February 6th, 2025
The Honorable Scott Fetgatter
2300 N. Lincoln Blvd., Room 455
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, 73105
Dear Representative Fetgatter:
My name is Mike Thornton and I am an Emergency Manager in the 63rd District. I am contacting you today to express my opposition to House Bill 2426, otherwise known as the Emergency Weather Response and Tracking Regulatory Act of 2025. I attended Rose State College where I majored in both Atmospheric Sciences and Emergency Management and have sat on Emergency Management boards in the past in both professional and academic capacities. Additionally, I have responded to multiple natural disasters around the state and in my county and helped those disasters become declared including, but not limited to DR-4706, DR-4721, and DR-4776.
I’d like to start at H.B. 2426, 60th Leg., 1st Sess. (Okla. 2025), lines 1–24 (definition of "Significant weather event") Representative Fetgatter, this section is filled with inaccurate information and should disqualify this bill. A Broadcast Meteorologist cannot legally issue a weather watch or warning. Under Title 15, Chapter 9 of the United States Code, the National Weather Service is a governmental agency that issues watches and warnings to protect lives and property. Nowhere in the United States Code does it mention a Broadcast Meteorologist being able to issue said watches or warnings, so why is it included in this bill?
In Oklahoma House Bill 2426, 1st Session of the 60th Legislature (2025), Section 5, Subsections A(2) and B the bill states that credentialed media chasers can legally use audio and warning lights during severe weather events and can “Travel upon roads, highways, and country roads closed by the Department of Transportation, Oklahoma Turnpike Authority, any city or county, or any law enforcement agency by reason of conditions triggered by the significant weather event.” Representative Fetgatter, this is highly irresponsible. Under 63 OK Stat § 683.11, which discusses the creation of Emergency Management in Oklahoma an Emergency Manager’s primary duty during a disaster is to coordinate response efforts, ensure public safety, and manage resources to protect lives and property. This includes restricting access to hazardous areas, facilitating emergency services, and preventing unnecessary risks to both responders and the public. A bill allowing media chasers into disaster zones contradicts these responsibilities by introducing untrained individuals into dangerous conditions, creating potential obstacles for emergency personnel and increasing the risk of additional casualties. Controlled access is critical to maintaining order and ensuring that life-saving operations are conducted efficiently.
According to the National Safety Council, the crash rate for emergency vehicles when responding to emergency calls without lights and sirens is 4.6 per 100,000 responses. When lights and sirens are used, the crash rate increases to 5.5 per 100,000 responses. Another study published by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration analyzing data from 2013 to 2018 found that 28% of fatal ambulance crashes occurred while lights and sirens were active. An analysis from the CDC of police vehicle crashes from 2005 to 2013 found that Law Enforcement Officers using their lights and sirens—were 1.3 times more likely to be involved in crashes compared to non-emergency driving. Representative Fetgatter, knowing these statistics, why would you knowingly allow inexperienced media chasers the ability to utilize warning lights and sirens?
Representative Fetgatter, I want you to imagine that a disaster occurred in the 16th District. Now imagine your residents being impacted by that disaster and they see vehicles with sirens and warning lights coming towards them. They’re going to think that it’s a public safety official who may be able to aid them. However, it turns out to be a media chaser who is there only to document damage for their respective TV Station. How do you think your citizens will feel about that? Over the past decade, I have witnessed this exact scenario, where a disaster happens and media chasers do not offer help, but rather they just sit by and document damage, often getting in the way of first responders. Under no circumstances, should those who have a history of driving dangerously be allowed to further their recklessness by being given equipment that mimics first responders and public safety officials and under no circumstances should these same media chasers be given the title of “emergency responder.”
Storm chasing is not and should not be considered an emergency responder position as storm chasing allows those who love weather the ability to document nature’s fury as a hobby, not respond to disasters.
I want to end my letter of opposition with some statistics. I am a storm chaser myself and I have chased storms for well over a decade. Since 1984, there have been 15 storm chasing-related fatalities, with only five of those being related to storms. It should be noted that between 1984 and 2005, only two fatalities occurred, both being vehicular accidents. However, since 2010, we have seen a significant increase in vehicle-related accidents and fatalities in the storm chasing community as the result of reckless drivers who knowingly blew stop signs and red lights or were distracted by their cell phone, radio, and or computer which led to an accident. I have known chasers who died and even caused serious accidents from these inattentive behaviors. Can you imagine if national news media picked up on an accident that was caused by a storm chaser being reckless and then they find out that those same chasers were using sirens and warning lights? You are opening yourself to vicarious liability.
I want to thank you for serving the people of Oklahoma and I truly hope that you will consider my opposition letter. I hope to hear from your office.
Thank you,
Michael Thornton
But enthusiast fits the bill these days.
