Silver Lining Tours vans rolled in Kansas

[Manuel Salgado]

Just thought I'd point out we are talking about the man, most tornadoes viewed world record holder. People join SLT to see.... tornadoes. The idea that SLT would not be in position to have eyes on developing *tornado* is a bit illogical, IMO.
HP storms are not just blobs of rain like you see on radar, with folks running around in there squinting through the rain. It can get like that but folks hang in there with eyes on the wall cloud or tornado while shooting through the rfd or heavier rain as necessary. It seems some here are commenting not understanding this is common practice. And I guess I assumed it was common for tour groups to do the same, at least with storms that were not yet full on HP. The only time rfd pass through doesn't work is when there is a freaking tornado in there like you see in Mr. Reynolds video. That is crazy. Storms are amazing and complex and some more than others. I do not understand how that could even happen really. This driving through rain around the main circulation is done thousands of times every year by chasers. Correct me if I'm wrong. The risk for tornado like that is extremely low and crazy low that you would actually cross paths. So I do not understand the logic of coming to the place of using the word "negligent".

Anyhow, I realize I'm speaking from a strictly rational point of view about the low risks. Others speak from a more emotional place and even may have deep emotional ties regarding this topic and I think that is reasonable and maybe the reason for some comments here. A few seconds difference in travel paths would have made all the difference. A very unfortunate incident. I can address Tony's reply more thoroughly later but I am not talking at all about traffic accidents. That is a completely different issue. I'm just saying that everyone that actually wants to ride a horse assumes a risk. If you want to ride a donkey it might be more safe but you should not insist everyone have your opinion.

I take issue with your "rational" interpretation of risks here. The best people in the world for analyzing risk are insurance actuaries. You've had a tour owner tell you how hard it is to get insurance and how expensive it is. If the insurance companies have decided this is anything but low risk, then I'm not sure how you can call it a low risk activity.

 

[JamesCaruso]

...The best people in the world for analyzing risk are insurance actuaries. You've had a tour owner tell you how hard it is to get insurance and how expensive it is. If the insurance companies have decided this is anything but low risk, then I'm not sure how you can call it a low risk activity.

That sounds logical but I’m not sure it’s necessarily correct. I can’t imagine there is much loss experience on chase tours to be analyzed (until now, anyway). Although actuaries are indeed expert statistical analysts, I am sure there is also some subjective judgment involved, especially if there are limited loss experience statistics available. Any person working at an insurance company that hears what a chase tour company does is of course going to assign a high risk score, just due to the uncertainty alone; it doesn’t necessarily mean that there are loss experience statistics that prove this out. I could be wrong, perhaps there is a ST member that works in insurance that can provide insight.

 

[Joshua Nall]

I take issue with your "rational" interpretation of risks here. The best people in the world for analyzing risk are insurance actuaries. You've had a tour owner tell you how hard it is to get insurance and how expensive it is. If the insurance companies have decided this is anything but low risk, then I'm not sure how you can call it a low risk activity.

What I think really doesn't matter because there has been a huge emotional reaction to this and that always seems to trump logic. Insurance companies are people and tornadoes are scary. What do they know about van loads of people driving around tornadoes? What statistics do they have to look at? It sounds really scary. All I was essentially trying to say is that the risk of getting hit by a tornado in a similar circumstsnce as in this incident is low compared to other common activities that could cause injury or death. And maybe it is actually higher than I think, but seems those type of incidents would be more common. I'm sorry I have such a hard time communicating on emotionally charged issues. I still think my riding horses analogy is a good one. It is just accepted in that activity that people sometimes get hurt or die. And people don't say..."he should have never got on that horse." My point is mute. All tours will now be riding donkeys when it comes to HPs and probably the majority of chasers too after this is over. I saw one comment on FB that said, something like..." I always try to imagine the worst of what could happen if everything went wrong". My initial thought to that is you would not go chasing at all because a semi would plow you over turning out of your drive. Another acceptable higher risk we take everyday.
I know I'm different but emotional reactions to things annoy me.

 

[Dan Robinson]

I know we have a lot of outsiders and non-chasing types reading this thread, so here are a couple of spinoff discussions you might be interested in:

The definition of "close" or "extreme" varies wildly between different people. This is an attempt to clarify:

What is the definition of "extreme" or "close" chasing?

The issue of extreme chasing and "getting close" comes up a lot in discussions in forums, social media and news coverage. I think this is not useful terminology, as getting close and being "extreme" means different things to different people. For instance, in the tour van thread and in many...

stormtrack.org

How does storm chasing compare to other higher-risk leisure activities?

How does storm chasing compare to other high-risk activities?

I have always felt the need to start coming up with some reliable numbers on storm chasing risks. There are those overplaying and others downplaying the risk. Who is right? I know that risk varies with different chase styles, the region chased, etc, but we have to start somewhere. Let's do...

stormtrack.org

 

[Manuel Salgado]

What I think really doesn't matter because there has been a huge emotional reaction to this and that always seems to trump logic. Insurance companies are people and tornadoes are scary. What do they know about van loads of people driving around tornadoes? What statistics do they have to look at? It sounds really scary. All I was essentially trying to say is that the risk of getting hit by a tornado in a similar circumstsnce as in this incident is low compared to other common activities that could cause injury or death. And maybe it is actually higher than I think, but seems those type of incidents would be more common. I'm sorry I have such a hard time communicating on emotionally charged issues. I still think my riding horses analogy is a good one. It is just accepted in that activity that people sometimes get hurt or die. And people don't say..."he should have never got on that horse." My point is mute. All tours will now be riding donkeys when it comes to HPs and probably the majority of chasers too after this is over. I saw one comment on FB that said, something like..." I always try to imagine the worst of what could happen if everything went wrong". My initial thought to that is you would not go chasing at all because a semi would plow you over turning out of your drive. Another acceptable higher risk we take everyday.
I know I'm different but emotional reactions to things annoy me.

When considering risk its not just enough to consider the likelihood of an event but also the damage caused if said event occurs. Many of us would consider a 1-2% chance of an event occurring as very low, but if the damage associated with that is life ending or severely life altering then the risk is actually very high.

I generally agree with you on the subject, but I also think that going underneath an HP circulation or into the RFD on an HP storm is a substantial increase above what I find acceptable for myself much less for a group of people. I also think that emotional reactions to risk are usually wildly illogical. People will go crazy about the chance of being in a victim of terrorism but not bat an eye about getting into a car. One of those is far more likely to be the cause of major injury or death and its not the one that has a much greater reaction.

Eventually we all just have to judge for ourselves what we deem acceptable, but I do find it telling that SLT has immediately changed their policy (although I think their new policy is probably an overreaction).

 

[Manuel Salgado]

That sounds logical but I’m not sure it’s necessarily correct. I can’t imagine there is much loss experience on chase tours to be analyzed (until now, anyway). Although actuaries are indeed expert statistical analysts, I am sure there is also some subjective judgment involved, especially if there are limited loss experience statistics available. Any person working at an insurance company that hears what a chase tour company does is of course going to assign a high risk score, just due to the uncertainty alone; it doesn’t necessarily mean that there are loss experience statistics that prove this out. I could be wrong, perhaps there is a ST member that works in insurance that can provide insight.

I'm not sure the actual methods they use honestly, so I can't comment. I just know they're the experts and I tend to defer to their expertise on the matter.

 

[Jay Murdock]

NWS report on the tornado: IEM :: PNS from NWS TOP

 

[Alex Elmore]

Recent update by Topeka NWS has a second (or rather, first) track added to the survey for this event. I’m currently unable to pull up the Damage Assessment Toolkit, but I believe the last damage point of the track was the flipped van or close to it, and the amount of injuries may be attributed to the van flipping. I know this track was hypothesized by several members in this thread. Here’s the twitter post about it:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1136360942063591424

 

[Steve Holmes]

That technology has gotten better, Social Media has spread like a wildfire. Easy to make a name for yourself, and the more extreme you are the more likes, views and followers you get. And Storm Chasing is a great way of doing that; get close to a tornado, post your video on Social Media or whatever platform and suddenly you have thousands of views, comments and gaining new followers. Feels great, doesn't it? The

Bullseye! It's not so much the "money shot," but the "attention shot." Facebook in particular is seductive. I'm not a social-media person, but even I've been pulled in, checking in to see how many "likes" my photo has. It just sucks you in. The horse ain't goin' back in the barn.

What scares the bejeezus out of me is what happens when Warn-On Forecast becomes a reality. The NWS will be able to tell people there's a high probability that two or three specific counties will be under a Tornado Warning in 90 minutes. That gives all the spread-out chasers time to zero in on a particular spot, just as the locals are trying to flee. Am I overreacting?

 

[Nick Nolte]

Recent update by Topeka NWS has a second (or rather, first) track added to the survey for this event. I’m currently unable to pull up the Damage Assessment Toolkit, but I believe the last damage point of the track was the flipped van or close to it, and the amount of injuries may be attributed to the van flipping. I know this track was hypothesized by several members in this thread. Here’s the twitter post about it:

So with the update they got hit by a tornado that was on the ground for 8 miles before it rolled their van? I'm not sure that sounds any better

 

[Joey Ketcham]

Bullseye! It's not so much the "money shot," but the "attention shot." Facebook in particular is seductive. I'm not a social-media person, but even I've been pulled in, checking in to see how many "likes" my photo has. It just sucks you in. The horse ain't goin' back in the barn.

What scares the bejeezus out of me is what happens when Warn-On Forecast becomes a reality. The NWS will be able to tell people there's a high probability that two or three specific counties will be under a Tornado Warning in 90 minutes. That gives all the spread-out chasers time to zero in on a particular spot, just as the locals are trying to flee. Am I overreacting?

Look up Simon Sinek on YouTube, especially topics involving Social Media. He discusses this exact issue exceptionally well, and having worked in IT for as long as I have, the past 5 in the educational setting, I agree 100% that Social Media is partially to blame for a lot of what we see today.

 

[Jamie Winterstern]

Look up Simon Sinek on YouTube, especially topics involving Social Media. He discusses this exact issue exceptionally well, and having worked in IT for as long as I have, the past 5 in the educational setting, I agree 100% that Social Media is partially to blame for a lot of what we see today.

Thank you for that gem of a recommendation. Just watched he's spiel on social media & he's brilliant.

 

[Robert Edmonds]

So with the update they got hit by a tornado that was on the ground for 8 miles before it rolled their van? I'm not sure that sounds any better

Yeah that makes it look like it wasn't a satellite, it was THE tornado.... It looks like where they thought the tornado was, was actually the next round of development.

 

[Steve Holmes]

Look up Simon Sinek on YouTube, especially topics involving Social Media. He discusses this exact issue exceptionally well, and having worked in IT for as long as I have, the past 5 in the educational setting, I agree 100% that Social Media is partially to blame for a lot of what we see today.

Great speaker. Scary stuff! Friggin, scary stuff! Never heard it put so starkly before. So until young folks learn to build real relationships, they're going to try to get fulfillment from posting more and more storm videos to Facebook.

 

[Warren Faidley]

The only solution to this (which may or may not work) is for outlets like TWC, Accu-Wx, Facebook, Twitter, etc., to stop allowing people to post extreme footage where the subject(s) are endangering themselves, including those who are faking their reasoning for posting such footage. Soccer (football) in Europe stopped showing individuals who were storming the field and it worked to some degree. Related... selfies are killing a stunning a number of people:

Death by Selfie: 11 Disturbing Stories of Social Media Pics

Death by Selfie: 11 disturbing stories of social media pics with walruses, bulls, and and even a live grenade – gone wrong

www.rollingstone.com