Storm Chasing: Ethics and Safety

[Jack Law]

First post. Lifelong Kansan, never gotten closer and often driven out of the way. Still seen plenty of neat stuff. Your mileage may vary.

This will end b/c the KS or OK legislature, working with law enforcement, will prohibit it. Yes, I've seen these debates before and know the arguments of those crying 'freedom' and 'but you can't enforce it'!!!

Sure you can. How many $10,000 fines for 'interfering' when not permitted for research would it take? The evidence is all over the internets weekly this time of year. Easy fix for the 99% of the population that doesn't chase, and I guarantee law enforcement is already on board.

 

[Derek Weston]

I think many in the "chaser community" continue to lie to themselves and say "we need the research and eye-witness reporting". Fact is, we don't. You can't convince me we are learning things today that will help improve future forecasts ... that we don't already know. In storm forecasting, there are certain givens, and certain random and unpredictable realities. The givens are understood and the randomness is just that and there is nothing you can do about that aspect to stay ahead of the curve. I say all this to say that the chasing world has evolved into something else, and if we can't be honest about the realities, we can't expect any change. Sure, a few are motivated by purely scientific or purely stationary "spotter" oriented, but they are a small minority any more.

People engage in a variety of dangerous pursuits for a variety of reasons. But until you're willing to strip citizens of their freedoms to be themselves, you're going to have to learn to accept crap is going to happen. Don't take others' poor decisions and/or mistakes personally. The 'thrill-seekers" have just as much right to be out there in front of major cells as the "information gatherers" do ... perhaps more so given the fact there is not much we don't already know about tornadoes and their life-cycles and what breeds them. We climb peaks, we race cars and motorcycles, we invest in markets, we surf, we swim with sharks, we dive to great depths, we rock climb, and we chase storms. But again I say, until we can be honest about the situation, this entire conversation is an exercise in futility. Let the flame responses begin

Lot of truth in this. Experiencing the spectacle of the supercell thunderstorm is in itself sufficient justification. No need to invoke science, research, or saving lives as a cause. As long as you're not harming others, who cares. Really that simple.

 

[Warren Faidley]

I spoke to a Washington, DC based reporter yesterday who says an Oklahoma Senator or Representative is proposing a bill similar to "stupid motorist" and "hurricane evacuation" laws that fine and charge a person for expenses if they have to be "rescued out of gross negligence." I am assuming any law would include "driving too close to a tornado" e.g., similar to crossing barricades near a flooded area. I'm also guessing such laws would allow criminal actions if first responders are injured.

The world of chasing will change in some regards I suspect.

W.

 

[A.Theunissen]

They are adults, if someone wants to get close to a tornado(alone) and risk everything, it's his problem. What I don't like is when there's 3-4+ people in a car and the guy passenger seat doesn't know what is doing. And I'm not talking about Samaras here,...

Someday, you will see someone with a live stream getting picked up and thrown by a tornado, LIVE.

In the word stormchaser, there is the term ''chaser'', and when you go chasing, you're not supposed to be the one chased. Makes no sense. The TIV or Dominator can withstand some tornadoes, but they're not indestructible.

 

[William Monfredo]

Safety point: People don't NEED to hang out under a huge wall cloud or bowl-shaped lowering, especially in PDS watches. Vortex breakdowns into several smaller funnels can later max out to a wedge. You don't need to be a Monday quarterback to know that, because it's all happened before.

 

[Derek Weston]

I spoke to a Washington, DC based reporter yesterday who says an Oklahoma Senator or Representative is proposing a bill similar to "stupid motorist" and "hurricane evacuation" laws that fine and charge a person for expenses if they have to be "rescued out of gross negligence." I am assuming any law would include "driving too close to a tornado" e.g., similar to crossing barricades near a flooded area. I'm also guessing such laws would allow criminal actions if first responders are injured.

The world of chasing will change in some regards I suspect.

W.

In Colorado if you climb a 14er(14k + mountain peak) and have to be rescued you're given a bill for the rescue. Still a thriving community of "14ers" out there.

 

[Rob H]

I spoke to a Washington, DC based reporter yesterday who says an Oklahoma Senator or Representative is proposing a bill similar to "stupid motorist" and "hurricane evacuation" laws that fine and charge a person for expenses if they have to be "rescued out of gross negligence." I am assuming any law would include "driving too close to a tornado" e.g., similar to crossing barricades near a flooded area. I'm also guessing such laws would allow criminal actions if first responders are injured.

The world of chasing will change in some regards I suspect.

I'm fine with the outcome of that, but how much effort is going into legislation that will hardly ever be used? I can think of applicable historical examples on one hand. We all knew legislation would be dumb and impractical, but this time we may have underestimated the dumbness and impracticality of the modern politician.

Out of curiosity how do you label someone as a chaser or figure that someone intentionally drove too close to a tornado? That Art Gentry fellow in Wichita was prepared to drive to his house, directly in the path of the tornado, before those darn chasers stopped him with their convergence.

 

[John Fertsch]

We need to learn and review everything so we don't have this happen again generally speaking. Their will always be some level of tragic outcome due to not foreseen circumstances, but we need to learn from others mistakes and mishaps.

Let's work together and coordinate better. Their are lessons to be learned here. Still early and details are still being brought to attention.

I have always tried to go by the expression, "don't set yourself up for failure." Minimize risks too prevent becoming a victim of circumstance.

 

[StormScotter]

I've watched TWC with great dismay as they have embraced Reed and his way of chasing this season. It's not that I think they're any more responsible (as Bettis showed), it's that them giving Reed air time legitimizes him and his actions even more (and you can add KFOR in Oklahoma City to this list as well, as they were talking to him live on Friday evening and him and Mike (on air met) were both telling people to get in their cars and make a run for it).

 

[Tony Gilbert]

I think the timing of this discussion is pretty much essential right now! I've just returned back to the UK from my annual two weeks chasing. Over the past 13yrs chasing I have noticed changes to the chase fraternity maybe more than the resident US chasers ironically possibly due to my absence for 50 weeks of the year. This season more than any other year I had noticed a hard core of aggressive chasers driving straight into dangerous zones maybe a bit faster than they should be doing. Whilst personal risk is personal choice, reckless driving to carry out your choice can only serve to put all of us at risk.
Earlier in this thread there was mention of name and shame. Well I always run a wind shield mounted cam when I approach storms and would not hesitate to make public anti social or reckless driving, license plate included. Maybe the only way we can make headway here is to make an example of those that are acting in a selfish manner. In addition to this maybe a designated forum could be introduced on stormtrack to identify those blatantly acting this way?
A pro active approach here might be the only way forward for us all if we are to stop this great hobby from being eventually outlawed.
PS. The vast majority of chasers remain well mannered and courteous. Let's not let the few ruin it for the most.

The above opinion has no connection with Tim's sad accident but is centred around what the media and law makers might be thinking of storm chasers in general right now due to recent events.

 

[Adam Atkins]

I've watched TWC with great dismay as they have embraced Reed and his way of chasing this season. It's not that I think they're any more responsible (as Bettis showed), it's that them giving Reed air time legitimizes him and his actions even more (and you can add KFOR in Oklahoma City to this list as well, as they were talking to him live on Friday evening and him and Mike (on air met) were both telling people to get in their cars and make a run for it).

What's illegitimate about Reed Timmer as a meteorologist and storm chaser? He's passionate, educated, has seen/encountered more severe weather events than 99% of us, and really does spread awareness regardless of his flamboyant personality and showmanship. TWC is a for-profit network and can do as they please.

 

[STexan]

What about all the "careless chasers" who were no doubt out there Friday who received no damage, caused no damage, and had no positive or negative impact on the overall day's outcome? Are those the ones we need to "get off the road"? I'm just trying to understand what is being proposed. because to read some of the posts here there are only 2 types of chasers, careless, dangerous ones, and the anointed ones who are a credit to the trade ... (even though they too sometimes get in trouble, but that's to considered an anomaly when it does occur)

The only point I'm trying to make is be careful what you wish for. as far as I know there were no damages caused Friday that insurance is not going to fully cover. The chaser community can't be held to account or used as a whipping boy for mistakes perhaps made by emergency managers and reporters. From what I can gather, the panicked public caused plenty of damage to go around and if the chaser community is to somehow assume the blame for those individuals, then I don't know how to respond to that. What happened to chasers and their vehicles is on them and their insurance provider as far as I'm concerned.

One could make the argument that given the location and intensity of recent notable storms and the ever-increasing number of chasers out there, that the safety numbers and record is in fact getting better Hell, for many of us, the most dangerous part of the chase trip is the casual trip to the initial target area and the casual trip to return home. Yes, there are dangerous "weekend chasers" out there who drive 70-80 in driving rain, pass in no passing zones, but then again, these drivers are out there every single day of the year so I really don't see what the big deal is. (This is coming from one who drives a truck 6 months out of the year across the nation)

 

[cstrunk]

Does anyone have any credible safety statistics of storm chasing?

 

[rdale]

Sure you can. How many $10,000 fines for 'interfering' when not permitted for research would it take? The evidence is all over the internets weekly this time of year. Easy fix for the 99% of the population that doesn't chase, and I guarantee law enforcement is already on board.

Bad first post... How would you define "interfering"?

Bigger question - some death cases are fined less than $10K. You don't think a storm chase ticket that costs $10K would be thrown out by the courts (while laughing)?

 

[rdale]

Does anyone have any credible safety statistics of storm chasing?

Yes. 40 years of chasing, thousands of tornadoes seen, hundreds of thousands of spotters and chasers, and 3 deaths.

More die in skiing accidents in one winter in the US than 40 years of chasing,

 

[Jake Orosi]

Hundreds of thousands of chasers, really?

 

[Stan Rose]

Rob's a forward looking guy, Jake-he's thinkng of the year 2033, when there will be 40 yrs of widespread chasing. Oh, and that's an average weekend at Vail or Breck

 

[STexan]

Any slight risk days you can expect to see probably an average of 50 [mobile] chasers on the placefile, then figure there's probably twice that many who aren't reporting location, times how many slight risk days a year? times how many years? Then add in the moderate & high risk days in OK or KS where easily 300-500 "chasers" can be in attendance. Hundreds of thousands the last 40 years is probably an extreme understating of the real number. But seriously, when you think about the real numbers out here, the numbers of accidents and major incidents is very low if you ask me, even just looking at the past 5 years. I'll guarantee that per capita, chasers have a significantly better safety record then the trucking industry, no matter how you slice it.

 

[Greg Campbell]

Hundreds of thousands of chasers, really?

Yea, that does sound a stretch. I can't imagine there are near that many 'serious' chasers on the road. X00,000 local iChasers sure.

I also wonder about the fatality list. You've got to believe that at least a few of those X00,000 amateur chasers are represented in the 'car vs. tornado' deaths that have occurred over the years. Pawing through the wreckage, there's not much evidence to distinguish between a poor chaser who got in over his head and an innocent commuter who was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Unless there is some agency or group tasked with tracking down specific details of every weather fatality (there isn't, is there?), it would be very easy to overlook and mis-categorize this sort of casualty.

 

[Jake Orosi]

Any slight risk days you can expect to see probably an average of 50 [mobile] chasers on the placefile, then figure there's probably twice that many who aren't reporting location, times how many slight risk days a year? times how many years? Then add in the moderate & high risk days in OK or KS where easily 300-500 "chasers" can be in attendance. Hundreds of thousands the last 40 years is probably an extreme understating of the real number.

If you count each chaser as a brand new chaser each day he goes out, maybe. But if you have the same 50 chasers going out each time, you can have 300 slight risk days a year and that's still only 50 chasers.

When you consider that it's the same 50 year after year with only a few new ones each year, and that the 300 who go out each high risk day are the same 300 who always go out each high risk day, you come up with more like maybe a couple thousand on the high side, after "40 years".

 

[Paul Schmit]

As a relatively new chaser hoping to learn as much as I can from the immeasurable sum of wisdom accumulated on this forum, I applaud and highly encourage any and all discussion on the topics of safety, ethics, and strategy--none of which should be considered mutually exclusive (e.g., adopting a safer, more conservative chase strategy is ethically considerate toward other chasers, perhaps allowing everyone a wider margin to exercise their escape plans in the event of an uncommon sequence of events). The very dismissive and resigned comments on this particular thread chastising those who want to pursue such thoughtful discussions are entirely counterproductive. Yes, you might not be able to change the reckless behavior of those who choose to put themselves in undue danger deliberately and simultaneously jeopardize the wellbeing of others through their erratic actions behind the wheel, all the time avoiding the buffer provided by becoming better informed in between chases, except perhaps by calling them out and condemning their actions directly in the public square. BUT, you can certainly teach those with a real desire to learn how best to avoid such "whackos" and keep situationally aware on all fronts--weather, traffic, and otherwise.

For some time I was a recreational skydiver, and while that community is perhaps more frequented by the truly eccentric and haphazard than any other "extreme" activity, I have to give them credit for doing a great job putting together a central regulating organization, instituting a licensing protocol, and disseminating a code of ethics and standard operating procedure that permits each individual skydiver a certain amount of "comfort" and confidence in knowing that the people around him/her have been briefed on how to partake in such a risky sport safely and ethically. There are technical aspects to skydiving, and there are many more technical aspects to storm chasing, and some fraction of individuals interested in pursuing such a hobby will inevitably disregard the wealth of helpful information that is out there in order to get to the "meat" of the pursuit on the fast track. But the reckless abandon of the outliers, the bottom tail of the bell curve, should not discourage responsible and passionate storm chasers from organizing and enhancing the common level of understanding of the majority of enthusiasts who would jump at the opportunity to benefit from the wisdom of others, in person or through the written word.

My first Great Plains chase was 5/19 of this year, by myself (still looking for a more experienced chase partner), as I recently relocated to Albuquerque after finishing grad school in NJ (bad chasing conditions all around) and spending the rest of my early life in Arizona (mesmerized by the annual monsoon pattern). I adopted an extremely conservative strategy for safety's sake (staying west of the dryline at initiation and following a few miles behind the Edmond and Shawnee supercells, never finding a gap to get south/southeast of the updraft bases for a real glimpse of the action), knowing full well I am light on operational experience. But even so, I realized in hindsight that chasing within the OKC city-limits was probably still ethically dubious, and at the very least wasn't doing me any favors in terms of keeping myself optimally safe. While the opportunities for me to learn in the field have only just begun, and will undoubtedly only occur a few times a year, the opportunities for me to develop my intellectual confidence and learn new tactics for safety and strategy are endless on forums like these. If chasers some day rally behind the outspoken veterans and become better organized, I'll be the first to sound the call and support such an effort. In the meantime, no attempt to standardize the best practices of a risky but ultimately rewarding endeavor through thoughtful discussion (on a forum whose primary mission should BE such discussions) should ever be dismissed. From a somewhat selfish standpoint, you might be robbing people like me of a nugget of insight that could save my hide some day.

 

[rdale]

If you count each chaser as a brand new chaser each day he goes out, maybe.

Exactly. 50 chasers that get 50 storms a season = 2500 chasers around storms that year. Between chasers, spotters, cops, yahoos, etc X 40 years that seems reasonable. If not, still a LOT more than climb Mount Everest every year (150) and those efforts kill 5 annually. I don't hear the world complaining that those climbs need to stop.

 

[mikedeason]

I don't hear the world complaining that those climbs need to stop.

There's not many congested public highways that the public has to share as those climbers ascend Mt. Everest either. The apple and oranges argument doesn't hold water when an endeavor is not done in a contained venue, but instead on public roads and highways.

The actions of mountain climbers, skydivers, etc. puts no one else at risk other the ones who are also performing the same actions and accepting the same risks. A modest to large volume of chasers, if concentrated in a small area, CAN pose a potential hazard to members of the general public and their actions are under much more scrutiny.

 

[rdale]

Well I suppose they CAN, but to this day I know of no evidence that they have or will actually post a hazard to the general public.

 

[Shane Adams]

The problem has and always will be LOCALS. For the past several years, as authorities whine and bitch about the influx of chaser numbers ruining their desolate, 2-car-a-day rural roads, the issue has actually been all the folks who live in and around these little towns. And last Friday in the OKC metro, after being told to flee their homes, it was like a hurricane evacuation. Hundreds, maybe thousands, of cars jammed up well away from cities and towns, on rural stretches of state highways, gridlocked. Any tornado would've wiped out many of us as we sat there helpless. I only saw one chase vehicle during all of this - us.

Take any number of the few hundred "chasers" around a given storm near a given town, and I guarantee 90% of them don't "chase" outside that county. This happens around every town that's ever affected by tornadic storms. Chasers are the most visible, so they of course get the blame. The part that pisses me off is, the local authorities who bitch at us really need to be looking around at their own townspeople.

Perhaps someone should finally get this memo up to Kansas, which has had a bug up its ass about chasers for far too long. And quite frankly, I'm tired of hearing about it. You don't like chasers, deal with it. You don't like lots of vehicles clogging your back roads, then create a law that keeps all citizens inside their homes during a tornado warning. Fix the problem where it lies instead just pissing out a new news article in a Wichita paper every 4 months about how crappy chasers are.

99% of us do it the right way, therefore this thread isn't even relevant to people like us. And like someone already mentioned: the people who NEED this thread won't even consider its contents. Chasing is what it is. Emotions and reactions are high because we're still so close to a tragedy. In a month it'll be back to normal, and everyone will be moving forward as they normally do. Those of us who know how to do it right will still be doing it right, and the tiny %age that's a problem will still be a problem. That's humanity.