Will chaser congestion and unncessary risk taking lead to anti-chase legislation?

[Hannah.Taylor]

Well, after today's epic cluster of a screwup by TWC's Mike Bettes, I'm almost sure there will be some anti-storm chasing legislation, or at least discussions towards curbing it.

For those of you that don't know, Bettes got caught with his pants down when a tornado took a hard right turn and picked his chase truck up with his crew in it, flipped it about 50-70 feet up in the air and tossed it 200 feet away from where it was picked up. He almost became the first real life Jonas Miller (Twister, 1996) today.

I'm sure Bettes is wishing he had this one back after today's debacle.
Watch video >

I see a lot of people defending him on facebook, saying it was a mistake...but that is not a mistake. That's just stupid decision making and endangering the life of his crew. Granted, they are all volunteers and know the risk, but there's just no reason to be THAT CLOSE when you're in a vehicle that is not setup for tornado penetration like the TIV (Sean Casey) or the Dominator (Reed Timmer) or the UTAV (Steve Worthington).

I saw a lot of chasers out taking unneccessary risks, and many of our own board members not setting a good example and were putting themselves in harm's way and some even sustained damage to their vehicles.

Not to mention all of the chaser convergence. This stuff is getting out of control. There's unnecessary risks being taken, and it's becoming an obsession to get as close as possible to these tornadoes.

When I chased on the 18th of May in Brownell, KS, I was sitting off Hwy 4 and Hwy 147 just barely east of Brownell and Stan Rose was in the same parking lot, we pulled out to head east and there must have been a chaser train at least 10 miles back to the west.

The chaser convergence in OK on the 19th during the Shawnee storm out near Bristow, and again on the 20th during the Moore, OK tornado. Both days, chase efforts were severely hampered by too many people. A lot of them weren't even chasers...they were just tourists who didn't know anything about chasing and were just simply trying to get pictures and video and it was evident in their driving behavior and side of the road behaviors.

If this type of behavior and etiquette continues, we can be rest assured that Big Brother will step in and seriously curb it with legislation or ban it all together...if it's not already set to happen after today's events.

 

[MClarkson]

For what its worth, watching that velocity couplet, I can confirm this cell was behaving more erratically than any other large storm I have seen. I was quite surprised... most tornadoes/couplets take a fairly straight path, but this one appeared for a bit as if it was zig-zagging like a WW2 warship in sub country, at least during that period when it was at its most intense west of OKC along I40.

As for what are acceptable risks, that is for each person to decide. The thought of "banning" storm chasing is so un-American, I refuse to even discuss it.

 

[Jeff Duda]

There's no aspect of meteorology that says a tornado can't do what that did. Hell, all this week the most significant tornadoes have displayed deviant motions. On Tuesday, the tornado near Bennington, KS either didn't move or looped north and back to the south and west. Another tornado further northeast and a bit earlier remained stationary. That's part of the science. Tornadoes revolve around mesocyclones. If the tornado is not centered under the meso, then it will follow the path of a cycloid, much like the El Reno tornado did (it even displayed that kink where it turns hard right late in its life). Any chaser who neglects that possibility is ignorant and doesn't belong that close to one.

This discussion has come up several times on this thread over the years. I think by and large the consensus among forum members is that it would be nearly impossible to enforce any laws that restrict storm chasing specifically. The only thing law enforcement could ever do is close every single road within X miles of a tornado. However, the manpower required to do that would be way too much for what most local (and even some larger cities) police forces can handle.

As much as I believe the bold statement above to be true, I am completely bewildered at the news I have heard recently. Not just of Tim, Paul, and Carl, but of other chasers also caught. Am I wrong about that? How could so many knowledgeable people get into such a predicament? Did I just not know them as well as I think I did? Was it a random confluence of very negative events?

 

[MClarkson]

Of course its possible, I was just saying it was unusual. Whether they made a mistake and were in a position that was almost certainly going to get rolled, or whether they fell victim to its unusual motion, that will be determined later I am sure. However, if they were intentionally in a position where they ran a slight risk of getting crushed if surprising motion did occur, in a well-built modern car with a roll cage and airbags and seatbelts on, so that even if that 1 in 100 (or 50, or 20 or similar) hard right happens exactly where you are, and you get rolled, you will still probably survive, well lets just say thats an acceptable risk to a fair number of people.

 

[Patrick Martin]

By all accounts, those hit were technically fleeing, so chasing remains safe

It took a few years, but looks like the topic of chaser legislation has officially overtaken lightbars as the most nauseating eye rolling beating a dead horse topic on this board.

 

[Lee Smith-Whaley]

By all accounts, those hit were technically fleeing, so chasing remains safe

It took a few years, but looks like the topic of chaser legislation has officially overtaken lightbars as the most nauseating eye rolling beating a dead horse topic on this board.

What's wrong with my lightbar? In all seriousness, I'm not surprised a day like this happened, and this is the reason I decided to not chase at all. Sadly this is a problem that is not easily solved. Especially since local lookey loos are a big part of the problem. Doesn't help that the last few years, it's been all about who can get up close and get the best footage. Based on facebook posts it also sounds like KFOR and other stations told people to get out of the city contributing to the problem.

 

[Dan Robinson]

The tornado made a highly unanticipated and highly unusual turn. No intentional risk taking occurred.

 

[Rob Wadsworth]

I don't think todays mishap will cause a call for legislation. Chasing has too many roots in the media to be ripped out - for one. Few chasers have anything to do with the scientific community with some exceptions. The NWS still depends on eyes on the ground from some chasers they know and trust and don't have to pay. Everybody knows the risks of bad roads, lightning, hail, wind, other drivers, and the tornado itself. There are and will always be risks here.

Instead, the 'yahoo' local that fancies himself a chaser may well be the target for local legislation - if any move is made at all. But this has also been done to little avail. We have seen that more than a few times and there have been a few threads about some yahoos that have done some pretty bonehead stunts (eg: attempting to drive into the tornado and other three stooges type of stunts). You can't fix Moe, Larry, and Curley.

Think that Jeff Duda nailed it when he said that deviant storm motions were really to blame. Which is another way to say that there is no real blame; but fate itself. A camera crew for a local TV station would have incurred the same risk that any legitimate chaser would. I get pretty leery to suggestions that legislators need to make more laws when they should be more concerned of undoing some. That will give them something constructive to do.

Hope Skip and his crew are all right; Bettes too.

Just two centavos . . .

 

[Hannah.Taylor]

By all accounts, those hit were technically fleeing, so chasing remains safe

It took a few years, but looks like the topic of chaser legislation has officially overtaken lightbars as the most nauseating eye rolling beating a dead horse topic on this board.

If you don't like the topic, then don't come in and comment with rude and immature retorts. capiche`? Your little high school retorts are what's really nauseating.

Either contribute constructively or recuse yourself from the conversation.

What's wrong with my lightbar? In all seriousness, I'm not surprised a day like this happened, and this is the reason I decided to not chase at all. Sadly this is a problem that is not easily solved. Especially since local lookey loos are a big part of the problem. Doesn't help that the last few years, it's been all about who can get up close and get the best footage. Based on facebook posts it also sounds like KFOR and other stations told people to get out of the city contributing to the problem.

agreed, and this is also why I chose not to chase as well. I saw this happening without a doubt after the experience I had 2 weeks ago in Brownell, KS then Shawnee Tornado, and then the Moore tornado.

I agree the problem is a complex one, and chasing has become a competition of sorts. Who can get the closest, who can get the best footage, the longest footage, the most detailed, the best angle the best view. Is legislation the answer? probably not. But I'm starting to think that legislation against chasing will occur at some point in the near future. It's getting to the point where even Law Enforcement is impeded by chasers, and then you throw in a situation like today where KFOR and TWC both told people to get out of the city and that just adds to it.

The tornado made a highly unanticipated and highly unusual turn. No intentional risk taking occurred.

If one weren't so close, that unanticipated and unusual turn would not have put any chaser in harm's way. Stay back far enough and observe from a safe spot. That's why zoom lenses are available.

 

[Hannah.Taylor]

I get pretty leery to suggestions that legislators need to make more laws when they should be more concerned of undoing some. That will give them something constructive to do.

Rob don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I want legislation because I don't...but if you look at all the other caveats in society that are risky, or can potentially hamper law enforcement, or otherwise pose a risk to public safety in times of emergency, I see the legislators jumping all over this like a pack of hungry wolves licking their chops over a freshly killed deer.

We know all too well legislators in this country all too often stick their noses into things they really have no business sticking their nose into to begin with.

We can't even have cherry bombs and m-80's on the 4th of July, because they're "too dangerous" and Joe Moron blows his hand off.

 

[Rob Wadsworth]

One thing that is true in a PDS, is that law enforcement has their hands way too full to deal with traffic issues or chaser convergence. They really can't be bothered with it.

I think TWC will recant their previous position on this subject because their own crew was there and was injured.
If not; they sure will do a fine song 'n dance act around it . . .

 

[Marcus Diaz]

There's a reason I don't chase within a 50 mile radius of a major metro. Yesterday's chaser convergence was expected if you were to have seen SN icons. And with the main TV network advising everyone in El Reno and Yukon to drive south and away from it, I could pretty much see the outcome of a few chasers that didn't make it out of its way. I understand many chasers chase the best storm regardless of proximity of major population or terrain because that's what we learned; play the guarentee. Knowing where the guarentee was on the morning of, it was easy for me to blow off the chase. I know better than to mix hundreds if not thousands of chasers with thousands of scared locals on a limited amount of escape routes. I wish others could've had the same thinking for the sake of their own safety at least. My point is there's going to.be hundreds of other tornadoes to chase, in open fields in sparse population. There's no reason for me to risk my life on violent rain wrapped monsters near a highly populated area.

 

[Joey Ketcham]

Meh, I figured it was only a matter of time before the annual "storm chaser legislation" thread would make an appearance on here. I'll provide the same response that I have provided the past 5 years or so.

I will first say, regulation will never be put into place that regulates storm chasing. Not only would that violate our constitutional rights, how would you even prove that I am a storm chaser if such regulation was put into place? Would it be because I have a laptop? If so, I work in IT and I'm on call pretty much 24/7, so my laptop is with me pretty much all the time. Would I be considered a storm chaser because I have a ham radio? I enjoy talking to people, and got my ham radio license for that reason, not a crime. Or would I get busted as a storm chaser because I have a camera with me? Problem is, I'm into photography, my camera is always in my vehicle and last I checked, that wasn't a crime.
But let's look at this logically, you have a high risk day and you have hundreds of storm chasers surrounding a community of like 1,000 people, chances are, that town probably has like one police officer on duty. Where would they get the man power to do the checks for everyone passing by to see if they're a storm chaser or not? It's not going to happen.

So how about this, instead of telling all of us that there needs to be regulation, or that such and such incident will lead to such regulation... how about you explain to us how such regulation will work.

 

[M Conder]

The tornado made a highly unanticipated and highly unusual turn. No intentional risk taking occurred.

Really? a race to get to as close as possible to a tornado is not taking an "intentional risk"? Hubris, combined with a lack of knowledge (like the pretense that you can anticipate the tornado's movement) will inevitability lead to disaster (and compelling footage of it to boot). And no, nothing will change after this incident. The literally hundreds of chasers gunning straight for the couplet indicated on their smart phone to get their chance to yell nonsensically on national media that they are tracking a "violent", "massive", "ef-4 or ef-5", "multi-vortex", "insert hyperbole here" tornado will only increase after today. But it's okay, because they're out there to save lives, right?

So what is "deviant motion" for a tornado?

 

[Kirk Garwood]

Really? a race to get to as close as possible to a tornado is not taking an "intentional risk"? Hubris, combined with a lack of knowledge (like the pretense that you can anticipate the tornado's movement) will inevitability lead to disaster (and compelling footage of it to boot). And no, nothing will change after this incident. The literally hundreds of chasers gunning straight for the couplet indicated on their smart phone to get their chance to yell nonsensically on national media that they are tracking a "violent", "massive", "ef-4 or ef-5", "multi-vortex", "insert hyperbole here" tornado will only increase after today. But it's okay, because they're out there to save lives, right?

So what is "deviant motion" for a tornado?

Pretty much nailed it. This won't end until the people doing it are killed so I say let natural selection take its course and thin the herd already.

The Weather Channel has jumped the shark with this one. I feel an Onion article coming any time now.