County Officials Critical of Storm Chasers

[Will Campbell]

I was right behind you and I saw that. He almost got smashed into when he pulled across the lanes like that. I have no idea who that person was, but they were definitely NOT LEO. It was a white pickup truck with a white/amber lightbar on top (white is a banned color in KS, and no agency uses it) and Skywarn stickers all over. I was monitoring the KHP on my scanner and they were questioning why 135 was stopped dead, so it was very obvious he was not working for them or blocking the highway with their blessing. That is a prime example of the whacker yahoos that give the community a bad name.





I decided to take K-4 to intercept that cell, because according to the SN, there were very few beacons in that area compared to K-96. I hit the zero-visibility rain curtain just west of Geneseo, and seeing the couplet on radar on track to cross K-4 I did not want to chance coming near it while it was rain-wrapped. So I pulled off the road to wait a bit, and a couple minutes later as I go to pull back onto the road, the aforementioned bumper to bumper 'funeral procession' of 50-60 cars starts passing me (only a few were indicated on the map, so the large majority of them were not running beacons). When I finally made it back in, there were times that for no apparent reason we had to slow down to a crawl, there were many vehicles parked 'sorta' off the road, and there were decked out vehicles doing 80-90mph passing 5-6 others at a time. Then out of nowhere, we come to a dead stop, because some people decided to take it upon themselves to block both lanes of the road. Why? Who knows. Again, they were NOT LEO.






I'll use my previously mentioned K-4 experience as an example - while I was stuck in the 'procession', a couple KHP cars were coming up behind.. K-4 has a very narrow soft shoulder (the white lines are painted on the edge of the asphalt), and it does have ditches. It's not a place you can pull off safely. Best I could give them was I slowed down to open up the space in front of me, but I was not going to pull off the pavement at 60mph onto a muddy shoulder.

Bingo! We were there pretty early, at the crest of the hill about 1/2 mile east of 141. We thought we were going to have to turn around or cross paths with the tornado, but were able to find a field entrance to use. Others, including the media guy that provided the footage to Fox were parked half on the westbound lane and standing in the road. I don't get it. Once the storm neared, traffic was limited to just a few LEOs that had zero issues proceeding quickly west past the stopped chasers. I didn't experience the slow downs you mentioned, that must have been further east.

 

[rdale]

Rob, when you discover a way to influence the thinking of a mix of a thousand souls simultaneously into doing what you want them to do in the middle of a crisis situation, maybe then the story will be over.

I can't help the thousands that choose not to yield to emergency vehicles. You said you are considering no longer chasing because you would be a part of obstructing ambulances. Well if you pull over, you are no longer an obstruction. You are not responsible for the actions of others. If others don't pull over, they can be ticketed. All without adding anti-chaser legislation.

I propose that the Kansas Legislature make it a $1000 fine for not pulling over for an ambulance, and that it can be applied based on video evidence so that the cops can review footage later on.

 

[David Drummond]

David:

The video I use in my talks is what it is --it shows what it shows. When a string of vehicles all with flashing lights drives down a dark Oklahoma road at night and I comment that the use of lights is "unnecessary, counterproductive, and even dangerous" I'm not saying anything which isn't obvious. And if certain well-known chaser's vehicles happen to appear in that video well I'm sorry. I'm not twisting the truth or using anything out of context.

Whether or not it is "unnecessary, counterproductive, and even dangerous" is your opinion Chris. The fact of the matter is, law enforcement told us to light it all up and follow him as we were both looking for houses hit by that tornado. A conversation you were not privy too, and frankly it was none of your business. In that regard, you took it out of context making it seem we were all just following the storm running around with our blinkly lights to look cool, when something completely different was going on.

In another scene, were all stopped, with a LEO who had just been hit by the tornado up north. You made some scathing comments about ME crossing the road in from of another car wearing a black jacket and how idiotic and unsafe that was. What you couldn't see from that location, was the people driving that car stopped, and WAIVED me across while I was waiting for them to pass. I'm in my 40s and have better sense that to run across the road at night in front of a vehicle wearing black. Another instance where you make something out to be more than what it was. You have a valid point about wearing lighter colors, and even safety vests (which I now carry because as part of the media I am required too), but it's the way you went about making your point I am peeved about. Maybe you should consider you don't always have all the fact on hand before you use an example in some sort of way, and make sure what you think is going on is actually what is going on.

The video David speaks of me using without his permission was indeed used with his permission though he does not remember it. I agreed to stop using it as soon as he requested me to do so.

. I don't have to remember it, because any time I give permission for someone to use my stuff, it's in writing, and I keep all of that on file. It's part of my business, and even if I allow free use, there is a written license form. Memory has nothing to do with it. If you can produce this form I gave you, I will completely retract my statement on that and publicly apologize. You can't because I never gave it to you, no matter how you want to tell it.

As for your tornado encounter, I personally could care less. It's happened to me, it's happened to others, it's will happen again. To me that isn't that big of a deal, but when you stand up and preach the gospel then get caught sinning, you can't expect there to not be blowback from it. It's just not realistic.

 

[Shane Adams]

Shane you're spot-on with almost everything you said, but this part just isn't factual. 'Passion Twist' is a brand, and 'Shane Adams' is a brand, whether you choose to acknowledge it and manage it as such or not. Selling DVDs, having a website, having a webcast, posting updates on a blog or Facebook, etc. are just promoting that brand.

It's not fair to just throw "Storm Chasers" under the wheels, or complain about the media, like some people have done. We're feeding the beast, and increasingly becoming the beast. I'm just as guilty as anyone else, and I admit that.

We can start taking all the gaudy attention-seeking crap off our cars, stop pimping ourselves and our adventures, and start criticizing those who are being reckless - or we can just let things continue as they are. We have no right to complain about any consequences at that point, however.

I understand your point, but my career-long lack of monetary success via DVD sales is a strong argument against it (really laughing as I write this).

As for your last paragraph, I agree. Nothing or nobody is going to keep me from chasing tornadoes, period. So having said that, I could care less what others do....until it begins to affect us personally. I have a very myopic/ego-centric point-of-view regarding chasing. I talk about the things that I find entertaining (the show), but the reality is, when it's time to chase, we're out there chasing and nobody notices. That's how we like to roll and the train will keep on a'chuggin'.

 

[Jake Orosi]

I was right behind you and I saw that. He almost got smashed into when he pulled across the lanes like that. I have no idea who that person was, but they were definitely NOT LEO. It was a white pickup truck with a white/amber lightbar on top (white is a banned color in KS, and no agency uses it) and Skywarn stickers all over.

LOL, figures.

Halt! I have a door magnet!

 

[Mike Smith]

The "Wall Street Journal" Chimes In

The Wall Street Journal just posted an article on this topic on its web site. I suspect it will run in tomorrow's print edition. Even though it is behind a pay wall, I believe this link will work: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304331204577352180788089746.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

It is a well-balanced article, I thought.

 

[Tim Vasquez]

I have not been able to read this Stormtrack thread in depth but tonight I found a good distillation of public perceptions of chasers in this MetaFilter thread here:

[URL]http://www.metafilter.com/115056/Wait-here-we-need-to-move-this-tornado-along[/url]

This summarizes where a lot of people are coming from on this issue and clarifies some good ways of addressing them.

Tim

 

[Mike Smith]

The Wichita Eagle's story is here: www.kansas.com/2012/04/19/2303524/growing-crowds-of-storm-chasers.html

 

[Rob H]

Add Fox News in the Minnesota market as well:

http://www.myfoxtwincities.com/dpps/news/storm-chasers-create-problems-dpgonc-20120420-fc_19305364

Surprisingly enough, Fox seems to have one of the more balanced articles out there on this topic, and had this great quote:

""Professional storm chasers I don't have a problem with," said Sheriff Glen Kochanowski of Saline County, Kan., where chasers caused several accidents last weekend by rear-ending each other. "What we had is a million and one gawkers. Just citizens trying to get that one shot that is going to get them their five minutes of fame."

 

[Mike Johnston]

It wouldn't surpise me at all if some committee of a state legislature holds hearings on this issue soon. Several years ago, there was discussion on here that perhaps chasers need to self-organize for this eventuality - perhaps forming some kind of self-regulatory organization. That idea seemed to go by the wayside; a general feeling that chasers are free-spirited folks and have no need to organize. At any rate, I could see some kind of laws being passed that, under certain conditions in certain areas, motorists would have to provide either media credentials, a spotter ID number, or evidence they are part of a valid research project. Enforcement would be difficult of course, but that's not to say law enforcement wouldn't try.

 

[Mike Smith]

Enforcement would be difficult of course, but that's not to say law enforcement wouldn't try.

The U.S. Supreme Court would likely toss that law 9-0. Here's why:

• The Court has ruled that photography in public places is legal. While there are certain exemptions (i.e., national security installations), photographing a storm doesn't fall into those categories.
• There is a right (yes, the Supreme Court has rule on this one, too) to travel.
• Storm chasing is interstate commerce that, under the Constitution, is regulated by Congress not the states.

What else is there to regulate? Running red lights? That is already illegal for anyone, including chasers.

None of this is to say a state won't pass a law. Just saying that it would never survive judicial review.

 

[Lee Smith-Whaley]

This quote bothers me. I've only heard of one accident. Suddenly it's several, granted I've not read the whole thread, but I've yet to see people mentioning several accidents that happened.

"Professional storm chasers I don't have a problem with," said Sheriff Glen Kochanowski of Saline County, Kan., where chasers caused several accidents last weekend by rear-ending each other.

Read more: Storm Chasers Create Problems, Delay Emergency Crews, Scientists http://www.myfoxtwincities.com/dpps...ems-dpgonc-20120420-fc_19305364#ixzz1sbApMGFA

http://www.myfoxtwincities.com/dpps/news/storm-chasers-create-problems-dpgonc-20120420-fc_19305364

Also before anyone says it, I think I was partially responsible for blocking the road once as mentioned in one of the articles. The reason was because there were power lines leaning across the road, and I was not going to drive over them, or under them at this spot. The photo posted has them circled because they are hard to see. Further down that road was a tree blocking the road which caused more problems. Both times the cause was not chaser induced, but did "slow up traffic", however emergency services would've been slowed anyways.

 

[Jake Orosi]

It wouldn't surpise me at all if some committee of a state legislature holds hearings on this issue soon. Several years ago, there was discussion on here that perhaps chasers need to self-organize for this eventuality - perhaps forming some kind of self-regulatory organization. That idea seemed to go by the wayside; a general feeling that chasers are free-spirited folks and have no need to organize. At any rate, I could see some kind of laws being passed that, under certain conditions in certain areas, motorists would have to provide either media credentials, a spotter ID number, or evidence they are part of a valid research project. Enforcement would be difficult of course, but that's not to say law enforcement wouldn't try.

Of course, and the government often doesn't "react" so much as "overreact" when they think they need to pass new legislation to address emergent problems. Everybody knows this. Certainly everyone here at least; which is why I can never understand why, anytime this issue is brought up (which is every year, evidently), so many people here would rather roll their eyes and stick their heads in the sand and "not my problem!" and "you can't tell me what to do!" and then whine and spit tacks whenever some exasperated LEOs hint at cracking down, instead of entertaining the notion of even trying to take some kind of proactive measure to protect the hobby they claim to love so much.

 

[Joshua Nall]

I believe that if you are on a storm and someone actually loses their life because of TRAFFIC, then you (yes YOU) must be willing to accept at least some of the responsibility for the loss of that life. The media, the public and the family of the victims will ask back the blood from those who were lost from any chaser who was there. And rightfully so. Because the truth is you didn't REALLY need to be there in the first place.

Traffic around storms is a part of life now, especially on big days. Just like traffic in Dallas is part of life in Dallas all the time. The day of the Dallas area tornadoes, I was convinced I had plenty of time to make it east of Dallas to catch storms firing ahead of the line. Storms surprised me by firing around lunch and I found myself on the N side of the metroplex. I decided the fastest way south was to… well, go south. I will NEVER try to go through Dallas again. At some point I decided I was crazy, turned around and headed in the opposite direction.

I can’t even imagine living there and all the problems associated with living in the midst of so many people. But, I’m not going to suggest a chaser shouldn’t be where ever he wants to be (within reason) any sooner than I would tell a motorists he shouldn’t drive through Dallas, as long as laws are obeyed. You might say one is necessary, the other is not. We can say that about anything. Why would we do anything are be a part of anything that causes disruption or in some round about way causes death? Because almost all of life does. It’s called “livingâ€.

You say we don't "need" to be there. There are only a very few needs in life. Again, we can say what you have said here about numerous activities. People don’t need to live in Dallas or drive there, but I’m glad they are free to do that. Just the air quality there at times has to be remotely associated with premature death. How about we as chasers ride bicycles to cut down on air pollution. People don’t “need†to drive at all for most of the things they drive for. But that wouldn’t be living. Sure wouldn’t be many storm chasers.

Storm chasing is part of my life. I’m out there because I want to be, period. Just like I would go out to the lake and photograph lightning when I was 20. It’s ALL about just being there, being in the moment, and capturing it on film… digital media now. I feel no need to justify it in any way. To know that some people feel they must come up with a need to be there, is unsettling. We are Americans, as has been said. Another option is to round up everyone, put them in a safe place, and control all their actions until all danger has past. Laws, regulations (even self regulation due to a hypersensitive conscience, or not wanting to be associated with something that in some way at some point might cause bad things), socialism, communism… they all look good on the surface, but the more of this there is, the less there is of living.

 

[Jesse Risley]

It wouldn't surpise me at all if some committee of a state legislature holds hearings on this issue soon. Several years ago, there was discussion on here that perhaps chasers need to self-organize for this eventuality - perhaps forming some kind of self-regulatory organization. That idea seemed to go by the wayside; a general feeling that chasers are free-spirited folks and have no need to organize. At any rate, I could see some kind of laws being passed that, under certain conditions in certain areas, motorists would have to provide either media credentials, a spotter ID number, or evidence they are part of a valid research project. Enforcement would be difficult of course, but that's not to say law enforcement wouldn't try.

What no one seems to have answered is why they think a law regulating chasing would be found necessary as opposed to legal 'harassment' for a litany of minor traffic violations. At some point the minority of storm chasers targeted for "paper whippings" by LEOs would grow, to the point that it wouldn't be financially worth it to venture into certain counties. At that juncture, there would be no need to waste time and resources passing legislation and enforcing it via roadblocks that only let "credentialed" citizens beyond a certain point in the vicinity of a storm, not to mention the likelihood, as Mike opined, that such legislation would be tossed as quickly as a higher court could issue a writ of certiorari on the first appeal.