, I always have extra contacts, solution, etc in my travel bag - which is always in my car, unless I've flown somewhere, in which case it is with me.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on February 12, 2013, 06:58:31 PM

Quote from: deanej on February 12, 2013, 05:57:59 PM
I don't take stuff like contact lens solution/cases, my pills, etc. with me on day trips.  If I were stranded without supplies, I would be in no position to get to the next day.  For example, without my contact lens stuff, I would have to choose between being blind now (from not being able to see without my lenses, which are soft and would have to be thrown out if not stored in solution) and being blind later (from eye damage from wearing the lenses more than 14 hours).  Additionally, I would be in no way presentable the next day.

for this exact reason, I always have extra contacts, solution, etc in my travel bag - which is always in my car, unless I've flown somewhere, in which case it is with me.

It might also be mentioned that it's a good idea to check the weather forecast before deciding not to pack such necessary items.  If the the weatherman says you're going to get two feet of snow, you might reconsider your packing list.

QuotePlus hotels are expensive.  At present, I can't afford them.  I don't have $100 just lying around that I can blow off due to unanticipated delays.

At least out here that's just an assumed risk- I plan for the possibility of needing a hotel just like I would the possibility of my car breaking down. Always have a credit card. Check the weather beforehand and maybe time your trip around the weather, when at all possible. I've delayed things by a week countless times because of road closures or the possiblity of road closures. Maybe that doesn't happen back east, but out here people accept that as part of the deal of living out here.

Traveling without an extra $100 is just stupid even in the best of weather conditions- you never know when something bad might happen. If you're down to that little money, you shouldn't be traveling. Hell, even if the roads are barely passable and they're open and you decide to attempt to traverse them to save money on a hotel, there's a pretty decent chance you'll end up stranded even if you're the best of drivers, and then you're out towing money and hotel money, so not budgeting for that possibility prior to a trip into a snowstorm would be really, really dumb. I know we're both in our early to mid twenties so we're invincible (and I'm guilty of acting that way too), but at least plan for the possibility that you're not.

Quote from: kphoger on February 12, 2013, 07:08:38 PM
If the the weatherman says you're going to get two feet of snow, you might reconsider your trip.

fixed that for ya!  even I'm not that much of a maniac that I'll willingly drive into two feet of snow.

One thing no one has mentioned here that I feel is important to the discussion, at least regarding Massachusetts:

While travel was banned, there was a pretty lengthy list of exceptions to it, which can be read in the Executive Order here: http://www.mass.gov/governor/legislationeexecorder/executiveorder/executive-order-no-543.html

QuoteThis travel ban shall not apply to the following:

-public safety vehicles and public safety workers, including contract personnel
-public works vehicles and public works workers, including contract personnel; government officials conducting official business
-utility company vehicles and utility workers
-healthcare workers who must travel to and from work in order to provide essential health services
-news media
-travel necessary to maintain and deliver critical private sector services such as energy, fuel supplies and delivery, financial systems and the delivery of critical commodities
-travel to support business operations that provide critical services to the public, including gasoline stations, food stores and hardware stores

Thus many of the people complaining about the travel ban preventing them from getting home were exempt from it anyway. I had a grocery store attempt to turn me away around 1 pm last Friday with the manager citing that her employees needed to be able to get home before the travel ban went into effect - even though it specifically exempts employees of grocery stores traveling to/from work.

And I think the travel ban itself was a good idea. It prevented us from having a repeat of the Blizzard of '78 with stranded traffic on the freeways, which Long Island saw on the LIE. It could have been lifted before it was, but I do definitely think it helped reduce the cleanup burden on the Commonwealth.

Quote from: PHLBOS on February 12, 2013, 04:40:15 PM

Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 12, 2013, 12:46:51 PMWell, a 11 year old boy died from carbon dioxide poisoning while his dad shoveled snow away from the vehicle.  So yes, death in a vehicle is a real possibility.

Minor point, but I believe you meant that the boy died of carbon monoxide poisoning not dioxide.  CO vs. CO2.

Can I blame spellcheck on that error?

Quote from: deanej on February 12, 2013, 05:57:59 PM
What if you were on a day trip and didn't bring the supplies needed to stay overnight?  I don't take stuff like contact lens solution/cases, my pills, etc. with me on day trips.  If I were stranded without supplies, I would be in no position to get to the next day.  For example, without my contact lens stuff, I would have to choose between being blind now (from not being able to see without my lenses, which are soft and would have to be thrown out if not stored in solution) and being blind later (from eye damage from wearing the lenses more than 14 hours).  Additionally, I would be in no way presentable the next day.

Plus hotels are expensive.  At present, I can't afford them.  I don't have $100 just lying around that I can blow off due to unanticipated delays.

As for the carbon monoxide poisoning, looks like the dad forgot to clear the tail pipe.

If you were taking a daytrip on the eve of a well-forecasted, multi-foot snowfall, then I don't feel sorry for you if you were caught. 

Besides - it doesn't matter, even if you were on a 2 week excursion.  Empty highways can be cleared relatively quickly. Highways with stuck vehicles can take days to clear...oh, and then you can pay much more than $100 to retrive your vehicle from the impound lot.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on February 12, 2013, 07:15:55 PM
even I'm not that much of a maniac that I'll willingly drive into two feet of snow.

During several of Kentucky's big snowstorms, I didn't have a choice. At a previous job, I was tasked with going to get other employees to bring them to work because I had a 4WD.

Quote from: hbelkins on February 12, 2013, 09:00:08 PM

During several of Kentucky's big snowstorms, I didn't have a choice. At a previous job, I was tasked with going to get other employees to bring them to work because I had a 4WD.

how much of the two feet was cleared by the time you were tasked to drive into it?  I doubt any regular-issue road vehicle - 4WD or otherwise - has the clearance to handle two feet of untouched snow. 

maybe a 6WD Ural. 

(https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRabQ9TyaR2y6zUbnUn6doUva2u_aWFSNKppRR2A334SJCAOqP2zw)

:-D

Quote from: corco on February 12, 2013, 07:13:14 PM

QuotePlus hotels are expensive.  At present, I can't afford them.  I don't have $100 just lying around that I can blow off due to unanticipated delays.

At least out here that's just an assumed risk- I plan for the possibility of needing a hotel just like I would the possibility of my car breaking down. Always have a credit card. Check the weather beforehand and maybe time your trip around the weather, when at all possible. I've delayed things by a week countless times because of road closures or the possiblity of road closures. Maybe that doesn't happen back east, but out here people accept that as part of the deal of living out here.

Traveling without an extra $100 is just stupid even in the best of weather conditions- you never know when something bad might happen. If you're down to that little money, you shouldn't be traveling. Hell, even if the roads are barely passable and they're open and you decide to attempt to traverse them to save money on a hotel, there's a pretty decent chance you'll end up stranded even if you're the best of drivers, and then you're out towing money and hotel money, so not budgeting for that possibility prior to a trip into a snowstorm would be really, really dumb. I know we're both in our early to mid twenties so we're invincible (and I'm guilty of acting that way too), but at least plan for the possibility that you're not.

Aside from a couple infamous corridors (I-81 along Lake Ontario and I-90 along Lake Erie), we don't really get storms like that very often around here, so it's not an assumed risk.

I always have my credit card one me (checkbook too, at least once I get my new checks this week); it's disposable income that I don't really have, since I'm a college student with no regular income (and some expenses that my parents refuse to pay for because Dad's embarrassed about a life choice I made last year).

I don't watch TV, so the weather I get is whatever Weather Underground is kind enough to share, which with regards to accumulation is only whatever the National Weather Service posts.  I'm usually good about checking in winter, though since Potsdam is shielded by the Adirondacks what the local forecast has is not usually the one I need to pay attention to.

Quote from: deanej on February 12, 2013, 09:30:51 PM(and some expenses that my parents refuse to pay for because Dad's embarrassed about a life choice I made last year)

"damn it, son, pay your own expenses - it's getting embarrassing!"

Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 12, 2013, 08:42:27 PMCan I blame spellcheck on that error?

No, because you spelled dioxide correctly in your earlier post.  :sombrero:
Spellcheck can't help one if they accidentally used the wrong word and spelled it correctly.

Quote from: PHLBOS on February 13, 2013, 08:37:55 AM

Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 12, 2013, 08:42:27 PMCan I blame spellcheck on that error?

No, because you spelled dioxide correctly in your earlier post.  :sombrero:
Spellcheck can't help one if they accidentally used the wrong word and spelled it correctly.

But spellcheck should've known what I wanted to say, dammit!

I was driving a semi on my way to Brattleboro, VT from Auburndale, FL with a load of Tropicana OJ. I got to the Broad St Truck Stop in Springfield, MA., shortly after noon on Saturday, March 13th, 1993. I could not deliver the OJ until Sunday morning at C&S. As I got to the truck stop, the so-called "Storm of the Century" was bearing down on the New England area. I spent the remainder of the day watching TV in my truck, which consisted of non-stop weather coverage of the massive storm. Every 30 minutes or so I rolled forward about 100 feet, to try to leave a path for myself for departing through in the morning. The next morning, I headed up to Brattleboro, just me and a few plows on the road at 5AM. The snow was deeper still in VT, about 3 feet deep with drifts much deeper. I arrived at C&S,  and  was one of only 4 out of 150 trucks that arrived which were scheduled for that day. In Brattleboro, the drifts were deep enough that you could walk up to the top of the trailers that had been parked there through the storm.

Sorry to be so long-winded, but my point is that back then there was no one trying to protect me from the elements, and everything came out OK.  I had instructions to head next to Corinth, NY, to pick up paper at a paper mill. That trip over the Green Mountains with an empty trailer over 2 lane VT Route 9 was way more interesting, but again,  the roads were open, and I made it!

Quote from: agentsteel53 on February 12, 2013, 09:25:51 PM

Quote from: hbelkins on February 12, 2013, 09:00:08 PM

During several of Kentucky's big snowstorms, I didn't have a choice. At a previous job, I was tasked with going to get other employees to bring them to work because I had a 4WD.

how much of the two feet was cleared by the time you were tasked to drive into it?  I doubt any regular-issue road vehicle - 4WD or otherwise - has the clearance to handle two feet of untouched snow. 

maybe a 6WD Ural. 

(https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRabQ9TyaR2y6zUbnUn6doUva2u_aWFSNKppRR2A334SJCAOqP2zw)

:-D

I would much prefer a variation on one of these vehicles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unimog) (Wikipedia).

Quote from: deanej on February 12, 2013, 09:30:51 PM
I don't watch TV, so the weather I get is whatever Weather Underground is kind enough to share, which with regards to accumulation is only whatever the National Weather Service posts.

There's this new thing out, which you may have heard of:  Radio.  It's available in lots of places where the Internet isn't.  Some radio stations even have (wait for it) WEATHER REPORTS!

People who die in weather events like blizzards are the ones who fail to plan.  You're in college, so I'm presuming you have some brains in your head.  Use them.  Stop making excuses.  It doesn't take the mind of a brain surgeon to get through this.  If there's bad weather coming, take an extra set of contacts plus some solution...and fercryinoutloud stop worrying about what you look like.  Getting where you're going in one piece is far more important than looking "presentable."

I got caught traveling in bad weather once, but it wasn't winter weather, it was flooding. Two years ago when I was traveling to the Watertown meet, I planned to drive from Horseheads to Watertown on Friday by way of NY 17, I-88, I-87 and NY 3. Unbeknownst to me, there was serious flooding in the Southern Tier. NY 17 was closed at Waverly, and I had a heck of a time trying to get to Binghamton because so many roads were closed. Then there were two closures on I-88 and some huge backups on I-81, meaning it was getting close to sunset by the time I got to Albany. The drive across the Adirondacks was done in the dark and it was very late when I rolled into Watertown.

Driving from home to Horseheads on Thursday, I had no clue that there had been flooding. Only when I got up the next morning and heard people talking about it when I was eating breakfast did I know how bad the situation was.

Quote from: hbelkins on February 15, 2013, 04:11:20 PM
I got caught traveling in bad weather once, but it wasn't winter weather, it was flooding. Two years ago when I was traveling to the Watertown meet, I planned to drive from Horseheads to Watertown on Friday by way of NY 17, I-88, I-87 and NY 3. Unbeknownst to me, there was serious flooding in the Southern Tier. NY 17 was closed at Waverly, and I had a heck of a time trying to get to Binghamton because so many roads were closed. Then there were two closures on I-88 and some huge backups on I-81, meaning it was getting close to sunset by the time I got to Albany. The drive across the Adirondacks was done in the dark and it was very late when I rolled into Watertown.

Driving from home to Horseheads on Thursday, I had no clue that there had been flooding. Only when I got up the next morning and heard people talking about it when I was eating breakfast did I know how bad the situation was.

That was Hurricane Irene, wasn't it? Not that I expect the same from everyone, but I distinctly remember thinking to myself that it would likely be an inland flood monster, which it turned out to be.

Point being, we can always anticipate all kinds of scenarios, and when we correctly do so there is no conversation to be had. This conversation is about those events we don't anticipate, whether or not we should reasonably have been expected to do so.

Quote from: empirestate on February 15, 2013, 09:33:50 PMThis conversation is about those events we don't anticipate, whether or not we should reasonably have been expected to do so.

I'm extremely confused by this statement.  I thought this conversation was about closing roads in anticipation of a blizzard (and in the specific case of what started the thread, a blizzard that was correctly anticipated at least a week in advance).

Quote from: Kacie Jane on February 15, 2013, 10:34:02 PM

Quote from: empirestate on February 15, 2013, 09:33:50 PMThis conversation is about those events we don't anticipate, whether or not we should reasonably have been expected to do so.

I'm extremely confused by this statement.  I thought this conversation was about closing roads in anticipation of a blizzard (and in the specific case of what started the thread, a blizzard that was correctly anticipated at least a week in advance).

Oh right...

I should say, the side conversation about events we didn't anticipate and thus got stuck in, is not about those events we didn't get stuck in.

I'm not sure that clears it up any further.  :-/

Quote from: SidS1045 on February 15, 2013, 03:40:10 PM

Quote from: deanej on February 12, 2013, 09:30:51 PM
I don't watch TV, so the weather I get is whatever Weather Underground is kind enough to share, which with regards to accumulation is only whatever the National Weather Service posts.

There's this new thing out, which you may have heard of:  Radio.  It's available in lots of places where the Internet isn't.  Some radio stations even have (wait for it) WEATHER REPORTS!

People who die in weather events like blizzards are the ones who fail to plan.  You're in college, so I'm presuming you have some brains in your head.  Use them.  Stop making excuses.  It doesn't take the mind of a brain surgeon to get through this.  If there's bad weather coming, take an extra set of contacts plus some solution...and fercryinoutloud stop worrying about what you look like.  Getting where you're going in one piece is far more important than looking "presentable."

I try to avoid driving in winter weather where possible, but it's not always avoidable.  Thankfully Nemo wasn't happening the weekend of my Grandmother's funeral.

I'd have a comment in response to the presentable matter, but that dives into personal stuff that I'd rather not get into on a public forum post.

In my profession, a Level 3 snow emergency doesnt carry much weight.  If you work in a healthcare profession, especially residential services, you are expected to be there as best as you can.  I had an employer who each winter, would issue cards to all staff indicating that we worked in a group home and were "Mission Essential" and thus, we could be out, even in Level 3 emergencies if we were either going to work to relieve staff, or going straight home

I work for a midwestern cable company.  There has only been one time that any of our offices have closed due to weather, and that was a few months ago in Tulsa.  For this winter's big storm in Kansas City, our office there remained open, and whoever could make it through the snow showed up at work; whoever couldn't physically make it was allowed to stay home.

On my second day of work (Feb 2008), we had a really bad ice storm here in Wichita, and I wasn't sure if we'd be open, due to the roads.  Little did I know yet, ice storms are the busiest times for us, since the ice also drops cables onto the ground and we're the ones to go fix them.  Times with the worst weather are generally the most important days for our employees to come to work.

Clarkson never closes, be it snow, ice, or zombie apocalypse.  Though I did have one class cancelled during Nemo since the professor was driving a rental car and being extra careful.  A student tried to get his professor to cancel a test due to the storm; never mind that he was already in the room where the test would happen when he sent the email!  :-D

Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 12, 2013, 12:46:51 PM
The ban was correct.  If you need to get home, well, no you don't.  You can stay in a hotel.  If you needed to get home that badly, then you should've left earlier.

What if you don't have money for a motel?  What if there are no motels where you are?

Quote from: Stalin on February 17, 2013, 08:18:02 PM

Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 12, 2013, 12:46:51 PM
The ban was correct.  If you need to get home, well, no you don't.  You can stay in a hotel.  If you needed to get home that badly, then you should've left earlier.

What if you don't have money for a motel?  What if there are no motels where you are?

...then you should've left earlier.

Quote from: kphoger on February 18, 2013, 11:13:05 AM

Quote from: Stalin on February 17, 2013, 08:18:02 PM

What if you don't have money for a motel?  What if there are no motels where you are?

...then you should've left earlier.

or at all.  don't live outside of your means. 

Or find a homeless shelter.

Quote from: deanej on February 17, 2013, 12:43:25 PM
Clarkson never closes, be it snow, ice, or zombie apocalypse.  Though I did have one class cancelled during Nemo since the professor was driving a rental car and being extra careful.  A student tried to get his professor to cancel a test due to the storm; never mind that he was already in the room where the test would happen when he sent the email!  :-D

It did in 2006. True story.

Quote from: NE2 on February 18, 2013, 11:42:50 AM
Or find a homeless shelter.

...or beg lodging from someone.  I've done it before, in the south suburbs of Chicago.

Or this:

couchsurfing.org

If people are so skint they don't have the ability to leave a charge of 60 bucks to sit on a credit card for a little while, they probably have a history of poor decision-making.

Quote from: Stalin on February 17, 2013, 08:18:02 PM

Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 12, 2013, 12:46:51 PM
The ban was correct.  If you need to get home, well, no you don't.  You can stay in a hotel.  If you needed to get home that badly, then you should've left earlier.

What if you don't have money for a motel?  What if there are no motels where you are?

In one case I slept on a church pew.

That, however, wasn't because I had no money, but because every hotel room in town was booked for the same reason. This was due to what should have been a closure of I-70 east of Denver (it was closed periodically around that time, just not when I happened by, but I made my own choice to get off the road). The only town for scores of miles around was Limon, CO, so there I camped.

And I had planned ahead; I knew I was crossing the Rockies in November, so I carefully checked forecasts and road reports. There was no trouble across the mountains, and the DOT was warning merely of possible "icy spots" beyond Denver. What I found, instead, was an unannounced hockey rink for fifty miles...

Quote from: InterstateNG on February 18, 2013, 03:16:23 PM
If people are so skint they don't have the ability to leave a charge of 60 bucks to sit on a credit card for a little while, they probably have a history of poor decision-making.

You know where it ends, yo, it usually depends on where you start.

Quote from: InterstateNG on February 18, 2013, 03:16:23 PM
If people are so skint they don't have the ability to leave a charge of 60 bucks to sit on a credit card for a little while, they probably have a history of poor decision-making.

In my case it's because I'm a second semester senior with no job lined up yet.  Clarkson rescinded my work study this year for some reason, so I have a much lower income than normal coupled with larger expenses.  I'll probably be much less strict with money after I find a job and settled in to wherever I'll be and actually know home much spending money I'll actually have, though I also have some personal matters to attend to ASAP once I get a job that will take up a decent chunk of money at first (basically life changes that I've had to put on hold due to being in the middle of nowhere on a tight budget).

Quote from: cu2010 on February 18, 2013, 12:27:31 PM

Quote from: deanej on February 17, 2013, 12:43:25 PM
Clarkson never closes, be it snow, ice, or zombie apocalypse.  Though I did have one class cancelled during Nemo since the professor was driving a rental car and being extra careful.  A student tried to get his professor to cancel a test due to the storm; never mind that he was already in the room where the test would happen when he sent the email!  :-D

It did in 2006. True story.

Check out this prank email that got sent out:

QuoteThere has been a report of a tornado on campus. Emergency personnel have been notified and are responding to campus. 


If you are on campus, please seek shelter immediately. Do not approach or negotiate with the tornado until tornado personnel have given the all clear. Watch your e-mail or the University Web home page, or call <snip> for updates. If you are in immediate danger, need assistance in shelter-building, or need to report an item that has been swept away, please call Campus Safety & Security at <snip>. 


UPDATE: For students currently on break, you will be notified via email or text alert when it safe to return to campus. UNTIL THEN, PLEASE DO NOT ATTEMPT TO COME ON CAMPUS. Also, please bring your own alcohol back. All reserves here have been depleted. Duffs, Eben's and others have been destroyed by the storm.

Quote from: kphoger on February 18, 2013, 11:13:05 AM

Quote from: Stalin on February 17, 2013, 08:18:02 PM

Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 12, 2013, 12:46:51 PM
The ban was correct.  If you need to get home, well, no you don't.  You can stay in a hotel.  If you needed to get home that badly, then you should've left earlier.

What if you don't have money for a motel?  What if there are no motels where you are?

...then you should've left earlier.

What if you didn't get off work until 9pm and couldn't leave earlier?

Why would you think of leaving work in the first place if the conditions were so poor that the government banned travel?

I despise the idea, seeing how I keep my cars equipped to handle the snow in the winter and LOVE to be out in it, and since I get paid by the mile, I hate the idea at work too.

I can't think of a time travel has /ever/ been banned in New Hampshire, and we had just as bad of storms there as any other New England state.  If we didn't need to do it, nobody else in the region does, either.  I can see it out west, where there are vast expanses of absolutely nothing for hundreds of miles; but this is the east coast.

Sorry - people telling me I shouldn't drive in the snow "for my own good", when I know perfectly well how to drive in it just irks me. (I have been in exactly one accident during a snowstorm - and no, it wasn't my fault.  I got T-boned while waiting to turn left at a T on the outside of a left sweeper.  17 year old girl was driving too fast for conditions in an old car w/o ABS.  She started sliding, panicked, locked up the brakes, slid straight into me.)  I think it boils down to the fact that it makes these governors feel good that they're doing something to increase public safety decrease state liability.

Quote from: Duke87 on February 09, 2013, 08:39:59 PMSee, right there is a key difference between Wyoming and New England: people in New England have no concept of adding something to their tires for better traction. Nobody owns tire chains, and nobody would know how to put them on if they had them. The only vehicles you ever see sporting chains are maintenance trucks and sometimes buses. People in their cars either get enough traction with just their bare tires or they slip and slide.

I can think of very few places studded tires (or chains, for that matter) are even allowed east of I-35.  Most states out here don't want their roads getting chewed up by studs or chains.

Quote from: Crazy Volvo Guy on February 19, 2013, 07:59:29 PM
I can think of very few places studded tires (or chains, for that matter) are even allowed east of I-35.  Most states out here don't want their roads getting chewed up by studs or chains.

Let's see.... Did I leave out any states that are east of I-35?
Actually, I see very few places studded tires are not allowed.

---

Alabama:  Rubber studs allowed, metal studs allowed only in bad weather (duh!)
Arkansas:  Studs allowed Nov. 15 to April 15
Connecticut:  Studs allowed Nov. 15 to April 30
Delaware:  Studs allowed Oct. 15 to April 15
District of Columbia:  Studs allowed Oct. 15 to March 15
Florida:  Rubber studs allowed, metal studs prohibited
Georgia:  Studs prohibited, except in snow and ice (duh!)
Illinois:  Studs prohibited, with exceptions for rural residents and mail carriers Nov. 15 to April 1
Indiana:  Studs allowed Oct. 1 to May 1, and the rest of the year if retracted (duh!)
Iowa:  Studs allowed Nov. 1 to April 1
Kansas:  Studs allowed Nov. 1 to April 15
Kentucky:  Studs allowed
Louisiana:  Rubber studs allowed, metal studs prohibited
Maine:  Studs allowed Oct. 2 to April 30, and the rest of the year if retracted (duh!)
Maryland:  Studs allowed only in five counties, Nov. 1 to March 31
Massachusetts:  Studs allowed Nov. 2 to April 30, "unless otherwise authorized by registrar" (?)
Michigan:  Rubber studs allowed, metal studs prohibited
Minnesota:  Studs prohibited, with exceptions for non-residents and mail carriers
Mississippi:  Studs prohibited
Missouri:  Studs allowed Nov. 2 to March 31
New Hampshire:  Studs allowed
New Jersey:  Studs allowed Nov. 15 to April 1
New York:  Studs allowed Oct. 16 to April 30
North Carolina:  Studs allowed
Ohio:  Studs allowed Nov. 1 to April 15, and the rest of the year if retracted (duh!)
Oklahoma:  Studs allowed Nov. 1 to April 1
Pennsylvania:  Studs allowed Nov. 1 to April 15
Rhode Island:  Studs allowed Nov. 15 to April 1
South Carolina:  Studs allowed only if less than 1/16 inch when compressed
Tennessee:  Studs allowed Oct. 1 to April 15
Texas:  Rubber studs allowed, metal studs prohibited
Vermont:  Studs allowed
Virginia:  Studs allowed Oct. 15 to April 15
West Virginia:  Studs allowed Nov. 1 to April 15
Wisconsin:  Studs prohibited, with several exceptions

(Source:  AAA Digest of Motor Laws)

Quote from: kphoger on February 19, 2013, 08:38:30 PM

Quote from: Crazy Volvo Guy on February 19, 2013, 07:59:29 PM
I can think of very few places studded tires (or chains, for that matter) are even allowed east of I-35.  Most states out here don't want their roads getting chewed up by studs or chains.

Let's see.... Did I leave out any states that are east of I-35?
Actually, I see very few places studded tires are not allowed.

---

Alabama:  Rubber studs allowed, metal studs allowed only in bad weather (duh!)
Arkansas:  Studs allowed Nov. 15 to April 15
Connecticut:  Studs allowed Nov. 15 to April 30
Delaware:  Studs allowed Oct. 15 to April 15
District of Columbia:  Studs allowed Oct. 15 to March 15
Florida:  Rubber studs allowed, metal studs prohibited
Georgia:  Studs prohibited, except in snow and ice (duh!)
Illinois:  Studs prohibited, with exceptions for rural residents and mail carriers Nov. 15 to April 1
Indiana:  Studs allowed Oct. 1 to May 1, and the rest of the year if retracted (duh!)
Iowa:  Studs allowed Nov. 1 to April 1
Kansas:  Studs allowed Nov. 1 to April 15
Kentucky:  Studs allowed
Louisiana:  Rubber studs allowed, metal studs prohibited
Maine:  Studs allowed Oct. 2 to April 30, and the rest of the year if retracted (duh!)
Maryland:  Studs allowed only in five counties, Nov. 1 to March 31
Massachusetts:  Studs allowed Nov. 2 to April 30, "unless otherwise authorized by registrar" (?)
Michigan:  Rubber studs allowed, metal studs prohibited
Minnesota:  Studs prohibited, with exceptions for non-residents and mail carriers
Mississippi:  Studs prohibited
Missouri:  Studs allowed Nov. 2 to March 31
New Hampshire:  Studs allowed
New Jersey:  Studs allowed Nov. 15 to April 1
New York:  Studs allowed Oct. 16 to April 30
North Carolina:  Studs allowed
Ohio:  Studs allowed Nov. 1 to April 15, and the rest of the year if retracted (duh!)
Oklahoma:  Studs allowed Nov. 1 to April 1
Pennsylvania:  Studs allowed Nov. 1 to April 15
Rhode Island:  Studs allowed Nov. 15 to April 1
South Carolina:  Studs allowed only if less than 1/16 inch when compressed
Tennessee:  Studs allowed Oct. 1 to April 15
Texas:  Rubber studs allowed, metal studs prohibited
Vermont:  Studs allowed
Virginia:  Studs allowed Oct. 15 to April 15
West Virginia:  Studs allowed Nov. 1 to April 15
Wisconsin:  Studs prohibited, with several exceptions

(Source:  AAA Digest of Motor Laws)

To add my state to your list, even though we are west of I-35: Studded tires can be used year round in Colorado.

I don't know of any state besides maybe Hawaii west of I-35 that bans studs...or I sure hope there aren't because I've driven in every state west of I-35 besides Hawaii, Alaska, and North Dakota with studs on.

Quote from: corco on February 19, 2013, 08:51:08 PM
I don't know of any state besides maybe Hawaii west of I-35 that bans studs...

Nice try.  I'm not making another list.  ;-)

But I'm a stud year round.

Kansas has been getting dumped on recently.  My 13-minute commute to work took 40 minutes today; I arrived 15 minutes late, and I was the first one here.  My boss took a half hour just to get out of his alley.  I would have made it pretty much on time, except that they closed down I-135–while I was on it.  Fortunately, I was at at the I-235/K-96 exit and could take an alternate route–which got hairy when the flatbed wrecker in front of me got stuck at a light, and then when the pickup in front of me couldn't make it up a railroad overpass on Broadway. . . I just drove on the left side of Broadway instead for a little while.  By 9:00 this morning, our crew in Kansas City already had four stuck work trucks and one wrecked, and the rest of their work for the day has all been rescheduled.  Omaha is supposed to get hit this afternoon; with their hills, we'll see how that goes.

The owner of the company told me, "˜You did great, getting here in that minivan.'  Are you kidding?  Other than ground clearance issues (my battery connections got wet two blocks from my house), I'd much rather have a heavy front-wheel drive minivan than some RWD pickup in this stuff.  All in all, I really didn't worry about getting stuck except when I was behind vehicles that were getting stuck.

Here are two pictures from my trip to work, on the Canal Route northbound:

Above 9th Street.  Between Kellogg and about 21st Street, there were basically two lanes through the snow.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1092.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fi410%2Fkphoger%2Fsnow1_zpsd55c9175.png&hash=37a9d0d99f6f4da8aa316b188d57f580254c3421)

Approaching the K-96 exit.  From about 21st Street to I-235/K-254, the usable portion of the highway narrowed to about one lane (out of three or four).  At the I-235/K-254 interchange, traffic was at a total standstill; apprently there was a wreck and they closed the highway.  One of our techs was stuck waiting in traffic there for an hour on his way to work.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1092.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fi410%2Fkphoger%2Fsnow2_zps0114c183.png&hash=3db7358482014c63638db27935e08fffbb003411)

I tried to take a picture of some tire tracks through deeper snow, but I started to lose traction (as did the car in front of me), so I couldn't hold my hands steady enough for a decent picture.

Quote from: Crazy Volvo Guy on February 19, 2013, 07:33:50 PM
Sorry - people telling me I shouldn't drive in the snow "for my own good", when I know perfectly well how to drive in it just irks me.

People like you aren't why the bans are imposed.

Quote from: Crazy Volvo Guy on February 19, 2013, 07:33:50 PM(I have been in exactly one accident during a snowstorm - and no, it wasn't my fault.  I got T-boned while waiting to turn left at a T on the outside of a left sweeper.  17 year old girl was driving too fast for conditions in an old car w/o ABS.  She started sliding, panicked, locked up the brakes, slid straight into me.)

People like this are the reason for the bans...and for every one of you, there's at least 25 like her.

Quote from: InterstateNG on February 18, 2013, 07:26:34 PM
Why would you think of leaving work in the first place if the conditions were so poor that the government banned travel?

What are you supposed to do, sleep in your car?  You're not being realistic here.  You're being a nanny statist.

The roads are fine here.  They were slushy in spots yesterday, but now they're just wet.

QuotePeople like this are the reason for the bans...and for every one of you, there's at least 25 like her.

This is exactly the reason- for every person who actually knows how to drive in snow, there are ten that don't.

The takeaway message is that even if you are the best snow driver ever, the roads will become effectively closed anyway by people driving themselves into the ditch/other cars. Closing them ahead of time just saves a ton in taxpayer dollars.  Anybody who looks at some of the traffic cam pictures from some of the roads that weren't closed in New England during that storm can't argue that society gained anything from those roads being open.

The argument that people will stay home unless they know what they are doing...the hitch is that most people think they know what they are doing. If you ask people if they're a good driver, just about everybody will say "yeah, I'm a good driver"- people who admit that they are not do exist, but they are far outweighed by those who say they are but are not.

Quote from: kphoger on February 21, 2013, 12:39:17 PMKansas has been getting dumped on recently.  My 13-minute commute to work took 40 minutes today; I arrived 15 minutes late, and I was the first one here.  My boss took a half hour just to get out of his alley.  I would have made it pretty much on time, except that they closed down I-135–while I was on it.

It sounds like you were making this trip shortly after the three-hour period starting at 3 AM when snow was falling at a rate of two inches an hour.  Snowfall was comparatively light the rest of the day, except for several hours in the middle of this afternoon when about three additional inches of snow fell.  The Wichita Eagle reports (http://www.kansas.com/2013/02/21/2684727/snow-totals-top-10-inches-in-wichita.html) that the present snowstorm, at fourteen inches in all, is the second heaviest on record, exceeded only by the fifteen-incher of January 17-18, 1962.

In spite of continuous snow-clearing operations by both KDOT and the City of Wichita, most of the freeway mileage in Wichita and vicinity is still snow-packed.  I have the feeds for all 28 of KDOT's RWIS cameras for Wichita displayed on a single HTML page, and at the moment I am able to see lane stripes in just three of the 28 feeds.  In none of the three am I able to see lane striping across the full cross-section.  The only length of freeway in town that is visible in the RWIS feeds and has any areas of bare pavement outside of wheel tracks is a length of Kellogg (US 54) from the I-135 turban east to Woodlawn.

Statewide, KDOT has closed I-70 from Salina to Colby (first from Salina to Hays due to a shortage of tow trucks, and then from Hays to Colby), and US 54 from Pratt to Minneola due to whiteout conditions.  National Guard troops have been sent out in Humvees along the closed lengths to retrieve stranded motorists.  No further snow is expected to fall, but temperatures are expected to drop into the teens or single digits.

Quote from: Stalin on February 21, 2013, 06:44:40 PM

Quote from: InterstateNG on February 18, 2013, 07:26:34 PM
Why would you think of leaving work in the first place if the conditions were so poor that the government banned travel?

What are you supposed to do, sleep in your car?  You're not being realistic here.  You're being a nanny statist.

Same thing you do if you're trapped in town without a car. You do us all a favor and FUCK OFF!

Quote from: corco on February 21, 2013, 07:24:20 PM
the hitch is that most people think they know what they are doing. If you ask people if they're a good driver, just about everybody will say "yeah, I'm a good driver"- people who admit that they are not do exist, but they are far outweighed by those who say they are but are not.

As a non-roadgeek friend of mine likes to say -  "Over ninety percent of the drivers on the road consider themselves to be above average.  Unfortunately, about seventy-five percent of those people are wrong."

Quote from: Crazy Volvo Guy on February 19, 2013, 07:59:29 PM
Most states out here don't want their roads getting chewed up by studs or chains.

They'd rather have their guard rails knocked down by cars slamming into them?

They can charge back the guardrails, but not the pavement!

Quote from: J N Winkler on February 21, 2013, 08:18:48 PM

Quote from: kphoger on February 21, 2013, 12:39:17 PMKansas has been getting dumped on recently.  My 13-minute commute to work took 40 minutes today; I arrived 15 minutes late, and I was the first one here.  My boss took a half hour just to get out of his alley.  I would have made it pretty much on time, except that they closed down I-135–while I was on it.

It sounds like you were making this trip shortly after the three-hour period starting at 3 AM when snow was falling at a rate of two inches an hour.  Snowfall was comparatively light the rest of the day, except for several hours in the middle of this afternoon when about three additional inches of snow fell. 

The snow that my undercarriage accumulated from dragging the snow then froze and knocked a wheel out of balance; I kept the van in the warehouse for a few hours yesterday, and that relieved the problem; I have it in there right now as well, to try and melt what didn't melt yesterday.  It's cold enought, though, that none of it really melts when the car is just sitting outside.

Quote from: roadman on February 22, 2013, 02:45:02 PM

Quote from: corco on February 21, 2013, 07:24:20 PM
the hitch is that most people think they know what they are doing. If you ask people if they're a good driver, just about everybody will say "yeah, I'm a good driver"- people who admit that they are not do exist, but they are far outweighed by those who say they are but are not.

As a non-roadgeek friend of mine likes to say -  "Over ninety percent of the drivers on the road consider themselves to be above average.  Unfortunately, about seventy-five percent of those people are wrong."

I've found that nearly everybody says they're a decent driver, but there are plenty of people–especially ladies, it seems–who will freely admit they're no good at driving in winter weather, even describing themselves with terms like "˜terrible', "˜no good', or "˜worthless'.  It seems to me, though, that knowing they're poor winter drivers doesn't actually keep them from driving in it.

Quote from: djsinco on February 22, 2013, 07:06:38 PM
They can charge back the guardrails, but not the pavement!

Really?  I think, on the Mexican toll roads (all roads?), in the case of an accident, they actually charge the driver a certain dollar amount (peso amount?) per kilometer of damaged pavement.

Quote
Really?  I think, on the Mexican toll roads (all roads?), in the case of an accident, they actually charge the driver a certain dollar amount (peso amount?) per kilometer of damaged pavement.

I have seen it done. In my experience, Texas has often billed insurance for pavement damage, or costs to repair any infrastructure due to an accident. One memorable event was a chemical tanker that lost it in one of the Dallas area 4-levels on ice. It caught fire and the state billed for reconstruction costs, and an additional fine for loss of use of the road for several days.

Fixed quote for you. -Connor

Quote from: Stalin on February 21, 2013, 06:44:40 PM

Quote from: InterstateNG on February 18, 2013, 07:26:34 PM
Why would you think of leaving work in the first place if the conditions were so poor that the government banned travel?

What are you supposed to do, sleep in your car?  You're not being realistic here.  You're being a nanny statist.

You sleep in the office.  I have provisions set up in my office for that very reason.

Nanny statist?  You'll notice nowhere did I endorse the government's position on the matter.  All I'm suggesting is have a little personal responsibility and common sense.

Maybe some reading comprehension as well in this case, but that seems to be a lost cause.