It's snowing, oh no!

[Cerran]

The travel ban wasn't because of the snow quantity expected. It was because we also got 60+mph winds (and here in Western CT it's still gusting that high). Blizzard conditions aren't about quantity, they're about visibility, and I don't think it was stupid to advise people not to get on the highway when you couldn't see 3' in front of your face last night.

We got about 7" here - no biggie. Just saying, there's more to size than meets the eyes.

It's still asinine to ticket people for being on the roads. Issue a travel advisory and ask people to stay off the roads unless travel is absolutely necessary but a ban on travel is stupid.

Note what NH did - They came out and said use common sense and don't travel unless needed. No ban required.

 

[Whitespider]

Didn't you know Whitespider has bias plys and he doesn't get flats?

And, I have a cell phone
It's a "smart" phone... they tell me I can get weather radar and stuff on it??
My daughter did show me how to use the built-in camera doohickey thing the other day... so now, just before I succumb to the elements, I can take a selfie to immortalize the end


*

 

[Ferguson system]

Strap on the chain's and let the sparks fly from the snowplow.

 

[zogger]

Well, I read about what happened on another site..the Pats secretly snuck in and deflated the clouds last night....

 

[taskswap]

It's still asinine to ticket people for being on the roads. Issue a travel advisory and ask people to stay off the roads unless travel is absolutely necessary but a ban on travel is stupid.

Note what NH did - They came out and said use common sense and don't travel unless needed. No ban required.

Well I guess NH is just a better sort of folk. Or MAYBE it had to do with NH having 10-20mph winds, gusting 30, while CT had 40mph winds, gusting 60... Just a guess...

All a travel ban does is give you a ticket, and only if you get pulled over. There's plenty of idiots out there, and I have zero problem ticketing some knucklehead getting in road crews' and emergency workers' way in a blizzard just because he wanted a Slurpie. It's stupid, it's selfish, and it's unnecessary. We don't have travel bans for every storm - we didn't in either of the last two hurricanes, in fact, or any snowstorm in recent memory. I'm not a fan of nanny-state moves, but arguing over this one seems pretty silly...

 

[Cerran]

Well I guess NH is just a better sort of folk. Or MAYBE it had to do with NH having 10-20mph winds, gusting 30, while CT had 40mph winds, gusting 60... Just a guess...

All a travel ban does is give you a ticket, and only if you get pulled over. There's plenty of idiots out there, and I have zero problem ticketing some knucklehead getting in road crews' and emergency workers' way in a blizzard just because he wanted a Slurpie. It's stupid, it's selfish, and it's unnecessary. We don't have travel bans for every storm - we didn't in either of the last two hurricanes, in fact, or any snowstorm in recent memory. I'm not a fan of nanny-state moves, but arguing over this one seems pretty silly...

Why? Why shouldn't we criticize stupid moves from the government like this? If some knucklehead gets stuck after a travel advisory to stay off the roads and interferes with road crews then fine him for having to pull him out or get him unstuck. That's what they do on mountain passes over here if you don't have chains on when the signs require it.

There shouldn't be a travel ban.

 

[blacklocst]

Why? Why shouldn't we criticize stupid moves from the government like this? If some knucklehead gets stuck after a travel advisory to stay off the roads and interferes with road crews then fine him for having to pull him out or get him unstuck. That's what they do on mountain passes over here if you don't have chains on when the signs require it.

There shouldn't be a travel ban.

I agree with you to a point. The problem is that we have more "knuckleheads" in the megalopolis per square mile.

 

[taskswap]

That solution doesn't work because you can't enforce it. All he has to do is say somebody cut him off - there's almost never a witness standing by for this kind of thing, and all of a sudden it's not his fault. Proving it is hard, and you can't put up signs for occasional storms. In the end, we end up paying the road and emergency crews because somebody's ego was bigger than their brain, there's always an excuse, and I still totally don't mind fining them instead of ME footing the bill.

There wasn't a travel ban in NH. There wasn't a travel ban in ID. Why put so much energy into fighting something like this anyway, when you don't even live in the state? We have a law that says you can't keep town records in a place where liquor is sold. YOU folks have one that says you can't ride a merry go round on a Sunday. If you want to fight the nanny state, why not start with some of the stupider parts? There's plenty to focus on that makes way less sense than this...

 

[Cerran]

I agree with you to a point. The problem is that we have more "knuckleheads" in the megalopolis per square mile.

That's where a healthy dose of outer pain comes into play . I guess I'm spoiled here in the PNW that when the local government asks people to stay off the roads except for essential travel, most people do.

 

[Cerran]

That solution doesn't work because you can't enforce it. All he has to do is say somebody cut him off - there's almost never a witness standing by for this kind of thing, and all of a sudden it's not his fault. Proving it is hard, and you can't put up signs for occasional storms. In the end, we end up paying the road and emergency crews because somebody's ego was bigger than their brain, there's always an excuse, and I still totally don't mind fining them instead of ME footing the bill.

There wasn't a travel ban in NH. There wasn't a travel ban in ID. Why put so much energy into fighting something like this anyway, when you don't even live in the state? We have a law that says you can't keep town records in a place where liquor is sold. YOU folks have one that says you can't ride a merry go round on a Sunday. If you want to fight the nanny state, why not start with some of the stupider parts? There's plenty to focus on that makes way less sense than this...

Why can't you enforce it? If you pull someone out who is stuck out and they can't provide evidence for essential travel you ticket them. Just like with the mountain passes here.

 

[Chris-PA]

Who cares if CT issues a travel ban? It's their state, let the locals decide how they want to deal with things. This is the reality of local control - other places will make decisions you don't like, and it won't be any of your business.

 

[Dalmatian90]

Travel bans enforced by the threats of fines or arrest are asinine and the height of nanny-statism.

The Slurpee seekers are still stupid enough to go get Slurpees, and the only people discouraged are those responsible folks who, in the words of NH Gov. Sheehean (a Democrat even) need to go help an elderly relative.

If you want to close Interstates as long as other routes are available, fine. Let the plows make sure those roads are as clear as possible to re-open as soon as possible to allow commerce to restart.
If you need to close particular hazards like high bridges exposed to strong winds, legitimate.
If you want to require rules similar to passes in some western states where you need snow tires, chains, or 4x4 that has a purpose too.

Statewide or regional bans simply can't take into account of how the weather actually turns out -- which often in New England only produces truly bad conditions within portions of counties. There is no other reasonable standard to use other than common sense.

 

[babybart]

I really like Jeopardy too!

 

[svk]

There is no other reasonable standard to use other than common sense.

EXACTLY!!!!

Also the skill of a driver and they vehicle they are using make every difference in the world. Trying to get out of a snowed in street in a minivan or import car isn't happening. It takes a lot of snow to stop a decent SUV (truck based or true SUV, not a AWD station wagon) or truck and good tires. I have no problem driving into my hunting cabin through *fresh* snow up to the bottom of the bumper provided that it isn't wet/sticky or compacted. Once snow is compacted I figure about 12" is the maximum. But I've driven in these conditions all of my life. Some yahoo from a city who can't drive safely shouldn't be out. But as dalmation90 mentioned that's up to the person to make the call.

 

[taskswap]

Why can't you enforce it? If you pull someone out who is stuck out and they can't provide evidence for essential travel you ticket them. Just like with the mountain passes here.

Because if you get cut off, it's the other driver's fault. And if the cop didn't see it, you're innocent until proven guilty so a ticket isn't going to stand up. It just wastes everybody's time.

However, if there is a TRAVEL BAN then you're clearly in the wrong just being out unless you do have that perfect excuse (like wife is a nurse - if she was on her way to the hospital). And the cops aren't actually out there pulling people over - they have better things to do. So the only time it matters is when somebody DOES slide off and get stuck in a snow drift, there's no arguing about right and wrong. You're either a doctor, cop, road crew, or paying a ticket.

Source: my father-in-law is a state cop. He bitches about this stuff all the time.

 

[Cerran]

Because if you get cut off, it's the other driver's fault. And if the cop didn't see it, you're innocent until proven guilty so a ticket isn't going to stand up. It just wastes everybody's time.

However, if there is a TRAVEL BAN then you're clearly in the wrong just being out unless you do have that perfect excuse (like wife is a nurse - if she was on her way to the hospital). And the cops aren't actually out there pulling people over - they have better things to do. So the only time it matters is when somebody DOES slide off and get stuck in a snow drift, there's no arguing about right and wrong. You're either a doctor, cop, road crew, or paying a ticket.

Source: my father-in-law is a state cop. He bitches about this stuff all the time.

Doesn't matter. If there is a travel advisory not to travel and someone cuts you off and it was non essential travel you still get fined. Let the people take their own risks instead of pulling the nanny state BS.

For example here in the PNW if you cross a pass without chains and it says chains required, someone cuts you off and forces you into a ditch, guess what, you still pay a fine for not having chains. The same would apply.

 

[zogger]

Doesn't matter. If there is a travel advisory not to travel and someone cuts you off and it was non essential travel you still get fined. Let the people take their own risks instead of pulling the nanny state BS.

For example here in the PNW if you cross a pass without chains and it says chains required, someone cuts you off and forces you into a ditch, guess what, you still pay a fine for not having chains. The same would apply.

How much traffic per day on these passes where chains are required? Do they move 100,000 commuters plus delivery trucks?

Reason I am saying that is, it would tear up the roads something fierce to have that much traffic all required to have chains on.

Travel requirements and conditions are really different in different areas, there is no one size fits all situation. And some areas have gotten deep snow, it wasn't all "hype". the weather service made a call, some areas they got it, other areas not much, but if anyone bothered to look at the sat pics from the day before, you would have been hard pressed to NOT predict a major nor easter heavy snowfall over a wide area.

I still contend, the weather service is taking a lot of unfair criticism here.

As to what various elected leaders did or didn't do, they went on best information at the time. It would have been irresponsible as hell to strand millions, not rural east buggywhip dozens, but millions of folks out on the roads in the middle of a major blizzard, had it been as widespread and heavy as the earlier models indicated. Plus a serious major PITA to try and clear roads all over with stuck cars, etc.

It was a close, but not perfect call, no more, no less. The bulk of the heavy stuff hit a little east and then north of NYC and surroundings,and on up, that it didn't hit there is a luck out. It wasn't hyped, they lucked out, as opposed to sandy, when they got hit hard and didn't luck out. Just as much or more news coverage then as now, the weather guys hit it closer on that one.

 

[taskswap]

Doesn't matter. If there is a travel advisory not to travel and someone cuts you off and it was non essential travel you still get fined. Let the people take their own risks instead of pulling the nanny state BS.

For example here in the PNW if you cross a pass without chains and it says chains required, someone cuts you off and forces you into a ditch, guess what, you still pay a fine for not having chains. The same would apply.

... No, it wouldn't. You're comparing apples to oranges. In the PNW as you say, crossing the pass without chains is forbidden. But it's not forbidden to go out in a blizzard here. It's the travel ban you're opposed to that DOES that in the first place. It's hypocritical to say the travel ban (which is only a $500 fine anyway) is wrong but the law on requiring chains is right. Either both are wrong or both are right. We don't have mountain passes. We do have I-95 and it's right along the ocean and it's dangerous as hell to drive on in a blizzard in 65mph wind gusts. So we have a $500 fine if you do it and end up wasting some road crew's time pulling you out of a ditch.

Maybe it's just the word ban you don't like. But it's not like anybody is locking us in our homes. And we wouldn't even go to jail for violating it. It's just a ticket, like your chain requirement. Matter of fact, I see "chain requirements" all the time in news about the PNW - this is the first travel ban here that I can ever remember. It actually seems like YOU live in the nanny state. Shouldn't it be up to YOU whether you need chains or not?

 

[lone wolf]

Hah, all I've gotta carry in South FL is a raincoat and the 9mm

And Skittles

... No, it wouldn't. You're comparing apples to oranges. In the PNW as you say, crossing the pass without chains is forbidden. But it's not forbidden to go out in a blizzard here. It's the travel ban you're opposed to that DOES that in the first place. It's hypocritical to say the travel ban (which is only a $500 fine anyway) is wrong but the law on requiring chains is right. Either both are wrong or both are right. We don't have mountain passes. We do have I-95 and it's right along the ocean and it's dangerous as hell to drive on in a blizzard in 65mph wind gusts. So we have a $500 fine if you do it and end up wasting some road crew's time pulling you out of a ditch.

Maybe it's just the word ban you don't like. But it's not like anybody is locking us in our homes. And we wouldn't even go to jail for violating it. It's just a ticket, like your chain requirement. Matter of fact, I see "chain requirements" all the time in news about the PNW - this is the first travel ban here that I can ever remember. It actually seems like YOU live in the nanny state. Shouldn't it be up to YOU whether you need chains or not?

They are locking people in. I know of a person that was locked in their house 21 days because of an Ebola quarantine.

 

[Cerran]

... No, it wouldn't. You're comparing apples to oranges. In the PNW as you say, crossing the pass without chains is forbidden. But it's not forbidden to go out in a blizzard here. It's the travel ban you're opposed to that DOES that in the first place. It's hypocritical to say the travel ban (which is only a $500 fine anyway) is wrong but the law on requiring chains is right. Either both are wrong or both are right. We don't have mountain passes. We do have I-95 and it's right along the ocean and it's dangerous as hell to drive on in a blizzard in 65mph wind gusts. So we have a $500 fine if you do it and end up wasting some road crew's time pulling you out of a ditch.

Maybe it's just the word ban you don't like. But it's not like anybody is locking us in our homes. And we wouldn't even go to jail for violating it. It's just a ticket, like your chain requirement. Matter of fact, I see "chain requirements" all the time in news about the PNW - this is the first travel ban here that I can ever remember. It actually seems like YOU live in the nanny state. Shouldn't it be up to YOU whether you need chains or not?

The difference is you don't have the potential of being fined and you can travel alternate routes as well. It's far different than a statewide defacto travel ban which is asinine.