County Officials Critical of Storm Chasers

[Sean Ramsey]

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.

If either one of these things happened it would suck for us all. With chasing growing and growing, some of us here are seeing where it could reach a tipping point and would like to prevent that if at all possible.

 

[rdale]

But again you are talking about 300 chasers on a storm and 3 deputies. They can write up a total of 3 cars in 5 minutes, and if the storm is in the area they'll be off dealing with a disaster. If the 1% chance exists of you getting a ticket for a broken taillight or running a stop sign, either don't go there, fix your taillight, or stop at the sign.

 

[Todd Renshaw]

... 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.

Isn't Stormtrack itself an attempt (at least in part) to be proactive on issues like safe driving, responsibility and chaser etiquette? Some of us just don't feel the certification or road-blocking or cracking-down ideas are even workable.

What may help, (but still won't fix the whole problem), are the more mundane acts of reaching out to others, one-on-one and attempting to change behavior. How could we reach more people? I don't know. If a lot of people seem to be getting the idea to chase because of the local media coverage or The Weather Channel, maybe they could issue a plea for their viewers to stay out of the way. I don't know. I have no brilliant "magic bullet" ideas that will fix everything.

 

[Jesse Risley]

But again you are talking about 300 chasers on a storm and 3 deputies. They can write up a total of 3 cars in 5 minutes, and if the storm is in the area they'll be off dealing with a disaster. If the 1% chance exists of you getting a ticket for a broken taillight or running a stop sign, either don't go there, fix your taillight, or stop at the sign.

This is exactly where the chasing community does have at least one advantage, regardless of whatever legal avenues are pursued, assuming that this continues to be viewed as a burgeoning problem.

 

[rdale]

If a lot of people seem to be getting the idea to chase because of the local media coverage or The Weather Channel, maybe they could issue a plea for their viewers to stay out of the way. I don't know.

I think it's a great attempt, but think about what this implies.

"We want your video, we'll air it with your name if you send it, but please don't go out chasing. And if you do, and there is a fire truck behind you with lights and sirens, pull over. Then send us your video, which you shouldn't have done but who cares as long as it looks good."

 

[Todd Renshaw]

I think it's a great attempt, but think about what this implies.

"We want your video, we'll air it with your name if you send it, but please don't go out chasing. And if you do, and there is a fire truck behind you with lights and sirens, pull over. Then send us your video, which you shouldn't have done but who cares as long as it looks good."

What was I thinking?!

 

[Rob H]

I think it's a great attempt, but think about what this implies.

"We want your video, we'll air it with your name if you send it, but please don't go out chasing. And if you do, and there is a fire truck behind you with lights and sirens, pull over. Then send us your video, which you shouldn't have done but who cares as long as it looks good."

Is it just me, or does it seem like TWC will only purchase video if there isn't a free source available - even if the free source is a 2nd gen iPhone with a cracked lens and drool all over it? If TWC relies greatly on their iWitness program (http://iwitness.weather.com/) then they're possibly a bigger part of the problem than most people acknowledge. I'd love to hear what EMs think about this strategy of theirs - that they're basically asking untrained people to try and get video of dangerous events so they can get 5 seconds of TV fame.

 

[rdale]

I'd love to hear what EMs think about this strategy of theirs - that they're basically asking untrained people to try and get video of dangerous events so they can get 5 seconds of TV fame.

I will put my EM hat on and tell you... EMs don't worry about it. There's nothing that can be done, if it isn't TWC it's at least YouTube, so let it lie.

 

[Sean Ramsey]

Is it just me, or does it seem like TWC will only purchase video if there isn't a free source available - even if the free source is a 2nd gen iPhone with a cracked lens and drool all over it? If TWC relies greatly on their iWitness program (http://iwitness.weather.com/) then they're possibly a bigger part of the problem than most people acknowledge. I'd love to hear what EMs think about this strategy of theirs - that they're basically asking untrained people to try and get video of dangerous events so they can get 5 seconds of TV fame.

Totally agree. I know the one of the first things they ask for on the local news here is "We want you to send us your pics or video of today's severe weather at ....". Of course, this would be requested after a lengthy segment about chaser convergence.

 

[rdale]

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.

Not much balance in the video... Talk of the hurricane that hit Woodward, and the "macabre end of civilization as we know it" since people are now chasing killer events.

http://online.wsj.com/video/tornado...rts/51AE7F6E-FBD5-4402-ACBD-11E6168950E3.html

 

[Jake Orosi]

Is it just me, or does it seem like TWC will only purchase video if there isn't a free source available - even if the free source is a 2nd gen iPhone with a cracked lens and drool all over it? If TWC relies greatly on their iWitness program (http://iwitness.weather.com/) then they're possibly a bigger part of the problem than most people acknowledge. I'd love to hear what EMs think about this strategy of theirs - that they're basically asking untrained people to try and get video of dangerous events so they can get 5 seconds of TV fame.

To be fair, by far the most "iWitness" videos TWC features seem to be the "taken out my front/back door"-type clips, followed by news clips. I've very rarely seen "chaser-style" footage in their iWitness segments. By rarely I mean I haven't seen a single such clip, although of course I don't watch TWC all day long.

I often see chaser clips in their documentary shows, of course.

 

[Rob H]

edit: Removed my post. I don't want to start a derail on TWC. I'll just say that if they are part of the problem, there's no reason they should be considered untouchable and left out of the conversation.

VVV no, and that's why I removed most of my post. You're right in that even if the articles this week slammed TWC for encouraging locals to go out and get video, instead of blaming chasers - nothing would change. Even if TWC wasn't around, it's part of our culture now to try and capture amazing events on put them up on Facebook and Youtube.

 

[rdale]

You can touch them. But you and I both know their bread and butter is breaking news video. That's what keeps the coffers full. Do you think there is ANYTHING that can happen on the ST forum which would lead them to end that philosophy?

 

[John Farley]

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.

Except for the headline.

 

[John Farley]

But again you are talking about 300 chasers on a storm and 3 deputies. They can write up a total of 3 cars in 5 minutes, and if the storm is in the area they'll be off dealing with a disaster. If the 1% chance exists of you getting a ticket for a broken taillight or running a stop sign, either don't go there, fix your taillight, or stop at the sign.

But Rob, all they have to do to ruin your chase and mine is block the road. And the more we get in their way, the more likely that is to happen. At the least it makes sense to me for chasers to try to avoid areas where big traffic jams are under way or appear likely. This certainly is one thing I take into consideration if I'm considering chasing on a predicted big day in KS or OK. For me, it's just not wanting to get stuck in a massive traffic jam, potentially with a tornado bearing down, but in the bigger picture, we can all help to avoid restrictions on chasing (even if just in the form of roadblocks) by trying not to create or be part of big traffic jams. Besides, I spend enough time in traffic jams as it is without chasing, LOL!