Oklahoma Weather Tracking Licensure Legislation

[Randy Jennings]

A significant addition to the bill? A carve-out for "private research" activities

I found that interesting too, but that is mainly what I was talking about when I said the bill has technical problems.

The proposed floor mod adds the following definition:

"1. "Field research team" shall mean a privately funded research team in the field of meteorology and sanctioned by a Doctor or principle researcher of the National Science Foundation or National Institute of Science and Technology;"

There are a couple of problems with that definition. First I am not aware of NSF or NIST "sanctioning" research, they fund it with grants, which would make it at least partially public funded. Although I suppose someone with a NSF of NIST grant could have a side private project. It seems like the intent here is to open it up to NSF and NIST projects not tied to OK public universities, but they did a very poor job of it. They also don't understand the difference between principle and principal.

But the problem is worse than than definition. A person on a "field research team" is likely not eligible to get a license because of the poor drafting of the rest of the bill. That definition is only used in one other place:

"D. Any professional severe weather tracker who is a member of a field research team as defined in Section 2 of this act and is led by an individual who has received his or her Doctorate of Meteorology shall be eligible to apply for a license authorized in this subsection."

The problem is "professional severe weather tracker" is a defined term that means:

"2. "Professional severe weather tracker" shall mean a licensed individual or company hired or contracted via a qualified media outlet, or in a reserve role of up to two (2) years of inactivity with a qualified media outlet, or is affiliated with a research program at a qualified institution for higher education;"

Note that "qualified institution for higher education" is also a defined term that means:

"any college or university regulated by the Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education who offers a course or program in meteorology, including federal or state research programs in the field of severe weather, which shall include vehicles gathering atmospheric conditions and radar vehicles;"

When you substitute all of those defined terms with what they mean, it could be very hard for a "privately funded research team" to get a license.

So what does this all mean? In my experience it could mean that the amendment author is:
a) Clueless,
b) Sloppy, and/or
c) Trying to pull the wool over someone's eyes.

While any (or multiple of these) could be true, my experience tells me that most likely this amendment was written by an outsider (the person who is pushing the bill) and they are clueless and sloppy in how bill language works. It is highly likely that the draft was reviewed by a very junior member of the Rep's staff (likely an intern) and even if more senior staff and the Rep noticed these issues, they didn't have time to correct (nor did they care - it is all about making the person pushing for it happy).

 

[Randy Jennings]

You need to read page 11, Line 19: 2. (Licensed chasers only) Travel upon roads, highways, and county roads closed by the Department of Transportation, the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority, any city or county, or any law enforcement agency by reason of conditions triggered by the significant weather event.

This means LE or DOT can close any road for any reason and only let the licensed chasers pass.

You are correct that this bill will disrupt traffic flow, which is why I still oppose it. As for LE or DOT closing roads, my guess is this law will not change LEO behavior here. LE can now, and already has in a few cases, closed roads in response to storms before they hit an area. The only thing this bill changes in this regard is that licensed PSWTs can go past the closure unless the LEO believes their is a grave a risk for the life and safety of the PSWT. In reality some LEO already let the media thru (but not the rest of us), so for average chasers, not much changes here. Although I do understand that not all media will be able to be licensed and they will likely have a harder time getting past closures now and I hate they are trying to split media into classes. My experience is that 99.9999% of road closures are 30 minutes of more after a storm hits an area. At that point if you are trying to get past a road block, you are either a damage chaser or a really late storm chaser who likely will never catch the storm anyway.

Another silver lining to this is the use of the term "significant weather event" which by definition in the proposed floor mod can only be a confirmed tornado, a red flag fire warning issued by NWS or Oklahoma Forestry Services, or a "flash flood warning or flood warning issued by the NOAA National Weather Service Storm Prediction Center" (the later of which will never happen because SPC doesn't issue warnings). The good news here is that a tornado watch or even tornado warning radar indicated no longer trigger this section (and yet another example of the clueless/sloppy nature of the bill).

Having said that, I do agree that this is a slippery slope. My guess could be wrong. If LEO take a new approach and start closing roads ahead of the storm, we could have some major impacts to chasing.

 

[Jeff Smith]

Here is my letters to my state rep and senator:

Good afternoon.

I have read the proposed bill’s latest amendment and have to say this bill is still something that I still oppose as a veteran storm chaser, spotter and volunteer Emergency Coordinator for ARES (Amateur Radio Emergency Services).

Here is the rundown on how a tornado warning is issued.
The National Weather Service (not the storm prediction center as the bill incorrectly states) looks at radar, gathers information from spotters (whom could be impacted by “professional storm chasers” trying to get the shot for their TV station), and then decides to issue a warning. This triggers the TV stations then to go wall to wall for the duration of the warning (continuous coverage). If these “professional storm chasers” are blocking roads (happens regularly now anyway) then spotters are hampered from reporting valuable ground truth data to the NWS. This in turn hampers their ability on deciding whether or not to issue a warning.

The revision states that the professional storm chasers will be able to run stop signs (after stopping), speed, do U-turns and even drive against the flow of traffic in order to “keep up with the storm” which is a pseudonym for “get the shot”. While ludicrous(and illegal), this behavior is already taking place on many storm days by these same chasers. I’ll cite The Weather Channel’s storm chasers blasting a stop sign in Texas in 2017, killing two of their chasers and an amateur chaser/spotter.

https://www.npr.org/2019/03/27/707145925/the-weather-channel-sued-for-125-million-over-death-in-storm-chase-collision

So this bill will only further enable this behavior by making legal the obvious disregard for the law that is already occurring.

Attached is a diagram by Dan Robinson, a well known Storm chasers that I have personally known for decades showing the sources of tornado reports. Note the media is dead last in reporting tornadoes. Feel free to share my concerns and thoughts.

(I attached Dan's diagram here)

Thanks,

Jeff Smith

 

[gdlewen]

Here is my letters to my state rep and senator:

Good afternoon.

I have read the proposed bill’s latest amendment and have to say this bill is still something that I still oppose as a veteran storm chaser, spotter and volunteer Emergency Coordinator for ARES (Amateur Radio Emergency Services).

Here is the rundown on how a tornado warning is issued.
The National Weather Service (not the storm prediction center as the bill incorrectly states) looks at radar, gathers information from spotters (whom could be impacted by “professional storm chasers” trying to get the shot for their TV station), and then decides to issue a warning. This triggers the TV stations then to go wall to wall for the duration of the warning (continuous coverage). If these “professional storm chasers” are blocking roads (happens regularly now anyway) then spotters are hampered from reporting valuable ground truth data to the NWS. This in turn hampers their ability on deciding whether or not to issue a warning.

The revision states that the professional storm chasers will be able to run stop signs (after stopping), speed, do U-turns and even drive against the flow of traffic in order to “keep up with the storm” which is a pseudonym for “get the shot”. While ludicrous(and illegal), this behavior is already taking place on many storm days by these same chasers. I’ll cite The Weather Channel’s storm chasers blasting a stop sign in Texas in 2017, killing two of their chasers and an amateur chaser/spotter.

https://www.npr.org/2019/03/27/707145925/the-weather-channel-sued-for-125-million-over-death-in-storm-chase-collision

So this bill will only further enable this behavior by making legal the obvious disregard for the law that is already occurring.

Attached is a diagram by Dan Robinson, a well known Storm chasers that I have personally known for decades showing the sources of tornado reports. Note the media is dead last in reporting tornadoes. Feel free to share my concerns and thoughts.

(I attached Dan's diagram here)

Thanks,

Jeff Smith

This is good and demonstrates how little the bill-writer knows about the subject. I wonder if we shouldn't all get a commission as technical advisors, since every time we post language problems we help them re-write the bill.

I agree we have to point out the flaws in the bill because we are trying to show how poorly-written it is, and hope to pursuade them to vote against it.

My understanding is a lobbyist wrote the bill. He got paid to write garbage and we have been paid nothing to pretty-up that pig.

 

[Warren Faidley]

The bill is written in a manner that "Emergency Vehicles" could be re-added w/o any problem. As long as LE can block any road and sort chasers as "professional" and "amateurs," I'm going to have a serious problem with the bill. As previously noted, the momentum to defeat this bill has gone down the tubes. I'm hoping other chasers will come on board, but I'm not holding my breath.

 

[Steve Holmes]

Requires the Super Duper Storm Trackers (SDSTs) to use flashing greens and yellows in order to obtain any extra privileges

What the hell is the public supposed to make of yellow and green flashing lights? I've never seen them anywhere. Is this a new thing in OK?

That may be the biggest safety threat in all this: Confusion about what we're supposed to do when we see greens and yellows in our rear views. Easy to see a collision happening when a driver thinks he's supposed to pull over and the guy behind him doesn't.

I have a strong suspicion that they will start blocking key highways for the sole purpose of parting the sea for the SDSTs,

What, in general, is the relationship between the media and LE in OK? Based on how the media is perceived in general, I'd be surprised if the cops did the SDSTs any favors, unless it was strongly mandated from above. If anything, I'd expect them to drag their heels complying.

 

[Dave C]

So what does this all mean? In my experience it could mean that the amendment author is:
a) Clueless,
b) Sloppy, and/or
c) Trying to pull the wool over someone's eyes.

While any (or multiple of these) could be true, my experience tells me that most likely this amendment was written by an outsider (the person who is pushing the bill) and they are clueless and sloppy in how bill language works. It is highly likely that the draft was reviewed by a very junior member of the Rep's staff (likely an intern) and even if more senior staff and the Rep noticed these issues, they didn't have time to correct (nor did they care - it is all about making the person pushing for it happy).

I read it the same way. All revisions have seemed not to pursue any genuine compromise, but just more word spin targeted at two goals:
1) appearing to listen and accomodate while actually building a more definitive legal subtext for banning/blocking amateurs from roadways
2) continually modifying the special group to include people the bill sponsors deem worthy to have these magical powers (no threat to their money or glory) or whom will support the bill passage.

This really is one of the most revolting things I have seen in a while. Still a bit shocked that so many in OK legislature can be either so ignorant as to miss how obviously wrong this idea is, or they are in on it.

 

[gdlewen]

I read it the same way. All revisions have seemed not to pursue any genuine compromise, but just more word spin targeted at two goals:
1) appearing to listen and accomodate while actually building a more definitive legal subtext for banning/blocking amateurs from roadways
2) continually modifying the special group to include people the bill sponsors deem worthy to have these magical powers (no threat to their money or glory) or whom will support the bill passage.

This really is one of the most revolting things I have seen in a while. Still a bit shocked that so many in OK legislature can be either so ignorant as to miss how obviously wrong this idea is, or they are in on it.

I cannot describe how disappointed* I am in our state House that this bill was even heard in committee, much less make it to the floor.

* Actually “disgusted” is a better word.

 

[Randy Jennings]

I'm hoping other chasers will come on board, but I'm not holding my breath.

Warren - thank you for all your work on fighting this. It takes an army, with different styles, to defeat this.

If we are going to win this fight and stop this bad bill entirely, we have got to figure out how to expand the outrage beyond just chasers. The people who benefit from this (TV media) started by telling the members of the OK legislature that "amateur" chasers are the problem and this bill would "fix" the problem. Overcoming that will take chasers and more.

 

[Randy Zipser]

Warren - thank you for all your work on fighting this. It takes an army, with different styles, to defeat this.

If we are going to win this fight and stop this bad bill entirely, we have got to figure out how to expand the outrage beyond just chasers. The people who benefit from this (TV media) started by telling the members of the OK legislature that "amateur" chasers are the problem and this bill would "fix" the problem. Overcoming that will take chasers and more.

Here's an idea from Florida's playbook: get big, national automobile insurers involved in this fight. They have lots of money, enormous clout, unlimited advertising and marketing budgets, and waaay too many lawyers on their side when it comes to claims.

The idea is to inform all major auto insurance companies doing business in Oklahoma that if this bill passes, there will be far more automobile accidents due directly to the risky driving "privileges" given to the TV crews, and as a direct result, every OK resident who owns an automobile and drives on OK roads will now have to pay a higher premium immediately because of the increased actuarial risk to being on Oklahoma roads because of this law. Of course, the naysayers will say that since severe storms occur in Oklahoma only a handful of days out of the three-month tornado season each year, the change in actuarial risk would prove to be negligible over the course of an annual premium cycle, but--if Florida is any example--they would be dead wrong! In a typical year, Florida may have one or two major hurricanes, totaling perhaps two weeks of time or less over the peninsula, yet the auto (and property) insurance rates remain painfully high during the remaining 50 weeks out of the year when the weather is tranquil. The same thing will happen in Oklahoma...everyone's auto insurance will go up and remain high forever afterwords...because the big insurance companies have figured out that they have a "cash cow" in any state or region routinely associated with a natural disaster. Mark my word: that will happen in Oklahoma just like it has already happened in Florida and California!

When Oklahoma residents figure out that their car insurance will go up (maybe even a lot), they're going to be pissed, and they are going to take out their frustrations on--guess who?--the same state lawmakers who caused this mess to become law in the first place! From the standpoint of the insurance company, OK state lawmakers have now added additional risk to drivers in their state (beyond the already-existing natural disaster potential risk) and now everyone must pay more or they'll "pull up stakes" and leave the state's insurance market, which will only drive the premiums even higher over time (this also has taken place in Florida and California).

So, it's your choice, Oklahoma drivers, kill this asinine bill now or pay a whole lot more for your auto insurance later...

 

[Randy Zipser]

An afterthought. I don't know how OK state government is set up; however, if Oklahoma has a "Department of Insurance" or a State Insurance Commissioner, it would save a lot of time to go directly to that office or individual to enlist help for our opposing side in this fight. This would be much quicker and easier than trying to notify multiple insurance companies individually, especially since many of those may be headquartered out-of-state. Time is critical and short at this (late) stage of the legislative process.

I'd suggest that one or two of our OK-resident posters compose a written document on behalf of the ?-hundred members of StormTrack.org that explains our united position about concern that if this bill becomes law, everyone's vehicle insurance will increase, based upon research of findings from other states (e.g., FL, CA?) which have added to potential driving risk factors for some or all of its residents. As responsible drivers as well as storm-chasers who are residents of OK, we seek your help in keeping our auto insurance premiums as low as possible and would appreciate your conveying to the legislators our concerns [as described in my previous post] in an official capacity. Thank you, (name), StormTrack. org Membership.

Something to that effect. If you're in or close to the OKC area, maybe even hand-deliver this document to make it a more personable experience with the insurance-office staff or maybe even meet with one of the "big shots" in that office. Couldn't hurt, as appearance and effort are everything in making an impression.

I'll be happy to help from afar if needed, just let me know...

 

[Randy Zipser]

An afterthought. I don't know how OK state government is set up; however, if Oklahoma has a "Department of Insurance" or a State Insurance Commissioner, it would save a lot of time to go directly to that office or individual to enlist help for our opposing side in this fight. This would be much quicker and easier than trying to notify multiple insurance companies individually, especially since many of those may be headquartered out-of-state. Time is critical and short at this (late) stage of the legislative process.

I'd suggest that one or two of our OK-resident posters compose a written document on behalf of the ?-hundred members of StormTrack.org that explains our united position about concern that if this bill becomes law, everyone's vehicle insurance will increase, based upon research of findings from other states (e.g., FL, CA?) which have added to potential driving risk factors for some or all of its residents. As responsible drivers as well as storm-chasers who are residents of OK, we seek your help in keeping our auto insurance premiums as low as possible and would appreciate your conveying to the legislators our concerns [as described in my previous post] in an official capacity. Thank you, (name), StormTrack. org Membership.

Something to that effect. If you're in or close to the OKC area, maybe even hand-deliver this document to make it a more personable experience with the insurance-office staff or maybe even meet with one of the "big shots" in that office. Couldn't hurt, as appearance and effort are everything in making an impression.

I'll be happy to help from afar if needed, just let me know...

Since action must be taken quickly now as time may be running out, please suggest to the insurance commissioner to notify the governor directly with our "letter of concerns" rather than to Fetgatter, Mann, or any of the other legislators, for that matter. That way, our views have less chance of getting lost somewhere in the statehouse maze, only to be essentially forgotten. If the legislation does pass, it still has a chance of getting vetoed by the governor based on the possibility of increased auto insurance rates for all residents statewide, especially if a popular insurance company chimes in (on the local radio, perhaps?) with that same message! Once word gets out that that's why the governor vetoed it, some of the legislators who voted for its passage may just change their mind the second time around...handing the storm-chasing community the result we have been seeking all along...

 

[Mike Smith]

Here's another example of sloppiness. In this context, the correct spelling is principal not principle.

 

[Warren Faidley]

I'm still being told the bill has enough House votes to pass. The failure (if at all), will occur at the Senate level. There is more resistance there, as I'm assuming you are required to be a high school graduate, as opposed to the House.

There is no word yet if the OHP rejects the latest revision. I'm assuming they do, since news crews can still drive like imbeciles.

 

[Randy Jennings]

An afterthought. I don't know how OK state government is set up; however, if Oklahoma has a "Department of Insurance" or a State Insurance Commissioner, it would save a lot of time to go directly to that office or individual to enlist help for our opposing side in this fight.

Historically state officials/offices are very reluctant to get involved in legislative matters. It is either illegal in the state, or at least considered bad form, and they often don't want to make enemies with the folks who determine their office budget. IMO, flooding the inboxes of OK legislator members with video of TV chasers driving bad would have more impact. As most of us who chase know, a couple of TV chasers in OK are the biggest danger and problem out there.

To me the biggest danger in this bill right now is it allows TV chasers to run stop lights (in the floor mod it doesn't allow them to run stop signs - but we all know they will), but it doesn't require others to yield to them, and we all know these TV chasers will think we have to (heck they already think we have to). The problem we have is that if we push this issue, we risk the requirement to yield to them being added back.