Why the female of the species is the most deadly
REGULAR readers will know my objection to this fashion for naming storms; a Met Office “pilot” project now in its second year.
Indeed, some have got in touch with me directly to voice their own concerns over why we seem to be parroting the Americans.
Most of these titled storms do nothing more than whip up a bit of unnecessary hype. The previous one this winter, for example, was a damp squib. “Storm Conor brings snow and wind to Scotland” screamed the headlines. Well, duh, as they say – it was Boxing Day.
Doris, though, was a storm that warranted a title. I followed her up country on Thursday as my train to Stoke (to report on the by-election) was cancelled. Instead I resorted to a six-hour crawl along the M6.
And blimey, was Doris fierce. I spotted trees and traffic lights felled by the 90mph winds. The car radio announced casualties – and one tragic death – among the towns that I passed in the Midlands and North West.
The worst storm to hit us for more than a decade, the weather folk said. And it transpires it is no surprise that she was a she. US researchers have analysed storms according to gender between 1950 and 2012, and found that those given female names (the policy is to alternate between the two) are far more dangerous.
Of the 47 most damaging hurricanes examined, those with female names produced an average of 45 deaths, compared with 23 in male storms.
The authors, from the University of Illinois and Arizona State University, concluded that the reason was an “implicit sexism”, whereby people did not take storms with female names seriously enough and failed to prepare accordingly. Doris now adds her name to that list of blustery femmes fatales. For this winter, at least, let us hope she will be the last.