Storm Chasing: Ethics and Safety

[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".