• Stormtrack's forum runs on Xenforo forum software, which will be undergoing a major update the evening of Wednesday, Feb 28th. The site may be down for a period while that update takes place.

Natural Selection Slips Up

Originally posted by Stuart Robinson
something does not ring true about that video - perhaps it is just me ...

I've seen it on a couple of cable networks I believe... They interviewed the driver, who said that the water just looked like the surface of the road. Pretty neat that the producer/reporter tried to help him out.
 
I wonder if there's an awkward silence when folks fly back in the US Coast Guard helicopters after being rescued on their rooftops in the mandatory evacuation locations... I know there are legitimate reasons why some folks could not leave the area (finances, etc) but there should have been little if any reason not to at least at least go to a shelter.

I think the gov't should fine folks who have to be rescued in this fashion. It probably costs a ton of money to fly helicopters around saving people who should have left in the first place. Why are we paying (tax money) for folks who refused to at least go to a shelter?
 
I think the gov't should fine folks who have to be rescued in this fashion.

I think some jurisdictions do with flash flood rescues. In principle it sounds quite fair and might save a few more lives. On the other hand, there are some people who are poor/disabled and can't even get transportation to a shelter... I think this was touched on on some of the blogs.

Tim
 
why do I get the feeling...

...that if the producer wouldn't have been there to help...that guy would be one of the fatalities? He didn't seem to be in too much of a hurry to get out of his car. My ass would have been out of the very quickly!
 
They interviewed the driver, who said that the water just looked like the surface of the road.

Sure it did :roll:

Did he not notice the fog lines and lane stripes just disappear, or the fact the median wall went from 4 feet high to non-existant? The big clue should have been that overpass 200 feet in front of him was about 6 feet off the "road" surface. That would get my attention.

He was moving at a good clip, and never hit the brakes.

What a clueless SOB.
 
This is from me...forgot to sign in.


They interviewed the driver, who said that the water just looked like the surface of the road.

Sure it did :roll:

Did he not notice the fog lines and lane stripes just disappear, or the fact the median wall went from 4 feet high to non-existant? The big clue should have been that overpass 200 feet in front of him was about 6 feet off the "road" surface. That would get my attention.

He was moving at a good clip, and never hit the brakes.

What a clueless SOB.
 
Ya I agree I would have been out of the car MUCH faster than he seemed to be. Its amazing that somebody acutally did something like that. Even more amazing that they got it on video.
 
I saw that clip on news media too, and came away with the impression that the guy was on the old side. That might explain the difficulty with which he appeared to climb out of the car, as well as the fact that he didn't see the water in front of him.

To his credit, in the interview with him that they aired, he said flat out, "It was a stupid thing to do, and I did it."
 
I wonder if there's an awkward silence when folks fly back in the US Coast Guard helicopters after being rescued on their rooftops in the mandatory evacuation locations... I know there are legitimate reasons why some folks could not leave the area (finances, etc) but there should have been little if any reason not to at least at least go to a shelter.

I think the gov't should fine folks who have to be rescued in this fashion. It probably costs a ton of money to fly helicopters around saving people who should have left in the first place. Why are we paying (tax money) for folks who refused to at least go to a shelter?

They paid their taxes too and made a mistake they will probably not make again. Now I have heard that some parts of Texas will fine you for driving through flash flood waters and needing a rescue in your car. Studies have shown that who evacuatees is strongly linked to income and it seems silly that after they have just died because they were poor and stayed behind to turn around and fine them. Im sure they have paid income tax before, sales tax, etc. A lot of people who have riden out previous Hurricanes unscathed are also likely to stay not knowing the difference in wind radai, mb such. This assumes that those people know what they are getting themselves into. That is not always the case. If people get caught in a thunderstorm and get flooded and need a helicopter rescue should they get fined because they were in an SPC high RISK?

You know I agree with the principal that most of these people made a decision to stay. But that decision is motivated by other factors non of which involve 'SUICIDE BY HURRICANE' and not need to punish them further for there mistake. I'd hate to be the person who enforced such a policy, would you fine someone who had just lost a loved one? Your right they should have gone to a shelter and im sure next time they will.
 
If people get caught in a thunderstorm and get flooded and need a helicopter rescue should they get fined because they were in an SPC high RISK?
There is NOT a MANDATORY EVACUATION in place for SPC High Risks. The probability of getting hit by a tornado, even during tornado outbreaks, is minimal. The probability of facing life-threatening conditions during a high-end hurricane and MANDATORY evacuation is SIGNIFICANT. Such a parallel between a High Risk and a mandatory evacuation (including the incredible anticipation of complete destruction) is non-existant IMO.

Scott, I realize that folks folks cannot AFFORD to gas up their vehicle, drive 400 miles, and stay at a hotel for days on end (not to mention food, etc). That is why I explicitly stated that folks should have at least gone to a shelter. If you can't afford the gas, hotel, etc, that's understandable. But at least drive the 10-30 miles to a shelter. Most shelters are designated as such because they have been deemed to be sufficiently-built to withstand the winds/floods expected during a particular event. IMO, there's little excuse to not at least go to a nearby shelter.
 
If people get caught in a thunderstorm and get flooded and need a helicopter rescue should they get fined because they were in an SPC high RISK?
There is NOT a MANDATORY EVACUATION in place for SPC High Risks. The probability of getting hit by a tornado, even during tornado outbreaks, is minimal. The probability of facing life-threatening conditions during a high-end hurricane and MANDATORY evacuation is SIGNIFICANT. Such a parallel between a High Risk and a mandatory evacuation (including the incredible anticipation of complete destruction) is non-existant IMO.

Scott, I realize that folks folks cannot AFFORD to gas up their vehicle, drive 400 miles, and stay at a hotel for days on end (not to mention food, etc). That is why I explicitly stated that folks should have at least gone to a shelter. If you can't afford the gas, hotel, etc, that's understandable. But at least drive the 10-30 miles to a shelter. Most shelters are designated as such because they have been deemed to be sufficiently-built to withstand the winds/floods expected during a particular event. IMO, there's little excuse to not at least go to a nearby shelter.

Your not just talking about people who know better, there are thousands of people who are elderly and disabled. Others have ridden out Hurricanes before and may have little sense of how each Hurricane and event is different. I don't know why you want to punish someone who has almost drowned. I know it is against all logic not to goto a shelter but in a city of hundreds of thousands there are many many unique cases.

Don't get me wrong Jeff I agree with you for the most part but not on giving out fines.
 
Your not just talking about people who know better, there are thousands of people who are elderly and disabled. Others have ridden out Hurricanes before and may have little sense of how each Hurricane and event is different. I don't know why you want to punish someone who has almost drowned. I know it is against all logic not to goto a shelter but in a city of hundreds of thousands there are many many unique cases.

Of the rescues I've seen on media coverage, non have appeared to have been folks who are elderly or disabled. Yes, I'm sure there are lots of folks who fit that case, but let's be real -- there were tons of folks who just didn't think it would happen to them. Despite the warnings, the unprecented language from city officials (and meteorologists), and so forth, many folks just didn't think it would happen to them.

Also, this isn't a "punishment". Why not just stop giving tickets to old people who are pulled over for speeding? Why punish the elderly for traffic violations? I'm not a mean person -- I'm not saying these folks should be tarred and feathered! A fine to recoup the costs incurred by these rescues isn't unreasonable IMO.

EDIT: Realistically and practically, this wouldn't work... There's no way to group those who physically couldn't leave versus those who had the capability to leave but chose not to. This is more of an argument on pricinple. In addition, for those who lost everything, they literally have no money to pay such a fee. So, again, this is more of principle argument than anything else. It's a disastrous event, and I certainly feel for those who have perished or those who have lost everything they have.
 
Your not just talking about people who know better, there are thousands of people who are elderly and disabled. Others have ridden out Hurricanes before and may have little sense of how each Hurricane and event is different. I don't know why you want to punish someone who has almost drowned. I know it is against all logic not to goto a shelter but in a city of hundreds of thousands there are many many unique cases.

Of the rescues I've seen on media coverage, non have appeared to have been folks who are elderly or disabled. Yes, I'm sure there are lots of folks who fit that case, but let's be real -- there were tons of folks who just didn't think it would happen to them. Despite the warnings, the unprecented language from city officials (and meteorologists), and so forth, many folks just didn't think it would happen to them.

Also, this isn't a "punishment". Why not just stop giving tickets to old people who are pulled over for speeding? Why punish the elderly for traffic violations? I'm not a mean person -- I'm not saying these folks should be tarred and feathered! A fine to recoup the costs incurred by these rescues isn't unreasonable IMO.

EDIT: Realistically and practically, this wouldn't work... There's no way to group those who physically couldn't leave versus those who had the capability to leave but chose not to. This is more of an argument on pricinple.

Thats right lots of folks who didn't think it would happen to them. Despite the madatory evacuations. People don't think it would happen to them so why fine them when they are in a life threatning situation? The last thing I would want for someone in that situation is worrying about a fine. Which may sound ridiclouis but to someone who is poor may be something to think twice about. Those trips are very expensive as you know. I don't know how you can say that an SPC HIGH RISK isn't applicable and then make an analogy to old people speeding lol im not sure either of those apply. Some people are very attached to their homes and feel safe in them. Your certainly entitled to your opinion but im not for fines in these situations. They have paid there taxes like everyone else and if it just a matter of teaching them a lesson I think if they need a helicopter to rescue them they have learned that lesson from the shear terror of nature I doubt a fine would do much good to anything. And I doubt they could pay a fine of thousands of dollars after loosing their homes.

I agree it mostly comes down to principal. I certainly don't have any say in the matter if they do indeed decide to do it. I just hope that they excerise selectivity if this happens. I think the praticality factor is real as im not sure how they would ascertain such information, through questioning, would some people lie? At least we can agree that those who stayed
at home made a very bad decision.
 
Hindsight is great, and many of us have special knowledge and respect for the power and destructiveness of hurricanes and tornados. I'd just like to suggest that it's not a happy, self-evident, or easy choice to evacuate when evacuation means "get out of town right now and don't come back for a few months and good luck taking care of yourself -- have a nice day." Quoting Darwin may be satisfying to some, but how many of us would have an easy time with this when faced with a conjecture of disaster, not a certainty?

Where are the "refugee camps" set up to provide for the displaced? The Superdome???? That's a joke by other than Third World standards. EM's hospital evacuation "plan" was apparently to move everything to the Superdome right along with everything else. The hospital staff is obviously viewing this as a rather lousy option.

Sorry if I'm just a little upset. Maybe the oil companies could kick in just a little of their windfall profits (no pun intended) to help the populations in need that support their gulf coast infrastructure.
 
Jeff Snyder wrote:
They interviewed the driver, who said that the water just looked like the surface of the road.


Sure it did

Did he not notice the fog lines and lane stripes just disappear, or the fact the median wall went from 4 feet high to non-existant? The big clue should have been that overpass 200 feet in front of him was about 6 feet off the "road" surface. That would get my attention.

He was moving at a good clip, and never hit the brakes.

What a clueless SOB.

Scary thing is we have those types driving amongst us every day and many often cause serious harm to others.
 
Where are the "refugee camps" set up to provide for the displaced?
Ummm... perhaps you didn't notice that the evacuation wasn't ordered until less than 24 hours from landfall. I guess all your "special knowledge" doesn't include the time and logistics involved in setting up a "refugee camp."

Regardless, you are wrong. There are dozens such camps all along the coast housing tens of thousands of refugees. Now what is your solution to now getting people to these camps on roads which no longer exist.
 
These are people who have lost absolutely EVERYTHING and most didn't have much to begin with. How to you propose that they pay the "fine" that you suggest? I, as a tax payer from Louisiana, have paid many taxes to assist those who were victims of volcanos, earthquakes, floods, fires, riots in California, and any crisis were FEMA and other Federal Agencies were involved. Also for victims of tragedies in other countries where US Federal Aid was provided and the like - those people on the roof tops of their homes are taxpayers too. There was a report of a 90 year old woman whose daughter contacted a local news station prior to the hurricane. She, along with her family and mother lived in New Orleans and they were on vacation in Europe - her mother stayed behind. The older woman was a bit senile and the daughter was trying to contact Emergency Preparedness Offices to get someone to her home to evacuate the woman - I do not know if they were able to reach her before the storm made landfall. There are many different situations which caused people to stay and whether or not it was by chance or choice - these people SHOULD NOT be penalized because of a mistake (albeit a large misake) in judgement. If penalties were issued for all mistakes in judgement I am sure everyone would have to fork over some cash.



"Also, this isn't a "punishment". Why not just stop giving tickets to old people who are pulled over for speeding? Why punish the elderly for traffic violations? I'm not a mean person -- I'm not saying these folks should be tarred and feathered! A fine to recoup the costs incurred by these rescues isn't unreasonable IMO."

Traffic Violations are considered offenses to standing law regarding speed limits, etc. People who receive tickets have broken the law. The people trapped on their roof tops and in their attics have broken no laws they have only used poor judgement.

The comparison of these people to those who have broken the law is not a sensible comparison. However, if we catch anyone speeding in their boats on their way to rescue those whose lives are on the line or to collect bodies floating in the water- we will be sure to remember your comments and issue tickets when necessary - geez! Have some compassion! This is a very bad situation and many people are DEAD (I suppose that their families should be subject to fines on belhalf of their deceased realtive(s) for poor judgement and in order to "recoup" the costs of collecting the bodies too?)- the media hasn't even begun to report the number of dead in Southeast Louisiana. This includes areas of New Orleans, St. Bernard Parish, Lower Plaquemines Parish, etc. There are many areas that have not even been reached by boat. The death toll is also rising in parts of Mississippi. I apologize for the sarcasm, but it really upsets me to see others being critical of those who are in dire need and have lost EVERYTHING!!!!
 
Sam,

Please do not make me sound like an animal. Of course it's a horrendous disaster, and as I said, I do feel very bad for the folks who have lost everything that had. But these folks were still under a mandatory evacuation order, living in a city that is below sea level, in an area of high hurricane activity. Nearly everyone has known that NO was a sitting disaster. Again, I do have compassion for these people, so please don't make me out to be a monster of some sort. There were undoubtedly many, many people who left, those who may have spent everything else they had, to evacuate as ordered. AS I've said many times above, this is more of a comment in regards to those who could, but chose not to, leave. Now that I've expressed my opinions, I'll stop posting in this thread LOL../
 
[sarcasm again ignored in interest of new Sx2]

Yes, exactly. There was apparently IMO almost no advance planning or preparations for long-term handling of the large numbers of households who would be displaced from this widely-anticipated disaster. I recall reports that EM gamed these scenarios and should have been able to prepare. I don't see much indication that New Orleans' thinking extended beyond the Superdome.

Heck, in Phoenix I happen to know we've got multi-agency contingency plans in place for dispersal and encampments in the event of a large-scale emergency evacuation. The prototype scenario BTW is a breach of the Salt River dams that would inundate over 100k households within about eight hours. The location where I'm writing this would be under something like 50' of water at T=6 hours, as I recall. Part of the homeland security planning most urban areas have been doing in the last few years.
 
And it is your belief that those plans will go quickly and flawlessly and meet every possible contingency? Get real.
 
Guess if we had to pay fines for each time we were stupid we would all be broke.
 
Back
Top