England STILL Can't Handle a Bit of Snow

After nearly the whole country ground to a halt for days due to a few modest inches of snow a couple years ago, and they assured people that they would get this sorted out and be better prepared next time, they have let it happen again!

Heathrow cancelled over 100 flights and hundreds of stranded passengers are sleeping in the terminals.

FFS it was hardly a gentle dusting of snow! Get it together!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jan/19/heathrow-cancels-flights-snow

 

Just a correction.. I should have said 100 MORE flights.. They already had cancelled like 400.

 

Well, we finally found a group of people more wimpy than Californians: The British.

You have to have snow levels taller than most buildings for it to affect Canada! lol

 

I remember as a kid, even if the buses weren't running, I was walking to school through multiple feet of snow and/or in very low sub zero temperatures.

Sometimes other schools nearby were cancelled (due to REAL winter weather), but my school was ALWAYS the one that stayed open.

Although one time when school wasn't cancelled I managed to beg my mom into calling in sick for me!

 

It doesn't snow enough in England & Wales to justify the investment required to avoid the problems created by snow falls. Bit obvious really!

 

What's the cost required?

 

That's up the all of the agencies and firms involved. Snow, despite Britain's relative closeness to he arctic circle, isn't particularly common. Indeed, if anything, she's underinvesting in flood protection.

 

So I take it you don't actually know the cost required.. There goes your argument.

 

I live in a little Scottish town on the gates of the Highlands hence up high. We have had snow for the past 5 days. On the first day my neighbour brought her grit out and swept and gritted my front path too! .....but two years ago when the whole of Scotland was under about a foot or more of snow, there was no work for two weeks. We learned from that. Much more prepared now.

 

Perhaps England should have a government - but I'm sure it would still not waste money on a rare occurence. What a silly thread. We had real snow - briefly - but we've got more sense than to get worked up about it. Weather is just weather: it soon goes by.

 

A silly argument! You've made an immature remark based on ignorance of England's weather, nothing more. As I said, grown up remark over investment failures would actually refer to flooding risks

 

Oh, and there was me thinking the thread was sooo English.

 

Well, we live in an island, and for the moment it counts as one state, and it has similar weather all over, except that the place where most of the English choose to live is a potential desert, of course. Bright they ain't.

 

Your whole argument was based on the cost of being prepared being too high, and higher than the cost of the losses incurred via snow.. You have NO CLUE what the cost is, therefore your argument fails.

How do you know the cost is too high if you don't know what the cost is? Care to answer that?

 

Do you think I'm the Emperor of England? You fellows do have some strange ideas. I merely acknowledge the obvious: snow is relatively rare and therefore it makes no sense in making the investments required to minimise snow disruption. The real problem is the greater variability in UK weather, as it has recently shifted from drought to severe flooding. Arguably created by global warming, its these aspects which require investment and you'd be darn ignorant to suggest otherwise.

Because the firms and enterprises haven't invested. Rationality for you!

 

And THIS is why HFD is one of my favorite posters on PF!

 

I used to live in an are that rarely got snow. In fact snow was a bit of a novelty. People who don't live where it snows regularly are naturally not prepared and even a few inches can cause problems.

 

And with eight simple words, Iolo just annihilated the Global Warming Belief System!

 

That is quick, fair play!

 

I figured you for someone who had the information necessary to support your premise.

The "how should I know" type response only cements the fact that your premise is purely speculative. How should you know? EXACTLY. So why are you basing your argument on information you basically just got done admitting that you can't be privy to?

You didn't just "merely" acknowledge this.. You made a NUMERICAL claim.

The flooding is a red herring.. Nobody said that investments in flood protection aren't also necessary.

That's not even true though, is it. British Airways invested 36 million pounds in response to the last major winter weather event.

They PROMISED they would get the problem sorted and it wouldn't happen again.. Obviously they were wrong, and a LESS severe weather event caused disruption, and hundreds who bought tickets in good faith wound up being mislead by the airline and are now sleeping on the floor.

 

This is very true.

I would ask the people who claim these disruption causing winter weather events are too rare to take seriously, how many events do you have to have, and/or what level of annual snowfall, in order to require suitable investment in preparedness?

 

You thought I had the business accounts of every firm and agency, together with information about the additional costs required for each of them? Golly, you must think I'm a proper workaholic. Back to reality! The point is obvious: snow isn't particularly common and I'd find it disgraceful, for example, if the local government was reducing it flood defence investment for a fleet of new snow ploughs.

Speculative? Chortle, chortle! Have a look at how frequently it snows in England. Compare it with other weather related issues. I haven't invested in snow chains and snow shoes; and I'm not going to start now. The reality is simple: firms and organisations aren't making the investments required to eliminate snow disruption because it is irrational to make those investments. If that radically chances, via a sudden increase in the risk of snow falls, then of course the investments will be made. Bleedin obvious really!

An ignorant comment. Flooding represents England's biggest threat. And its important that we acknowledge the opportunity costs from making other investments.

So your real beef is with the organisation that owns one of Britain's airports? How dull!

 

Nobody suggested prioritizing winter weather preparedness over flood preparedness. So that's a red herring.

Are floods more common than snowfalls?

Anyway I'm going to wait for you to answer the questions.

 

Wotever :

Overall , nature / the god's have much been kinder to British Isles - than it has to the America's (we've been spared their natutal distasters ) or gawd blessem our southern cousins in Ozland .

toodle -loo

 

Yes...As I posted before I USED to live in an area that rarely got snow...then...I move to the foothills at 3,500 feet elevation. Today I have almost 3 feet of snow that has been here since Christmas and frozen almost solid because temperatures rarely exceed 40 degrees F. In this climate one HAS to be prepared. Buildings are constructed to be able to bear snow-loads, the public road maintenance departments all have snow moving equipment to keep the main roads clear, most homes have at least a fireplace as wood here is much cheaper than gas or electricity for heat. I have attachable shoe spikes for walking in frozen snow, one learns about tire chains and basically how to drive in snow-icy conditions. An four-wheel drive or 'all wheel' drive car is a must here as well.

One year the snow level got so low (under 500 feet!) that it collapsed buildings and caused utter chaos for the 'flatlanders'.....