Convergence Frustration and Chaser Legislation

[Jim wyman]

I am not a chaser. I am furthering my education in meteorology with a goal to better understand and appreciate what happens in the sky above us... I would love to someday be able to head out to the mid-west and be able to observe a meso and possible tornadic cell. I wish to do this not because of some TV show showing some wacky steel-lined vehicle with a bunch of yoo-ha's following behind. I do this to increase my understanding of weather and observe the beauty nature can produce.

With that said, all it's going to take is a bunch of tag alongs following some legit chase vehicles and someone is going to getting trapped in a storm and get seriously injured or worse... Then you may see the hammer come down... I have a fear that a mass of people who have no idea what they are doing are going to get someone else killed.....

 

[Zach Young]

It's sort of ironic anyway... A big part of the reason why there's been an explosion in "amateur" chasers is the TIV and the Storm Chaser's crew themselves! If they wanted the roads to be less congested, they never should have aired their show in the first place. What did they expect? They took a pasttime that used to only be enjoyed by a fringe group of weather weenies, meteorologists, and photographers and the popularized it. Now instead of a handful of chasers on each storm, you can have hundreds!

At least VORTEX2 is over, that's a few hundred vehicles off the road by itself, plus there will be fewer locals on the road now that the V2 updates won't be live on the air.

 

[Jesse Risley]

And in this type of discussion the Constitution always comes up. The Constitution is already being trashed. The federal government has forced itself into the affairs of the states for so long that I doubt it will or can ever be stopped. I think its foolish to think the state could not force itself into the affairs of the citizen and take away their rights as well... Consider the fishing example... I can see the government coming in and banning a fishing tournament because it disrupts a local lake. There would be a huge argument over restricting chasing or government at least trying to.... but never say never.

The problem becomes how easy it is to actually legislate something. Storm chasing, as a broad pursuit, isn't so cut-and-dried as something like smoking in a public place, or fishing in a certain area. Examples like these represent easily identifiable behaviors where someone is practicing something in a much more localized setting where the behavior can be easily targeted and dealt with.

What constitutes "storm chasing" and how do you garner enough LEOs to police every road within say 3-5 miles of a storm moving 40-60 mph across multiple jurisdictions (even state lines)? Chasers have an advantage because of the nature of the hobby. It's something far more problematic to legislate just because of the nature of severe weather itself.

 

[Bart_Comstock]

MOD NOTE
​

Just a quick reminder to everyone. Political discussions should ONLY be held with in the bar and grill. If this thread becomes to focused on the government and its practices in general I will move it to the B&G.

Discussion of possible anti-chasing laws is allowed in this thread but don't go to far beyond that and make the possibility of chaser laws part of a bigger issue about our country's primary issues. Remember, even though the question of anti-chasing legislation is brought up in this thread this is NOT a thread for greater political debates and discussion.

Make a new thread in the B&G if you would like to take your points beyond what kind of laws could be made and how they would be enforced. If I see a post that is too political AFTER this note I will simply move it into a new thread in the B&G. Thank you for your understanding and cooperation.

 

[Robert Dewey]

As far as the ignorant masses watching storm chasers and posting on youtube.... don't discount them, they have power. The reason this country is broke and will suffer serious economic issues into the future is because of the ignorant masses of people

I'm going to have to disagree. I don't think you can take such a small sample size of a very specific demographic and apply it to society as a whole and say "see, that's what's wrong!"

As of Nov 17, Discovery's "Storm Chasers" had 1.485M viewers according to Nielson. Even if you estimate 20,000 *unique* people commenting on YT under a topic regarding the series, you're only talking 1.3% of the viewership. I wouldn't say that represents the "masses."

 

[Bill Tabor]

As far as how would chasing be legislated:

Consider my short story - the idea of a weather emergency and roads closed. That would be one way and it is already in effect in some local areas based on whether the law can make sense of the situation enough to determine where to erect barricades.

Probably a more likely method would be similar to seat belt laws, open container laws, or racing laws. It would be up to the discretion of officers if they see vehicles displaying chasing equipment but no license / permit when they pull them over and inquire. Imagine numerous squad cars descending on a chase convergence line or a barricade where they check documentation before being allowed to pass. Likely the most important aspect would be what the fines / classification of offense for a violation of "Chasing Storms" are. Would it be a Misdemeanor Class A, B, C first with warnings? Would a violation of Chasing Storms combined with possible injury to property or others result in Felony charges similar to DUI?

My guess is that if such laws were enacted it would be possible. It would likely take awhile for enough chasers getting offenses before the numbers are curbed.

 

[David Wolfson]

Fortunately I think the police will always have a lot more important things to do in a severe weather warning area and few enough resources to do them with than manage roadblocks. Also, other than perhaps roof-mounted weather instruments, what constitutes "chaser equipment"? Video, gps nav, and antennas are certainly not specific to chasing. Most states already have laws regarding dash mounts, driver distractions, and driver-accessible screens that could be tightened and more strictly enforced. That would mostly impact solo chasers, which might not be an entirely bad idea since solo chasing, after all, is a good deal more risky than with a co-pilot.

When you think about it, the last thing the law would want is to encourage inexperienced people to chase without some sort of information technology besides the car radio, and that could be one effect of ill-designed regulations. Darwin's Law already exists to weed out the worst offenders.

 

[Jason Foster]

I'm going to have to disagree. I don't think you can take such a small sample size of a very specific demographic and apply it to society as a whole and say "see, that's what's wrong!"

As of Nov 17, Discovery's "Storm Chasers" had 1.485M viewers according to Nielson. Even if you estimate 20,000 *unique* people commenting on YT under a topic regarding the series, you're only talking 1.3% of the viewership. I wouldn't say that represents the "masses."

This is a good point Robert. In thinking about it, most people I speak with are not at all familiar with storm chasing or YT videos, etc. don't focus on the details. All they see is something that is really cool and always tend to get the "I want to do that," following by "I could never do that".

They often don't talk about the drama, they just focus on the fact someone is driving into a tornado. I think this is why the show continues to grow overall.

I would bet (almost willing to put money on it) that convergence issues will continue, but the overall numbers will decrease slightly. Between increase gas prices, lack of coverage (as mentioned V2 being gone) by the media and SC show not being aired immediately before the beginning of chase season, there is less impulsive folks jumping on the roads that aren't chasers. Chasers may still converge in large numbers, but lets hope that these convergences coordination will be better.

 

[Bill Tabor]

Additional thoughts:

If they make a law against chasing, then all they have to do is pull up and inquire when they see 'gawkers' apparently pulled over looking at a storm. They can then issue a citation. This could be done constantly like speeding tickets - no road blocks required. Even locals stopped, looking at the storm could be ticketed if that's what they were doing. That would be one of the few ways to discourage convergence which is what all this discussion was about to begin with. That might be one way to make locals take cover as opposed to looking at the storm as well. I think a law like that is feasible technically and probably legally. They consider driving and the roads a privilege so they can tell you what to do whenever they want to. Additionally, just like speeding not every speeder would get ticketed, but it would discourage 'speeding' and would be another source of revenue for local communities. Perhaps a permit or license could be issued for those allowed to be outdoors near a storm based on 'legitimate' purposes. If a rancher is in the middle of transporting cattle to a nearby ranch that would be legitimate even though not necssarily safe with a tornadic supercell nearby / hail, etc. Easy targets would be those with weather gear mounted all over the vehicle, those with computer laptops and dashcams, and those on the side of the road with camera, vidcams, and tripods.​

 

[Jacob Ferden]

Additional thoughts:

If they make a law against chasing, then all they have to do is pull up and inquire when they see 'gawkers' apparently pulled over looking at a storm. They can then issue a citation. This could be done constantly like speeding tickets - no road blocks required. Even locals stopped, looking at the storm could be ticketed if that's what they were doing. That would be one of the few ways to discourage convergence which is what all this discussion was about to begin with. That might be one way to make locals take cover as opposed to looking at the storm as well. I think a law like that is feasible technically and probably legally. They consider driving and the roads a privilege so they can tell you what to do whenever they want to. Additionally, just like speeding not every speeder would get ticketed, but it would discourage 'speeding' and would be another source of revenue for local communities. Perhaps a permit or license could be issued for those allowed to be outdoors near a storm based on 'legitimate' purposes. If a rancher is in the middle of transporting cattle to a nearby ranch that would be legitimate even though not necssarily safe with a tornadic supercell nearby / hail, etc. Easy targets would be those with weather gear mounted all over the vehicle, those with computer laptops and dashcams, and those on the side of the road with camera, vidcams, and tripods.​

The problem with this is best illustrated by May 19th, IMO, because the convergence there was caused not only by chasers but much more significantly by the local "LET'S GO SEE THE TORNADEE!" crowd. I know this because I was on two different cells that day, the massive conga line up by Watonga, and the cell between Norman and Purcell. In both cases, you had locals camping out on the side of the road, sitting in the back of pick ups with six packs. OHP would have to ticket them too, and they are going to be FAR too busy dealing with the storm than to round up 200 beer bellies out for a good time.

Keep a low profile and focus on the chase, and this really shouldn't be an issue.

 

[Sean Ramsey]

Additional thoughts:

If they make a law against chasing, then all they have to do is pull up and inquire when they see 'gawkers' apparently pulled over looking at a storm. They can then issue a citation. This could be done constantly like speeding tickets - no road blocks required. Even locals stopped, looking at the storm could be ticketed if that's what they were doing. That would be one of the few ways to discourage convergence which is what all this discussion was about to begin with. That might be one way to make locals take cover as opposed to looking at the storm as well. I think a law like that is feasible technically and probably legally. They consider driving and the roads a privilege so they can tell you what to do whenever they want to. Additionally, just like speeding not every speeder would get ticketed, but it would discourage 'speeding' and would be another source of revenue for local communities. Perhaps a permit or license could be issued for those allowed to be outdoors near a storm based on 'legitimate' purposes. If a rancher is in the middle of transporting cattle to a nearby ranch that would be legitimate even though not necssarily safe with a tornadic supercell nearby / hail, etc. Easy targets would be those with weather gear mounted all over the vehicle, those with computer laptops and dashcams, and those on the side of the road with camera, vidcams, and tripods.​

Maybe they would even take it as far as ticketing people for being outside of their homes looking up at the sky....or maybe they'll outlaw driving all together whenever a tornado warning is issued...or maybe....

 

[weskranz]

IMHO the chaser convergence on the 19th was largely fueled by a high risk event near a major metro area and significant live coverage by The Weather Channel due to Vortex 2. It has been somewhat painful to see all of the negativity flow from the events of the day. The 19th won't be a norm to the degree of complete gridlock, but there is no doubt that chasing is much more mainstream. We need to maintain a positive voice and profile to deflect the critics. Chasing has value and a proper code of conduct and we need to spread this message. Legislation banning this wonderful freedom would be unthinkable.

Wes

 

[Sarah Kenyon]

I'd have to say IMO the operations that require a literal "convoy" are posing the major risks. It shouldn't take ten vehicles to study one tornado! If these operations were smarter they would break them into smaller "pods" to move around easier. Any time any chaser sees a line of cars, and then sees the DOW or something obivously needs to find a nice road to detour off on and take the scenic route. I'd have to agree with other posts, that people need to go on the road less travelled.

 

[joel ewing]

Outlawing Chasing?

Let's pretend that some silly law maker had his or her way and chasing as we know it was banned. What would be the economic cost of such a ban? Anyone think of too many other reasons why a town like Woodward OK (and other countless smaller towns across the plains) might have every hotel room full?

Has anyone quantified the economic contribution chasers make to the plains states with fuel, lodging ,food etc.?

Be an interesting study. Certainly an extra string to our bow if we ever had to argue our cause! (which I don't believe we ever will)

No offense meant to you, bro...but thinking that chasers are having any kind of real impact on a given area's economy is wishful thinking.

 

[Jeff Snyder]

No offense meant to you, bro...but thinking that chasers are having any kind of real impact on a given area's economy is wishful thinking.

I agree. How many times do most chasers completely fill up on a given chase day? Usually, I top off every chance I get, but I typically only go through 1 or 2 tanks of gasoline on most chases. The chance of me stopping to buy gas in any given town is pretty tiny. Even if I fill up completely 3 times, those are typically on the longer chases (800+ miles). Sure, there are a lot chasers, but I think there may be more "chasers", or those who locals who head out maybe 30-50 miles to check out an approaching storm. Lodging is typically more expensive, but how many chasers rent hotel/motel rooms on a consistent basis? In the end, prime chase "territory" is awfully large (I20 to I90? Rockies to I35?), so, even though a significant amount of money may be spent in the aggregate, it's typically spent over a massive area.

I never in my wildest dreams thought that I would consider the potential for chaser convergence when making my chase plans. However, after experiencing May 19th between Kingfisher and Guthrie, I really do think the potential for massive convergence will enter my chase planning process. I'm sure we've all experienced "storm-scale" chaser convergence (along popular highways or roadways, etc.), but the 5/19/10 case almost seemed like there was "mesoscale" chaser convergence, if you will. When the convergence gets bad enough to prevent me from finding any spot to observed the storm safely, what's the point of spending the time and effort to get in position? Sure, I caught a glimpse of the tornado near Kingfisher from the back window, but the stress and frustration of the situation very much outweighed the feeling I got watching the storm and tornado. Despite this, I know that I don't have any more of a right to watch a storm as anyone else, so I can't really complain too much.