This up close stuff is getting out of hand

[Rob Wadsworth]

Taking away freedoms because of a possible isolated pseudo-chaser incident that has yet to happen would amount to gov't interference.

Local gov'ts may put ordinances in place; but even that would take some kind of public outcry due to some heinous occurrence that has yet to happen. We ARE speculating on what CAN happen here.

There might be some way to separate the pseudo-chaser from the bona fide chaser. That way, if a local wraps himself around a water tower by getting too close to a tornado - or causes a chase-related accident - that it can be identified as such. Less impact on the REAL chase community and back on the untrained locals where it belongs.

In Nebraska, Minnesota, and Iowa - the State Troopers and local police depts have given me their approvals. They understand the need to support volunteers who understand hazardous weather and help with the warning process. I can't see any local or state gov't getting their underwear all bunched up if some chase-related accident should happen. They would end up "throwing the baby out with the bath water" if they couldn't figure that out for themselves.

 

[Jay McCoy]

They couldnt give you a ticket for being around a storm but they could pass laws making it illegal to stop along highways unless it was an emergency and if you can prove your broke down they would ticket you. Wouldnt stop chasing but would make getting a shot much more difficult. In some states its already a law.

I seriously doubt they will "regulate" chasing but if things go bad they could definitely turn up the heat by enforcing existing traffic laws "to the letter" and making our lives miserable. Ofcourse they usually dont have the manpower and are busy dealing with the severe wx themselves but imagine the tickets they could write if they starting looking for things like not signaling, speeding, illegal parking along shoulders, blocking public accesses, uturns, laptops in front seat visible to drivers, etc...Talk about filling their book quickly..lol

I prefer to not piss them off and give them a reason to target us. The more we help them and not cause grief the more lax they will be about our driving behavior...

 

[Dennis Sherrod]

In Nebraska, Minnesota, and Iowa - the State Troopers and local police depts have given me their approvals. They understand the need to support volunteers who understand hazardous weather and help with the warning process. I can't see any local or state gov't getting their underwear all bunched up if some chase-related accident should happen. They would end up "throwing the baby out with the bath water" if they couldn't figure that out for themselves.

O'Rly? Did these various departments give you written approval to conduct chases or spotting? Was this an approval that is passed along to every officer in these jurisdictions for you so they will know that your chasing is approved?
If so, there are plenty more people who would probably like to partake in this approval.

 

[Rob Wadsworth]

O'Rly? Did these various departments give you written approval to conduct chases or spotting? Was this an approval that is passed along to every officer in these jurisdictions for you so they will know that your chasing is approved?
If so, there are plenty more people who would probably like to partake in this approval.

Naw Dennis; but all of them that I'd encountered always stood behind me and what I was doing. I meant it in that sense. The point is and was, that LEOs understand the need is greater than they can meet up to. Heck, the ones that I met and talked to had a surprising lack of real weather training. I think that is why they were so willing to tag along with me and report thru their net. I'm not saying that chaser convergence wouldn't skew their thinking - if that should happen. Probably would...

 

[Terry Kern]

"Taking away freedoms because of a possible isolated pseudo-chaser incident that has yet to happen would amount to gov't interference." It would seem impossible to happen, but with all the federal government interference that's been going on recently, it almost wouldn't surprise me to see the state and local governments follow suit and start sticking their noses in the chasing thing should an incident come to their attention and they decide to take action.

 

[joel ewing]

With respect to the gentleman that said he had "approval" from the Nebraska, Minnesota, etc. et al LEO's....I'm sorry, I have to doubt that. Although I'm in Az....I'm a Nebraska native. Ask any Nebraskan (or Colorado plated car traveling on I-80...lol) Nebraska State Troopers are some hard core SOB's usually. Not much wiggle room with any of those guys...and definitely no humor. Now, if you met one in a bar and shared a beer with him, maybe you'd see a side other than what they present when they pull you over. But they can and will make your life miserable if you're even a little out of line.
As far as "this would amount to government interference...and this couldn't happen"...oh my God....that is simply naive.
"How could "they" prove you were storm chasing?" Simple. They can backtrack your path with OnStar or any other GPS unit which probably will become mandatory with each new auto that Detroit builds. That's why when I order my new Camaro SS Convertible next year, if OnStar is not yet mandatory....it will be the ONLY thing in the order book that I do not want.

 

[Jesse Risley]

As Jay stated, it's far easier and much more likely that LEOs would simply target chasers and use their legal discretion to write tickets for minor violations that would normally net non-chasers nothing more than a warning. If you talk to some chasers and care to take their side of the story with complete veracity, this already happens in certain localized areas.

In my experience, this is usually how LE gets the message across to segments of the population that are viewed as a pain in their orifice. These would be technically legal citations and they discount the need for additional legislation against storm chasing that would be more impractical and rather hard to enforce. If LE develops an indignation towards chasers, they have the system on their side, and unless you chase to the exact letter of every traffic law (and none of us do), you might end up going home with a coupon for $100 off of your next paycheck.

 

[Jason Foster]

With respect to the gentleman that said he had "approval" from the Nebraska, Minnesota, etc. et al LEO's....I'm sorry, I have to doubt that.

I wouldn't just doubt it, I believe it is outright wrong. No written light permit will ever be issued to anyone in any state from my research. You either have to be permitted to use lights without a permit, be associated with some sort of emergency service, or a business identity. To have a permit in more than one state, you have to be a commercial business with certain types of business licenses (such as construction, or interstate EMT transport), as one state will not accept any request for lights for an entity outside of the home state. It's a matter of individual state rights and liability.

Now, perhaps more clarification is necessary on that from said individual.


To go back on topic....is getting closer and closer really netting that much more business, and hence the push to do it, or does it seem to be more of an adrenaline thing? Frankly, I think that video looses it's viability once you get to the point where there is nothing but rain, debris and other misc. muck in the view....not so creative. It certainly make for more news type footage than quality stock style footage.

 

[David Drummond]

I'm not going to worry about it. Pretty much all my chasing these days is related to media aspects, and when any one LEO decides to start trampling my First Amendment rights to document and report severe weather events, attorneys and courts will be involved and they lose their job or sit on desk duty just like about every other LEO has had to do that after they illegally interfered with the media's job of covering an event.

Don't get me wrong now, I have tremendous respect for them and I always ask permission to be in any scenes and follow any instructions they have made to everyone in the area to keep safety and security. 99% of the time it works out nicely.

However, should push come to shove and one tries to target me solely because I am specifically covering a severe weather event, then that violates my First Amendment rights and, well, I just will have to stand on them.

I think too many of you take the "what if" propaganda that has been floating around for 2 decades now a little too seriously.

Some chasers have been proclaiming regulation of chasing for that long or longer now, and it ain't happened yet, and it's not going to happen.

Every single really stupid tactical move I have seen by any chaser has always been covered by another law some place. If you guys really want to get the camaro dude for what he did, he posted the evidence and his face all over place, go on an internet witch hunt, get his info and the video and start a letter writing campaign to the law enforcement officials there. The evidence is there to convict him on several items.

Otherwise, let it go. Bitching about it on the internet is going to amount to nothing more than bitching about it on the internet.

 

[Adam Lucio]

^ I agree.

Sure the Camaro boy video angered me but my first thought was "what can I do about it" People like him will get whats coming to them eventually. He will never amount to anything in the chaser community as he pretty much outsed himself by being wreckless. He will never go anywhere with his chasing "career."

The only thing hell get out of it is some cheap 1 night action from some bimbo that thinks hes a brave superhero...and then die of the STD that follows.

Chasers can get as close as they want, I just would rather see it done the right way and with less "OMG DEAR LORD HELP ME IM IN THE TORNADO" audio.

 

[mikedeason]

^ I agree.

Sure the Camaro boy video angered me but my first thought was "what can I do about it" People like him will get whats coming to them eventually. He will never amount to anything in the chaser community as he pretty much outsed himself by being wreckless. He will never go anywhere with his chasing "career."

Not to pick on you or to defend the guy's actions, but does it really matter if he "amounts to anything in the chaser community?" Many of us have been chasing for years and "don't amount to anything" in the chasing community and we don't really give a rat's rear end either.

Hell, I'd even argue that his irresponsible driving has already rocketed him above a lot of people in his chasing "career" if we measure chaser success by the consensus present day standards and expectations. That is, everyone is talking about him and he's getting his fleeting moments of fame.

 

[Dennis Sherrod]

The only thing hell get out of it is some cheap 1 night action from some bimbo that thinks hes a brave superhero...and then die of the STD that follows.

At some of our ages, at least the first half of that scenario sounds pretty good.

 

[Rob Wadsworth]

With respect to the gentleman that said he had "approval" from the Nebraska, Minnesota, etc. et al LEO's....I'm sorry, I have to doubt that. Although I'm in Az....I'm a Nebraska native. Ask any Nebraskan (or Colorado plated car traveling on I-80...lol) Nebraska State Troopers are some hard core SOB's usually. Not much wiggle room with any of those guys...and definitely no humor.

Let me clarify. I never said that I had ANY written permission for any state govt. I was pointing out that in all the encounters with the LEOs in those states, they were helpful and I helped them. If you had problems with them for whatever reasons, my condolences. So far, it has been a positive experience with all of the State Troopers from those various states. I was saying all of this, because IF there was a chaser convergence - a la Kansas - then they would surely probably get all bent out of shape.
Clearer now?

In effect, the chaser convergence plus the nutty driving by locals calling themselves 'storm chasers' could well give us all a black eye. We don't need it nor deserve it. Local govt's need our eyes and skills. It would be foolish -or stupid- for them to toss storm chasers out as a resource if some unfortunate event should take place. That would be a greater tragedy.

 

[joel ewing]

David, you yourself are media related, and possibly feel some sort of vague protection from LEOs interfering with your rights, but I'm guessing that the majority of ST readers and fellow chasers are not under the media umbrella. Therein lies the rub. If the rest of us receive tickets for "illegally chasing storms" then our reality becomes one where if we choose to fight the charge, then we'll have to 1.) pony up for an attorney 2.) report BACK to the county courthouse where the ticket was issued to appear in court (what if you live in Lubbock, but got the ticket in Omaha?) 3.) point out to the LEO the "I gave to the policeman's ball" sticker on the back of your chase vehicle...no, not really)..
But you get my drift....
If LEO's want to f@#$$#k with you over this...they can, and some undoubtedly will. And we chasers will be left twisting in the wind, with the onus upon us to try to rectify the situation.

 

[David Drummond]

It's not that I feel any vague protection at all Joel. To the contrary I have a very strong protection in the First Amendment of the US Constitution to do what I do out there.

If you really wanted to push that a bit further. In this day and age with all the websites, blogs, ireporters etc, just about anyone can call themselves, and in fact be, a "journalist" and the police really can't say you are not, because then we get into the whole thing about government getting into deciding who gets to be "press" and who doesn't, which flies in the face of "free press" anyway. Arguably, the "new media" of the internet is overtaking traditional media by leaps and bounds.

All that aside though, I just don't understand why some chasers are having issues with cops. After 25 years of roaming the plains I can't think of a single incident with a LEO while chasing that was negative, even when I got a ticket (because I deserved a ticket). In fact, I know some instances where they gave me a break BECAUSE I was a chaser. I can't help but wonder if some of the one's having issues had some sort of an attitude that made the situation be negative, or something.

I've seen posts on here of chasers bitching because some cop got on their ass or gave them a ticket, and it seems in every case I read, the chaser WAS at fault and in violation of the law. They made not have liked it, and maybe the cop could have given a warning, but in the end, the chaser WAS at fault. If you are at fault, take you lumps with a smile and go home.

You speed, you know it's a risk you get a ticket, or any other violation. I speed sometimes. I have gotten tickets. I say thank you and pay my fine because I damn sure deserved that ticket. I knew the risk and got caught. I don't blame the cop and say he hates chasers because he is doing his job. I know there have been a couple of documented exceptions. I know in at least one case they guy in unemployed now and was having issues way before the "chaser incident".

You know for that matter, in all these years I just can't recall all that many chasers I have see in front of the red/blues on the side of the road either.

I have found just about all LEOs are about as interested in the weather as we are when it's in their neighborhood, and few know much more than just a little bit about it, and are extremely happy when you share some info about what's going on, or even a little roadside education in why the storm is doing what it's doing goes a LONG LONG WAY in chaser/police relations.

Remember, if they come up to you and inquire, they chose YOU for information they need to keep themselves and their communities informed during severe weather. Don't underestimate the importance of that.