Oklahoma Weather Tracking Licensure Legislation

[Jamie H]

I will add up front that this looks like a terrible bit of legislation that leaves far too much open to interpretation, and if enacted as intended, would put a huge burden on local law enforcment. I doubt there's any extra funding or staffing to help process all the unlicensed individuals is there? How would Sen. Mann expect police forces to enforce this law? More to the point, given the political leaning of the state, I can't see residents being too happy that they will be restricted from using certain roads because a tv station called a warning.

Things which concern me:

- Sec 2. clearly states only FCC-registered outlets are acceptable. So if you're sending video to Ryan Hall, tough luck.
- Multiple mentions of 'the chief meteorologist employed by a qualified media outlet' which means a local station could declare its own thunderstorm warning and that storm would now be off limits to everyone else.
- Allowing any media outlet or research team to be equipped with emergency lights is pure madness. Surely this has to be coupled with completion of an emergency vehicle operator course (unless this isn't required in OK).

If, and it is a big if, this law was simply intended to ensure people carrying out research or media roles were licensed and thus could be held accountable for their actions, it would be harder to reject. Given some OK TV streamers have quite wild reputations, it might help professionalise their actions on the road.

But there's no evidence this is the case at all, and it is hard not to read the language and think it is intended to protect a valuable media market for the TV stations and stop chasers who are conducting their own scientific missions from gaining access.

On small comment / thought I do have, however, is that I don't think chasers should be equipping vehicles with all manner of light bars. There's evidence out there of some of the yahoos among us who think it allows them carte blanche to bully others, speed, drive off road, or stop wherever they want. I am sure it must be confusing for residents to know if the truck flying up behind them is in an emergency or just trying to get a closer shot than their rivals. Just my opnion!

 

[Warren Faidley]

I believe Sen. Mann was approached by a University and spoon-fed this insane idea. To divide chasers into two classes, "licensed professionals" and "amateurs" sets a dangerous precedent. I'm somewhat shocked that more chasers are not alarmed by this concept and fighting back. Unfortunately, I believe that's just the nature of chasers, to think it will "never happen" or "I don't want to get involved."

There are several people including myself working in the background to stop this bill. I will be getting some updates later today.

 

[Warren Faidley]

“Crash rate goes up 53% when you use lights and sirens.” — Dr. Douglas Kupas. (See reference article below).

When I was studying for my Emergency Medical Technician degree, one of our topics was using emergency signals. (Lights and sirens). There have been numerous studies showing that response times while using emergency equipment are not that different from traveling at normal speeds with no emergency signals. In long lines of congested chase traffic, I seriously doubt such equipment will have any real benefit outweighing the associated risks of running "code," especially by untrained and inexperienced drivers. Running "code" in opposite passing lanes, e.g., rural roads, is very dangerous.

Quick Take: It’s time to flip the switch on hot EMS response

Studies have repeatedly demonstrated that the time saved with lights and siren use has little-to-no impact on patient outcomes

www.ems1.com

 

[Jeff Smith]

I will echo my comment on Scott's Fb post. This will allow (and encourage) Val and co. to run 100+MPH with the whirling lights on in every storm situation. Plus it will allow and encourage other media chasers to do so as well. Now I have broken a law or two myself, but basically this is allowing them to break the law and run "code 3" in order to get the shot for TeeVee. And you know they will also be blocking roads and say its to aid in saving lives but in reality it will be because they want to get....wait fot it....the SHOT. There is a reason it's called the money shot.

Saving lives? Pfft. The public thinks so, but we know differently. Its all for the money shot.

Plus, this bill leaves the many Skywarn spotters and chasers that work with the NWS in providing ground truth for warning issuance and dissemination-especially after dark when a lot of chasers who stream are done for the day.

Not to mention (and slightly OT)-how blinding and distracting LEO lights are currently...I think the LED technology in LEO and EM lights are too bright...but that's just coming from an old curmudgeon lol. So lets put more lights on. Makes sense to me (sarcasm).

 

[Jeff Smith]

“Crash rate goes up 53% when you use lights and sirens.” — Dr. Douglas Kupas. (See reference article below).

When I was studying for my Emergency Medical Technician degree, one of our topics was using emergency signals. (Lights and sirens). There have been numerous studies showing that response times while using emergency equipment are not that different from traveling at normal speeds with no emergency signals. In long lines of congested chase traffic, I seriously doubt such equipment will have any real benefit outweighing the associated risks of running "code," especially by untrained and inexperienced drivers. Running "code" in opposite passing lanes, e.g., rural roads, is very dangerous.

Quick Take: It’s time to flip the switch on hot EMS response

Studies have repeatedly demonstrated that the time saved with lights and siren use has little-to-no impact on patient outcomes

www.ems1.com

^^^this!! 100% agree with Warren here.

 

[gdlewen]

SB158 is assigned first to the "Retirement and Government Services" Committee. I don't yet see an agenda for this committee so have no idea when or if it will even be heard.

The chair and vice chair are

David Bullard (Chair)
A web-form you can use to email him:

Contact My Senator | Oklahoma Senate

oksenate.gov

Micheal Bergstrom (Vice-Chair)
A web-form you can use to email him:

Contact My Senator | Oklahoma Senate

oksenate.gov

I would recommend emailing them and voicing your concerns over SB158. As the contact page for any elected official will advise you, "Be polite, and respectful."

Even if you do not live in Oklahoma, if you ever visit Oklahoma to chase, you are a stakeholder for this bill. If they don't hear differently from the public, they will only have the public statements of the sponsors to consider.

 

[Mike Smith]

Even if you do not live in Oklahoma, if you ever visit Oklahoma to chase, you are a stakeholder for this bill. If they don't hear differently from the public, they will only have the public statements of the sponsors to consider.

Might mention the economic loss from all of the out-of-state "storm tourists."

 

[gdlewen]

Might mention the economic loss from all of the out-of-state "storm tourists."

Won't hurt. There are a lot of small towns in the state that probably enjoy the influx of chasers on threat days.

 

[Warren Faidley]

I suggest that you consider the following opinions expressed in your own words. We have just joined forces with an attorney who specializes in these types of cases. Legal ramifications may change, especially if someone tries to "dumb-down" the bill without actually altering the philosophy behind it. It would significantly help the argument if the individual(s) "well-known chasers" who proposed this bill would stop hiding in the dark and step forward to take responsibility for their actions.

1: Enforcement: Sen. Mark Mann (D) Oklahoma stated the following in reference to enforcement of the SB-158: Enforcement? “That would obviously be up to local law enforcement, and however they see fit to enforce that." This would likely violate "unequal protection" under the US Constitution. Reference: https://kfor.com/news/oklahoma-legislature/bill-targets-storm-chasers-with-licensure-requirements/

2: Endangerment: Under the open enforcement rule of SB-158, law enforcement (or the actual licensed emergency vehicles) could, at their discretion and under Oklahoma law, block, delay, re-route or slow traffic on highways to allow only "licensed" vehicles to move forward or change direction. As any experienced chaser knows, any delay in travel routes could easily place them (and the public) in grave danger from severe weather, tornadoes, high winds, blizzard conditions, fire, hail, dust, etc. Unknown to officers, escape routes could be cut off, and even a minor delay could result in serious injuries, as witnessed during the El Reno, Oklahoma tornado event in 2013 when traffic was delayed for various reasons.

3: Undefined laws: With hundreds of county and city jurisdictions interpreting the law "as they see fit," this could result in the arrest or citing of innocent chasers who do not qualify for a license but have every legal right to travel on open highways. Theoretically, chasers discovered in a "license" only area or in a convoy of licensed vehicles could face fines or arrest.

4: Lack of evidence the bill will work: There is no evidence that allowing "licensed vehicles" to operate as emergency vehicles will actually improve their ability to achieve what the bill is designed for. Research supports this and suggests emergency vehicles are more likely to cause serious accidents, especially with untrained and inexperienced drivers. The public could be placed in danger. Reference: Quick Take: It’s time to flip the switch on hot EMS response

5: First Amendment: The bill could violate the First Amendment by selectively choosing media sources and requiring a "pay to play" license to participate and gain access to active weather events. (See no 1). The bill does not allow "licensing" and thus, equal access by all accredited media and storm safety personnel including print, radio, out-of-state media, live Internet reporters, NOAA employees and NOAA certified Skywarn storm spotters. Not everyone in Oklahoma monitors local TV exclusively for live reports.

6: Limited research vehicle licensing. The bill is limited to researchers in Oklahoma only.

7: Reporting limitations: Limiting the ability to confirm severe weather events (e.g. "ground truth") to a limited number of licensed TV media sources could endanger the public because a large number of reports and confirmations come from the public, law enforcement, Skywarn and Internet (live) storm chasers. In addition, modern radar and aircraft (helicopters) can often confirm tornadoes before ground spotters.

8: No allowance for EMS chasers: The bill does not allow qualified, certified EMS personnel (in and out of state) to respond in a similar manner via licensing. These individuals have a history of assisting rural communities where EMS services may be limited or delayed. Preventing highly trained individuals entry because they do not have a "license" is unacceptable.

9: Lack of support by law enforcement. No active law enforcement officers in Okalhoma have come forward to support this bill. The idea of allowing civilians to run "code" with emergency equipment is absurd.

 

[Warren Faidley]

SB158 is assigned first to the "Retirement and Government Services" Committee. I don't yet see an agenda for this committee so have no idea when or if it will even be heard.

The chair and vice chair are

David Bullard (Chair)
A web-form you can use to email him:

Contact My Senator | Oklahoma Senate

oksenate.gov

Micheal Bergstrom (Vice-Chair)
A web-form you can use to email him:

Contact My Senator | Oklahoma Senate

oksenate.gov

I would recommend emailing them and voicing your concerns over SB158. As the contact page for any elected official will advise you, "Be polite, and respectful."

Even if you do not live in Oklahoma, if you ever visit Oklahoma to chase, you are a stakeholder for this bill. If they don't hear differently from the public, they will only have the public statements of the sponsors to consider.

I would like to repost this to X if that is OK? It will not have your name on it.

 

[gdlewen]

I would like to repost this to X if that is OK? It will not have your name on it.

Of course-- that's a great idea. Blow up their mailboxes. It works and it doesn't make them angry. I think they appreciate it.

 

[Warren Faidley]

Thanks, my comments are on the way. Somewhat disappointing how many chasers are just ignoring this topic. Seems to be the way of chasing now day.

 

[JamesCaruso]

There are several people including myself working in the background to stop this bill. I will be getting some updates later today.

Let me know how I can help!

 

[Dan Robinson]

Warren, let us know if you have some sort of a letter or petition that we can sign.

 

[JamesCaruso]

Even if you do not live in Oklahoma, if you ever visit Oklahoma to chase, you are a stakeholder for this bill. If they don't hear differently from the public, they will only have the public statements of the sponsors to consider.

Could this backfire? Like with these guys thinking, “Look at all these out-of-state yahoos clogging our roads on dangerous weather days, this just shows why we need this bill” ???