[N/A] Should Tornado Shelters be Mandatory ?

Ok, 1 in 8000 in tornado alley, still an order of magnitude less than car accidents. If people here are worried about tornados, they really shouldn't be flying spam cans.
 
The tornado issue was one reason we went with insulated concrete form construction when we built our house. We're on a hill, completely exposed to whatever the wx does. IMHO, shelters should be a personal preference. OTOH, six inches of reinforced concrete, with only breaks for doors and windows, from the basement footers to the roof (anchored with hurricane anchors) has been comforting a couple times. Have videos of a tornado taken out the window (NE Ohio).

I've seen tornadoes in IL, IA, FL, and OH.....can anyone beat that number? :)

Jim
 
Ok, 1 in 8000 in tornado alley, still an order of magnitude less than car accidents. If people here are worried about tornados, they really shouldn't be flying spam cans.

People who choose to fly can manage their risk exposure. Not so for folks in the path of a tornado. So some may choose to manage that risk, especially if they can predict exposure. It sounds like the OP has reason for concern. Fair enough.
 
Odds of dying by tornado 1 in 60000
Odds of dying in your bath tub 1 in 10000
Odds of dying in a car crash 1 in 50-100

Death by tornado is not a big concern to me
The odds don't really matter to the ones who died.
 
Odds of dying by tornado 1 in 60000
Odds of dying in your bath tub 1 in 10000
Odds of dying in a car crash 1 in 50-100

Death by tornado is not a big concern to me

How does that statisic look like if you limit the population at risk to SD, IA, IL, NE, KS, MO, OK, AR and TX ?

The risk of fire, slipping in your shower heart attack are universal. The risk of a tornado is not.
 
How does that statisic look like if you limit the population at risk to SD, IA, IL, NE, KS, MO, OK, AR and TX ?

The risk of fire, slipping in your shower heart attack are universal. The risk of a tornado is not.

1 in 8000 in tornado alley, so a little riskier than travel by car.
 
I've never even seen a tornado shelter before. Looking at some of those pictures it looks like a good place for a kid to get themselves locked into.... which to me seems like a bigger hazard than a tornado.

That could be looked at as an additional benefit.
 
1 in 8000 in tornado alley, so a little riskier than travel by car.

And the reason travel by car is so safe today is that a lot of effort was put into making it so. Some of this was government mandated, some of it is consumer and industry driven.
I dont see how the example of road traffic deaths is an argument against having a storm shelter. You can wear a seatbelt AND have a home with a basement.

One of my prior homes had a concrete room with a steel ceiling along one wall of the basement. It wasn't a .gov blessed shelter, but I doubt the original owner spent 30k on it either.
 
And the reason travel by car is so safe today is that a lot of effort was put into making it so. Some of this was government mandated, some of it is consumer and industry driven.
I dont see how the example of road traffic deaths is an argument against having a storm shelter. You can wear a seatbelt AND have a home with a basement.
Yeah but installing seatbelts in cars saved more lives that mandating storm shelters ever will. Plus seatbelts are cheaper. There have been plenty of changes to the housing codes since the "old days" that make houses safer, but we also need to consider the cost/benefit ratio.
 
Yeah but installing seatbelts in cars saved more lives that mandating storm shelters ever will. Plus seatbelts are cheaper. There have been plenty of changes to the housing codes since the "old days" that make houses safer, but we also need to consider the cost/benefit ratio.

Exactly. Want to decrease you chances of death? Storm shelters are nice, but buying a safer car (for instance) may be a better cost/benefit choice.
 
Exactly. Want to decrease you chances of death? Storm shelters are nice, but buying a safer car (for instance) may be a better cost/benefit choice.

Many driving fatalities are behavior related. I doubt it would be cost effective to buy one car over another for the additional safety that can be attributed to the vehicle itself. You would probably feel better if you spent extra money on a 'safer car'.
 
And the reason travel by car is so safe today is that a lot of effort was put into making it so. Some of this was government mandated, some of it is consumer and industry driven.
I dont see how the example of road traffic deaths is an argument against having a storm shelter. You can wear a seatbelt AND have a home with a basement.

One of my prior homes had a concrete room with a steel ceiling along one wall of the basement. It wasn't a .gov blessed shelter, but I doubt the original owner spent 30k on it either.

That's the point: it wasn't mandated by the government, it was at the discretion of the home builder/owner, as it should be. If I'm building a new home in OK, I would probably have a basement with reinforced ceiling (no open beams) or a "fraidy hole" built-into a closet somewhere, just for peace of mind, but it shouldn't be a requirement though.
 
That's the point: it wasn't mandated by the government, it was at the discretion of the home builder/owner, as it should be.

Many car safety improvements were mandated. Seat belts, stability standards, crash resistance all are the result of .gov mandates, either in the US or europe.

As a dysproportional percentage of tornado fatalities involves mobile or modular housing, there was a push at one point to require shelters at trailer parks. Based on the reaction, you would think that living in a trailer park is one of the few expressions of freedom left.

And no, I don't think shelters should be mandatory. I do think they would be a reasonable expenditure of money while building a new home in the high impact area. It's not like you lose that room for anything else.
 
Many driving fatalities are behavior related. I doubt it would be cost effective to buy one car over another for the additional safety that can be attributed to the vehicle itself. You would probably feel better if you spent extra money on a 'safer car'.

Depends, many older vehicles are nowhere near as safe as newer designs. Yes, driver skill comes into play, but there are a lot of bad drivers out there. Certainly more than there are tornados.
 
Depends, many older vehicles are nowhere near as safe as newer designs.

Case in point, my old '01 F-150 is terrible in offset crashes:

http://www.iihs.org/frontend/iihs/ratings/images/api-rating-image.ashx?id=22&width=800

api-rating-image.ashx
 
Attitude has a lot to do with it.

Living in OK, i saw 3+ tornadoes. One like 6 months after moving there while working in a Braum's. People didnt even know or care about the weather and were bringing their kids info the store for ice cream. The sirens were on and people were still going through the drive thru trying to order while we were sheltering in the freezer.

I would text friends the day of the weather events asking if they were okay and they would have no idea anything was happening weather wise. I knew 3+ days in advance. Apathy seems to be a common factor. Big sky little airplane applied to weather.
 
Case in point, my old '01 F-150 is terrible in offset :

api-rating-image.ashx

Yet those old pickups show low loss numbers for personal injury and medical payments in the IIHS data. Driver behavior is a bigger influence on real world risk than technology. Abstract tests don't do a good job at modeling even the technical risk.
 
This north easterner spent a summer as an intern in Wichita, KS. It was pretty unnerving hearing the tornado sirens going off and being in a second floor apartment.

Another time that summer we were driving back from Oklahoma City and pulled off to get gas. While there, we heard on the radio that a tornado was about to cross the highway we were travelling on a few miles north of us. Needless to say, we found a place to hang out for a few minutes to wait for the storm to pass.

My preference in such an area would be to have a space in my home that could function as a tornado shelter. Like the others here, however, I wouldn't necessarily want it to be forced upon others. I do like that most (not sure if all) commercial buildings in that area seemed to have tornado shelters.

I spent some time in Kansas and spent about one minute thinking of moving there.

Only a minute? I actually quite enjoyed my time out there. It was definitely different than the North East, but it was an interesting (and beautiful) part of the country. I'd be open to moving back there, if the right opportunity came along. Texas on the other hand, no thanks.
 
Yet those old pickups show low loss numbers for personal injury and medical payments in the IIHS data. Driver behavior is a bigger influence on real world risk than technology. Abstract tests don't do a good job at modeling even the technical risk.
Ummm, review the f150 numbers very closely. They were horrible for injuries to the driver in frontal collisions over 35 mph. At least they were when I owned on. The piece of technology at the root of the injuries was the steering column design that ford couldn't or wouldn't change.
 
Many car safety improvements were mandated. Seat belts, stability standards, crash resistance all are the result of .gov mandates, either in the US or europe.

As a dysproportional percentage of tornado fatalities involves mobile or modular housing, there was a push at one point to require shelters at trailer parks. Based on the reaction, you would think that living in a trailer park is one of the few expressions of freedom left.

And no, I don't think shelters should be mandatory. I do think they would be a reasonable expenditure of money while building a new home in the high impact area. It's not like you lose that room for anything else.

Lol, well you wouldn't catch me living in one in OK, just from a straight-line winds perspective, tornados are another problem. I'd consider one as a lakehouse/vacation house though. As was mentioned before, the safety improvements in cars affected a lot more people than mandating a tornado shelter in every home. There are more people killed in car wrecks in Oklahoma each year (around 650) compared to an average of 3 tornado-related deaths.

http://www.weather.gov/cae/lgaverages.html
 
Only a minute? I actually quite enjoyed my time out there. It was definitely different than the North East, but it was an interesting (and beautiful) part of the country. I'd be open to moving back there, if the right opportunity came along. Texas on the other hand, no thanks.

I am a mountain person. Too much flat land and the only thing to hit while flying is a grain elevator. Friendly folks though, almost as friendly as folks in Texas....:yesnod:

Actually the main reasons I did not move to Kansas was the pay was just not there and I like the near zero humidity climate I have here in NM.
 
Heck no, they shouldn't be mandatory.

However, in my parts, nearly everybody has either a cellar or safe room anyway. I have watched a few 'naders go by, but never been hit directly. I worry more about folks who aren't used to tornados than those of us in Tornado Alley.
 
I think we need a space defense shield to protect us from meteors. I don't care about the odds. Just think of the children.
 
Correct, and seeing how many on this board don't live in a trailer park were probably fine.

Want some major death, heart attack and stroke.
Building a hurricane shelter to save the "children" then taking them to McDonalds after its done = FAIL

What's wrong with McDonald's?
 
And 9000 Oklahomans died from heart disease. So why bother buckling up?
The fallacy of relative risks.
We are forced to buckle up in order to reduce accident cleanup times. Fatal accidents tie up traffic much longer than nonfatal ones. And, emergency crews actually don't enjoy seeing dead people.
 
Last edited:
In Iowa almost all houses and other buildings have tornado shelters. That's because they have basements. (The foundations have to go below the frost line, so one might as well make a basement.)

A tornado that ripped through our downtown in 2006 killed nobody at all, in part because of the basements. For example in this church there was a weekday service in progress, and the congregants all moved to the basement and survived as the building was ripped apart:

EP-160419980.jpg&MaxH=500&MaxW=704
 
And 9000 Oklahomans died from heart disease. So why bother buckling up?
The fallacy of relative risks.

It's not a fallacy, it's just a comparison. If the taxpayers are paying the same amount each to a) cure/prevent heart disease, or b) install tornado shelters, I'd hope everyone chose option A simply due to the likelihood it would actually benefit them or someone they knew. Address the risks that are most prevalent before addressing the minor stuff.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Tornado risk is not equal across the population so statistics like that aren't worth the bandwidth they consumed to post.

As someone pointed out, even in tornado alley, the risk is still low.

People who choose to fly can manage their risk exposure. Not so for folks in the path of a tornado. So some may choose to manage that risk, especially if they can predict exposure. It sounds like the OP has reason for concern. Fair enough.

They can actually. Back when I started chasing the towns had siren systems and those were activated by spotters. People have been putting sentries on walls and in towers for millennia.

Nowadays the nearly universal Doppler radar coverage means it's nearly impossible to NOT know a storm is headed your way, if you're watching.

The majority of deaths are in areas that were under watches and then warnings for fairly lengthy periods of time.

What happens is the Boy Who Cried Wolf syndrome and also that people need sleep. Late night storms are the most deadly because something has to wake you up.

And many refuse to use either SAME encoded weather radios or modern apps that alert on much smaller physical areas than the old siren systems or non-SAME weather radios did. But the tools are there to wake you up and get you to MOVE to safety.

The other one that trained spotters know and this one is really hard for folks... is that getting in the car and hauling ass out of the way of a tornado on the ground and tracking toward you, even if it means driving in golf ball sized hail, is still the right move.

I had a car totaled doing that. Wasn't quite golf ball, but a storm snuck up behind me in the pre-Doppler and pre-mobile data days and the folks at NWS manning the radios didn't have an exact location on all of us that evening. If they did, they'd have gotten me moving sooner.

I had the choice of driving into the hail shaft, or staying put with an F2 tracking for me. Problem got exacerbated by the lack of a southbound road off of the east/west I was on, for a few miles.

Beat the hell out of that poor car. It's really freaking loud, too. Managed somehow not to crack the windshield but numerous spotters back then had buddies with contacts to get new windshields install cheap. And often.

Wild West days. We would not do ANYTHING today like we did back then.

Yet those old pickups show low loss numbers for personal injury and medical payments in the IIHS data. Driver behavior is a bigger influence on real world risk than technology. Abstract tests don't do a good job at modeling even the technical risk.

IIHS for trucks doesn't take into account that a LOT of drivers don't like being near a pickup truck and also that usually oncoming drivers are less likely to pull in front of one and turn.

Not saying it's that much better but there's definitely a bit of both going on if you watch, anytime you're driving a pickup truck sized vehicle.

I think there's more idiots who happily cut off tractor trailers than cut off pickup trucks, just watching dumb drivers over the years. People who cut off tractor trailers have a death wish.
 
What's wrong with McDonald's?
Sounds like SOMEONE is racist against the Irish.

And @denverpilot I'd multiquote your post but I'm on my phone... On the flip side, there seems to be a belief among some pickup drivers that the relative size of their vehicles allows them to intimidate other drivers by merging into them and expecting them to avoid the collision... there's gotta be some offset there relative to the "big truck, scary truck" mitigation of which you speak. It is amusing to me in my sedan since I know my dash cam protects me from a civil perspective, and the structural integrity of my car is stronger than most other cars on the road. Bring it! :D
 
Back
Top