• After witnessing the continued decrease of involvement in the SpotterNetwork staff in serving SN members with troubleshooting issues recently, I have unilaterally decided to terminate the relationship between SpotterNetwork's support and Stormtrack. I have witnessed multiple users unable to receive support weeks after initiating help threads on the forum. I find this lack of response from SpotterNetwork officials disappointing and a failure to hold up their end of the agreement that was made years ago, before I took over management of this site. In my opinion, having Stormtrack users sit and wait for so long to receive help on SpotterNetwork issues on the Stormtrack forums reflects poorly not only on SpotterNetwork, but on Stormtrack and (by association) me as well. Since the issue has not been satisfactorily addressed, I no longer wish for the Stormtrack forum to be associated with SpotterNetwork.

    I apologize to those who continue to have issues with the service and continue to see their issues left unaddressed. Please understand that the connection between ST and SN was put in place long before I had any say over it. But now that I am the "captain of this ship," it is within my right (nay, duty) to make adjustments as I see necessary. Ending this relationship is such an adjustment.

    For those who continue to need help, I recommend navigating a web browswer to SpotterNetwork's About page, and seeking the individuals listed on that page for all further inquiries about SpotterNetwork.

    From this moment forward, the SpotterNetwork sub-forum has been hidden/deleted and there will be no assurance that any SpotterNetwork issues brought up in any of Stormtrack's other sub-forums will be addressed. Do not rely on Stormtrack for help with SpotterNetwork issues.

    Sincerely, Jeff D.

New Texas Law - No Wireless in School Zones

Because the government telling us what to do is really what we want? Personally I would rather they leave the decision up to me on whether or not I'd like to be reckless. If I caused injuries in an accident, though, I would expect there to be some pretty harsh penalties.

As has already been said, the Government is there to govern, and if that means enforcing laws to protect people, then that's what they should do.
 
I may open up a huge can of worms here, but I am going to respond anyway.

Speaking from the point of view that Ben has (we seem to share a lot of the same views in regard to government), I don't believe that we need anymore "Nanny State" laws either. People have long been capable of taking care of themselves, and just because you outlaw something doesn't mean it still won't happen on occasion. It's just another way to collect revenue, just line every other fine based law out there. Has it stopped or significantly cut down on the problem? In most cases, the answer is no. We have this inherent belief amongst ourselves that we always seem to know what is best for other people, and often times, we seem to think that people as a collective are inherently ignorant, and I'm not sure that is a good way to think about our fellow man.

That being said, I do agree with the premise of the law. A school zone is in fact government property (along with state and federally maintained highways), which they are responsible for the upkeep and safety of. If you were to hit a child in a school zone, yes, you would be criminally negligent, but, with today's "sue everyone and ask questions later" philosophy, I might be inclined to think that this might be a preemptive move to mitigate some civil risk in the matter as well. After all, the government puts crosswalks in that guarantee our children are safe to cross, so what happens when they can't meet that guarantee?

I have no problem with this law, because if you want to get down to a crude, brass tacks comparison here, a "school zone", or the road and highway network is part of the government's house, and I'd abide by those rules just as I would expect someone to abide by the rules of my house. When I turn into my driveway, or private property, the "nanny state" laws should go right out the window ;)
 
Laws

Until recently it was illegal to have anything like a TV in the view of the driver of a vehicle in Kansas including computers. With more and more car companies adding GPS screens and other things that law was relaxed some what. It might have even been revoked completely but not 100% sure since I have been out of law enforcement for a couple years. Honestly if the storm is approaching a town that a school is in I am sure that the LEO are going to be more worried about other things then stopping people to give them tickets for using a wireless or any other device in a school zone. I know when we would have a storm approaching the city or for that matter the county that we are in we would be in our spotter positions and were told not to be stopping vehicles unless it was a major offense. It is never a good idea to be texting, dialing or looking at a computer screen while driving especially in town due to the fact that it does take your focus off of the road but TV has shown so many people doing it in chases and other things that people just regularly do it. I know I am guilty of doing things like that myself. I am looking for a partner to chase with for that reason (also to help me learn more in forecasting). If I am driving and see something interesting I pull off to look or if I am needing to check something on my phone for updates on weather I pull off the road. Plus cops are some of the worst people about driving around texting, talking and looking at other things in the vehicle that normally people get in trouble for doing.
 
We do have some training. I know some departments have more then others. The police academy here gives you at least a week of training for emergency driving. I know the KHP gets more and there are a lot of training that is out there for officers to take.
 
Back
Top