Silver Lining Tours vans rolled in Kansas

[Ben Holcomb]

And even if you have an east/west road, how do you know it fully exists? See Bowdle/Ipswich May 22, 2010. I think we all learned a valuable lesson or 27 that day. Don't trust maps. Don't trust roads. Don't trust farmers. Definitely don't trust inbred south dakota hick sheriffs

 

[JamesCaruso]

I am saying this more for the benefit of less experienced chasers and members of the general public who may be reading this thread than as a comment on the judgment of anyone at SLT. People should understand that the maneuver that Greg McLaughlin describes above - driving into the notch of an HP supercell then heading south into (or closely ahead of) the RFD is an inherently dangerous move. For a couple reasons. First, if you are in the notch of an HP supercell, you are in likely in the path of the mesocyclone/potential tornado. Second, if you escape by heading south into or close to the RFD, you are risking, at the least, intense crosswinds and/or hail. Yes, tornadoes are rare there though they do occasionally happen, but there are other dangers associated with being in the RFD, especially if there is heavy rain there such that you can't see what is going on in there. Personally, I generally avoid the notch of an HP supercell, except in the rare case where I have a good path to that location AND I have a good eastward or northeastward escape route and am confident I can get out of there when I need to.

That’s the exact reason we bailed on the Imperial storm on 27 May of this year. We were coming in behind the storm on the road from Holyoke and had to do a bit of a hook slice to get into the southeast quadrant, which had its own risks. By the time we got into the SE quadrant in Imperial, the meso was to the NW. The only road north was 61. If we did that, there wouldn’t be an east option for 30 miles (Route 23 out of Grant/Madrid). Felt like my only escape option would be to backtrack south on 61 but figured by then the RFD would have encroached on the road and I’d be back in the hook. Maybe we were a little too conservative, we had worked hard to get to that spot and had little to show for it without trying to get closer to the meso, but we had to make a quick decision and we bailed. It wouldn’t really be chasing if I wasn’t still second-guessing myself.

 

[Shane Adams]

There is no mystery to any of this. They were there because they chose to be. Any way you wanna slice it or whatever you wanna dress it up as, they f'ed up. Not to besmirch anyone's name or reputation, but a fact's a fact. I've not given my full opinion on the matter publicly, but that will change Sunday night with the new episode of Dead Chasers Society.

 

[Quincy Vagell]

I understand that from a legal perspective, they can't admit any guilt, but in all honesty, I don't think this incident can be defended.

I crossed paths with them two minutes before the incident. Why are they driving south when there's a northeast-moving, rain-wrapped mesocyclone approaching/overtaking? We passed at a main intersection with paved escape routes in all directions. They chose to drive south, directly into the (tornado). I drove east and even I was nervous that I had cut it too close and I'll admit that any time, as I already have on multiple occasions.

If you're a solo chaser or even in a group of chasers, go ahead, make the risky drive south to potentially drive through a tornado and at the very least, severe wind gusts that can blow a vehicle over.

If you're a tour group, I don't even know why you're that close in the first place to a rain-wrapped, near zero visibility mess. I don't think I or anyone else can add any other insight that hasn't already been discussed at length in this thread. Even if you don't think you're driving directly into a tornado, there's a strong possibility that you're driving directly into a debris path and then you have no way out.

The only (weak) argument you can make is that they were trying to drive south to get on the other side of the storm and I can't fathom doing that with a chase group in this type of situation. Sure, you don't want to be overly cautious and miss out on a storm, but you definitely don't want to be overly risky and almost get someone killed. They even had radar going in the video, so it's not like they were blindly driving through a storm.

 

[James Wilson]

I have attached the Tough Mudder "death waiver" for reference ... they cover everything nicely. I do think there is a real case here if they did not have a complete waiver that was looked over by several lawyers. Even if the people in the van had no knowledge of what actions could be sue for this thread has definitely laid a path for them be it by design or over wise.

 

[Warren Faidley]

Releases do not cover events where there is overwhelming proof of negligence. Negligence in civil law is defiend as follows: "Negligence refers to any failure to exercise reasonable care in one’s actions, resulting in injury or damage to another person or party. Negligence, the most common form of civil lawsuit, falls under the category of unintentional behavior, as opposed to intentional acts of harm."

For example: Acme Ultimate Spin Tours is **aware** that on big chase days, along lines of cars are possible near storms. They are also **aware** that long lines of cars could create a very dangerous situation. Acme drives towards a big storm with hundreds of vehicles clogging roads. Acme **decides** to join the caravan when they could have **avoided** it. An accident with injuries completely blocks the roadway in all directions. A secondary storm produces a violent tornado, preventing Acme's retreat. The twister hits Acme's van killing all 10 passengers.

No release is going to cover that situation.

This is NOT a direct comparison to the current situation as all the facts are not known. It does illustrate civil "negligence" when obvious hazards are known to exist and they are ignored. If a volleyball-sized hailstone is hurled 10 miles from the parent storm, hitting a tour van, one could argue it was a freak accident and did not involve an obvious risk.

Having said this, the obvious legal antidote is that participants should be aware of the dangers. The best example of accepted risk would be climbing Mt. Everest. The participants are well aware of the multitude of deadly events that can kill you from HAPE to avalanches.

 

[Dan Robinson]

If I was a defense attorney, I might present the following questions to the plaintiffs:

Can you point to me a source of information - a manual, guide, course, tutorial, textbook, lecture, science paper, article, blog post, web page - one widely recognized in storm chasing as authoritative and credible - that declares a general HP RFD transect as a 100% no-go scenario? Can you provide any evidence that the tour owner should have known this maneuver brought with it a high risk of what occurred?

 

[Steve Holmes]

Wonder if chasers will be excluded from the jury.

 

[Warren Faidley]

Wonder if chasers will be excluded from the jury.

I don't believe there has been any discussion about a "jury" unless I missed something?

 

[JamesCaruso]

I watched the video the other day, and just tried to watch it again. The audio has been replaced by music!

 

[James K]

I watched the video the other day, and just tried to watch it again. The audio has been replaced by music!

That kinda ruins the vid...
I'd watched it back when the link was posted, and again either friday or yesterday, & it was still good.
I'm glad I downloaded myself a copy a few days ago.

 

[Shane Adams]

I don't think it was a flash of creative inspiration that the original audio was deleted.

 

[Steve Holmes]

I don't believe there has been any discussion about a "jury" unless I missed something?

Nah, you didn't miss anything. Just riffing off Dan Robinson's scenario about a defense attorney in court. But as a cynic, I expect there will be a need for juries related to this incident.

I suppose some members of the meteorological community, possibly members of this forum, might be called as expert witnesses.

 

[Joshua Nall]

I'm totally surprised by the general tone of some comments in this thread. Maybe there is some sort of motive behind it I'm unaware of or something I'm not understanding. My thoughts were that Roger was an extremely well liked and respected chaser and that many if not all would be speaking of him as more capable than any at sighting tornadoes, and giving many others that same dream opportunity, while always maintaining a reasonable cautiousness. I could maybe say it a better way but it just seems odd there are some who think there should be no risks when the subject is chasing tornadoes. I guess I'm more of the mindset that safety is not the thing that is most important to tour individuals. It is experiencing life, living big, doing something different, something exciting, and yes... dangerous. I can't expect myself or anyone else I put my trust in to be on top of every bad scenario.

 

[Dan Robinson]

You know, when all is said and done, the only opinions that will matter on this subject are those of the tour guests themselves. They will decide what they want out of a tour. They will decide to file any lawsuits for this or other past incidents that resulted in injury (there have been a few). Ultimately they will decide which risks are unacceptable and which, like we consider, are simply a part of chasing. Time will tell.