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

[Andrew Stoller]

Of course the freedom lovers at Fox News are having a legal debate right now as to the legality of storm chasing and whether it should be banned.

 

[Tim Vasquez]

Looks like things have taken a bit of a right turn with the tragedy of Tim, Paul, and Carl... this does appear to be getting considerable traction in the mass media and now I do wonder if there will be a bit of a backlash. I don't know how old Tim's son was, but if he was a minor, that could be yet another issue to contend with. All of this could conceivably coalesce into some sort of anti-chase legislation. On the other hand, I don't believe there has ever been a bill that's made it out of committee, much less been proposed (at least to my knowledge). I would expect that legislators have their hands full with rebuilding, and if any serious problems came about it would come from any reports that chasers actually contributed to others' deaths, which I don't think is the case here.

 

[Joe Acord]

Newsok.com states that Paul was 27

 

[Joe Acord]

Storm chasing/spotting is a vital part of public safety if done in that capacity. If it is done as a money making scheme to "fund" your chase season, then your priorities are whacked.

 

[Jesse Risley]

Of course the freedom lovers at Fox News are having a legal debate right now as to the legality of storm chasing and whether it should be banned.

It is a legitimate topic, even if one does not like Fox News per se. Theoretically, a legislative body can pass anything it well chooses and then task law enforcement or regulatory agencies with enforcing the law that was passed. Whether or not said legislation will withstand constitutional scrutiny once challenged and appealed is, in my opinion, the crux of the issue. In this case, I do not see how any legislation that targets an individual's ability to freely observe a thunderstorm or tornado from a fixed location can withstand scrutiny once it makes its way through the judicial system.

The standing American legal precedent essentially ensures your right to be out in public associating with whomever or observing the skies, taking photos, etc. Targeting broad behaviors like this is a recipe for judicial review that will rescind the legislation on constitutional grounds - i.e., I don't see how you can ticket or arrest people for driving in a legal manner while observing a storm or just being in the area, in a safe spot, observing, filming or photographing adverse weather.

However, as I've said before, that doesn't mean that stricter legal actions cannot be taken to target problematic chasing behaviors, within the confines of already granted, albeit constitutional powers of law enforcement agencies. What this could mean might include, but not be limited to, the following: chasers targeted for traffic tickets for any illegal behavior the police can find, even trivial driving infractions like speeding 1-5 mph over the posted limit, zero tolerance for parking/stopping/standing/improper lane usage when pulling over to video or photo storms, citations for GPS/computer/video equipment being used in an illegal manner (e.g., open laptops while driving or having a camera suction mounted to the window), and perhaps more numerous road blocks and highway closures like we saw in OK on Friday. In short, law enforcement already has the legal means to deal with most of the problematic behaviors that take place on public right-of-ways, so why new legislation that is so broad would even be given nominal consideration is beyond me.

 

[Andrew Stoller]

Looks like things have taken a bit of a right turn with the tragedy of Tim, Paul, and Carl... this does appear to be getting considerable traction in the mass media and now I do wonder if there will be a bit of a backlash. I don't know how old Tim's son was, but if he was a minor, that could be yet another issue to contend with. All of this could conceivably coalesce into some sort of anti-chase legislation. On the other hand, I don't believe there has ever been a bill that's made it out of committee, much less been proposed (at least to my knowledge). I would expect that legislators have their hands full with rebuilding, and if any serious problems came about it would come from any reports that chasers actually contributed to others' deaths, which I don't think is the case here.

I can't see how anything could become federally legislated. OTOH, it wouldn't surprise me one bit if Oklahoma did something. I'm seeing it everywhere today online where people are talking about how stupid and dangerous storm chasing is and how it should be illegal. I know just 3 days ago people were still blowing off the possibility of a chaser getting killed; it still won't surprise me one bit if some states start the legislation process. What the actual statute would be and how it would be implemented is anyone's guess. However, chasing is only going to get more popular, roads will only get more clogged etc.

With government, never say never. There are some insane statutes on the books in many states.

 

[Andrew Stoller]

In this case, I do not see how any legislation that targets an individual's ability to freely observe a thunderstorm or tornado from a fixed location can withstand scrutiny once it makes its way through the judicial system.

The standing American legal precedent essentially ensures your right to be out in public associating with whomever or observing the skies, taking photos, etc. Targeting broad behaviors like this is a recipe for judicial review that will rescind the legislation on constitutional grounds - i.e., I don't see how you can ticket or arrest people for driving in a legal manner while observing a storm or just being in the area, in a safe spot, observing, filming or photographing adverse weather.

Oh, I agree entirely. I would think it would be blatantly unconsitutional to make it illegal to watch a thunderstorm, of all things! However, when legislators start coming up with stuff about protecting the public, and public safety and all that, there is plnety of precedent of legality for laws aiming for the public good/safety.

If it ever happened that a law of "loitering near a thunderstorm" or something stupid like that came about, it would be a legislative knee jerk reaction. The question is, who would pay to have it legally challenged?????

 

[Jesse Risley]

If it ever happened that a law of "loitering near a thunderstorm" or something stupid like that came about, it would be a legislative knee jerk reaction. The question is, who would pay to have it legally challenged?????

Personally, I would hope that a civil libertarian organization (e.g., the ACLU) that focuses on preserving individual civil liberties would take the case pro-bono, since a court ruling that affirmed the legality of any such legislation would, in my opinion, be a slippery slope whereby a new precedent is set for government to curtail any behavior that it sees as problematic.

 

[Jake Orosi]

I don't think we have to worry about chasers being arrested or ticketed for driving or behaving in a manner that is currently legal. It's possible, but I don't think such new laws are likely.

I think what's far more likely is chasers having more attention paid to them, and being ticketed for things that are already illegal - namely speeding, but perhaps other things like failure to disperse, seat belt and parking violations.

 

[Hannah.Taylor]

Jesse, can you find a link to the Fox Video of them discussing it? I'd like to hear that debate.


USA Today has a published piece today. This is what I was afraid of when I posted the thread. I however had no inclination that 3 chasers lives were taken though when I posted this.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...m-chasers-tornadoes-oklahoma-weather/2382175/

The adrenaline-soaked thrill of stalking a twister is best displayed by the countless videos spawned when storms approach -- jittery images from a hand-held camera with the breathless voice-over of a storm chaser in the background.

But Friday night those voices turned to panic. Oklahoma Highway Patrol Trooper Betsy Randolph says she could hear the audio from storm chasers trapped on Oklahoma highways as a tornado bore down.

"They were screaming, 'We're going to die, we're going to die,' " she recalls. "There was just no place to go. There was no place to hide."

The burgeoning community of storm chasers was shaken over the weekend by news that one of their most esteemed members, veteran storm chaser Tim Samaras, 55, along with his son, Paul Samaras, 24, and chase partner Carl Young, 45, were killed by a tornado in El Reno that packed winds of up to 165 mph. They were among 13 killed in storms Friday in Oklahoma.

The storm chasers' deaths have cast into stark relief the hazards for those who choose to place themselves near lethal tornadoes.

"He (Tim Samaras) was a really well-respected researcher and he was not at all considered someone who was reckless. And so that's why this is so surprising," says Cameron Redwine, 32, a storm chaser and photojournalist from Denver.

Tim Samaras founded TWISTEX, the Tactical Weather Instrumented Sampling in/near Tornadoes Experiment, to help learn more about tornadoes and increase lead time for warnings, according to its official website. Samaras' field work was supported by the National Geographic Society.

"Thank you to everyone for the condolences. It truly is sad that we lost my great brother, Tim, and his great son, Paul," Jim Samaras wrote in a statement posted on his brother's Facebook page. "Our hearts also go out to the Carl Young family as well as they are feeling the same feelings we are today. They all unfortunately passed away but doing what they loved."

Samaras' crushed vehicle was found along a road running south of and parallel to Highway 40 just outside El Reno, Okla., leading authorities to speculate he was tracking the tornado as it was heading east before suddenly turning south, says Canadian County Undersheriff Chris West. One body was found inside the wreckage, a second about quarter-mile east and a third a quarter-mile west, West says.

Storm chasers have become a staple of weather coverage on cable TV networks such as The Weather Channel, CNN, MSNBC and Fox News. The practice involves individuals driving equipment-laden vehicles as close as possible to potential tornadoes and other violent weather, sending live video feeds and eyewitness accounts as storms approach and unleash their fury. Storm chasing puts the participants at risk.

In recent years, their numbers have expanded far beyond scientific researchers or professional weather reporters.

"There are thousands of storm chasers across the country now, all parts of the country," Weather Channel severe weather expert Greg Forbes says.

They hold conventions. Tour companies with names such as Extreme Chase Tours or Weather Gods have sprung up promising, for a price, to deliver anyone seeking a thrill to the doorstep of a tornado. Videos on their sites are a pantheon of twisters and dark skies with hard-driving rock music in the background and a voice exclaiming: "This is what it's all about right here."

The proliferation of storm chasers, particularly those armed only with a video camera and a taste for thrill-seeking, has left law enforcement and many veteran storm followers concerned about growing safety risks.

"When they put themselves in harm's way to chase the storms for whatever the reason," says Trooper Randolph, "they make it harder for us because then we're having to work around more people on the highway, more people that we're trying to rescue. And, sometimes, they end up being part of the problem."

Already, groups are suggesting that the deaths Friday could lead to re-evaluation of storm-chasing tactics.

"It is too early to say specifically how this might change how we cover severe weather, but we certainly plan to review and discuss this incident," says David Blumenthal, a spokesman for The Weather Company, parent company of the Weather Channel. Three members of The Weather Channel staff were in an SUV that was sent tumbling some 200 yards by the storm Friday, leaving one occupant hospitalized with broken bones, Forbes says.

"I hope there are lessons learned from this tornado," he says, "that people realize that if they're going to go out storm-chasing, that they could die. There's no guarantee that they're going to be able to escape the tornado."

The Capital Weather Gang, The Washington Post's weather coverage team, criticized storm chasing in a post this weekend headlined "The day that should change tornado actions and storm chasing forever."

Forbes says there have been times when so many vehicles were chasing a tornado that drivers were getting in each other's way, all while a dangerous funnel cloud roared nearby.

"Storm-chasing is not something to be taken lightly. Sometimes you chase the tornado and sometimes you get in a position where the tornado chases you," he says.

Still, there remains significant value in on-the-ground reporting of tornadoes, Forbes says. Storm chasers can confirm the sighting of funnels and whether they have reached the ground. Skilled storm analysts such as Tim Samaras, who was killed Friday, can provide valuable data about a phenomenon around which many mysteries still remain.

In addition, viewers find most credible the first-hand accounts of a tornado in their area, Forbes says, and will choose to seek shelter as a result.

"There's tremendous amount of value from spotters and storm chasers," he says. "There is concern that law enforcement agencies or government agencies might outlaw or seek to curtail chasing activity because of the few bad behaviors or just too much road congestion."

It is certainly perilous work. In the Oklahoma storm Friday, the tornado that was about a mile wide crossed interstate highways where traffic was jammed and motorists were unable to get away. Forbes says GPS readings confirmed there were probably two dozen storm-chasing vehicles in the area at the time.
Redwine -- who was not in Oklahoma for the storm, but has chased tornadoes for 16 years -- says the lure of one of these monsters is powerful.

"There are others, like me, who are just absolutely fascinated by it," Redwine says. "They are as equally beautiful and awe-inspiring as they are dangerous and destructive."

In an online video about his work, Tim Samaras tries to explain his passion for the storms. "I'm not sure exactly why I chase storms. Perhaps it's to witness the incredible beauty mother nature can create," he says. "All my life I've been on a quest to find out how these things work."

Contributing: Trevor Hughes; the Associated Press

Oh, I agree entirely. I would think it would be blatantly unconsitutional to make it illegal to watch a thunderstorm, of all things! However, when legislators start coming up with stuff about protecting the public, and public safety and all that, there is plnety of precedent of legality for laws aiming for the public good/safety.

If it ever happened that a law of "loitering near a thunderstorm" or something stupid like that came about, it would be a legislative knee jerk reaction. The question is, who would pay to have it legally challenged?????

I don't know that would make it "unconstitutional". There's nothing in the constitution that talks about storm chasing. Not trying to make fun of you or anything, but it neither applies to freedom of speech, press or expression. Just trying to understand your legal ground that your coming from, but what exactly would make it unconstitutional if the government were to make it illegal?

 

[Andrew Stoller]

How about this: driving to and watching a thunderstorm for personal enjoyment and satisfaction falls under "the pursuit of happiness".

 

[Andrew Stoller]

http://foxnewsinsider.com/2013/06/0...samaras-son-colleague-killed-oklahoma-tornado

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/ameri...stions-about-storm-chasing/?playlist_id=87651


"Some now questioning whether storm chasing should be illegal."

What really pisses me off is listening to media personalities, who are perfectly willing to pay lots of money to purchase licenses for chaser streams and flaunt it all over national media all afternoon when big storms hit, are now questioning whether it should even be legal.

 

[Mike Peregrine]

As far as speculation about what happened Friday:

Samaras’s body was found in the car, still buckled in, and the other two victims were found half a mile to the east and half a mile to the west, the undersheriff said. He speculated that they thought they could parallel the storm on the county road, and either the storm turned or a new vortex descended from the clouds. “We’re never going to know, because they’re not here to tell us,” West said.

Washington Post Article Here

 

[Hannah.Taylor]

How about this: driving to and watching a thunderstorm for personal enjoyment and satisfaction falls under "the pursuit of happiness".

The pursuit of happiness is not written into the Constitution. It's written into the Declaration of Independence. Which keep in mind is not a legally binding document in consideration of today's (or yesterday's or even in 1776) laws. This was nothing but a formal document stating that were Declaring our Independence from England.

http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

and the Pursuit of happiness is not a U.S. right, and is not granted by the U.S, and as such has no legal merit in a courtroom or in legislation.

 

[truechampion]

In the USA Today article it states that "storm chasing puts the participants at risk". So does race car driving, skydiving, and many other activities, but I haven't heard anyone say those activities should be banned.