Hannah.Taylor
EF5
I doubt it. Unless it involves a minority, the ACLU wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole.
-
While Stormtrack has discontinued its hosting of SpotterNetwork support on the forums, keep in mind that support for SpotterNetwork issues is available by emailing [email protected].
Will chaser congestion and unncessary risk taking lead to anti-chase legislation?
- Thread starter Hannah.Taylor
- Start date
I doubt it. Unless it involves a minority, the ACLU wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole.
Elaine Spencer
EF3
Storm spotting -- the act of observing storms for signs of tornadoes, hail, high winds, etc. -- is somewhat regulated in that the NWS and networks like Skywarn require some degree of training to be recognized as an official spotter.
Storm chasing -- the act of traveling to an area of storms or expected storm development -- is not regulated and, as far as I can see, really can't be regulated any more than any other form of highway travel.
Storm chasing -- the act of traveling to an area of storms or expected storm development -- is not regulated and, as far as I can see, really can't be regulated any more than any other form of highway travel.
CWhite
I cant find the paper i am referencing. I saw it years ago. If you read the operational meterologist blog about the greensburg, ks tornado, he speaks about the couplet moving in the NE'ly fashion but swinging left and right across its mean path, and the way he described it was like clockwork. He is the one which coined the warning "tornado emergency." He is also credited and regarded , as a hero, in his community for his strongly worded tornado warning.
Jacob Ferden
EF4
If you're referring to who issued the Greensburg tornado emergency, that was Mike Umscheid, a highly respected meteorologist with NWS Dodge City. But that was not the first "tornado emergency" issued...that occurred on May 3, 1999 when the F5 was near Bridge Creek, OK, and moving toward Moore.
Dan Robinson
EF5
The left turn is a well-known behavior. In this case, the abruptness of the turn, rapid expansion and sudden acceleration - all together - was unprecedented and could not have been anticipated.
Dave Gallaher
EF5
You are way in the dark on this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_court_cases_involving_the_American_Civil_Liberties_Union
Jake Orosi
EF4
Yes, but - after the 31st we can't say that anymore going forward. Now it does have precedent and can be anticipated.
Eric Wind
Driving courses don't usually include how to handle your vehicle in extreme weather, just rain and flooding and maybe ice and snow depending on where you are. They certainly don't tell you how to handle your vehicle in high wind situations (other than, don't drive in them if possible), what's a safe distance to keep from the tornado, how tornadoes typically act, so on and so forth. So, again, there is no comparison to skydiving or any other hobby that is truly regulated.
I don't understand how that is supposed to counter me. I'm taking explicit issue with that statement. It is certainly not regulated compared to skydiving or anything else for that matter.
Last edited by a moderator:
Eric Wind
That's not true, the ACLU picks up cases from "non-minorities" all the time. I agree, though, that the ACLU wouldn't pick up this particular issue, because it wouldn't be a civil liberties issue.
Sean Ramsey
EF4
Stormchasing is not regulated in any way. It is done within the confines of existing traffic laws, and the only regulation might be that it keeps those younger than 16 from doing it because they can't get a drivers license.
It's tough to picture hard legislation that could regulate or ban chasing. But, government money could be spent in public ad campaigns much like drinking and driving, texing while driving, etc. that may try to curb the number of people out on the roads...I could see this in OK and KS real easy. Maybe it works with the FCC to get a handle on the media side of it, issuing fines for anything considered over the line, or in response to the public danger it works with the media directly to tone down the sensationalism of it.
In the last three weeks, in most interviews I've seen with law enforcement they have been positive that there is a need for chasers and their eyes on the storms are necessary. I think chasers build awareness of situations with each of their individual followings through Facebook and Twitter, and in their personal circles that may get lost in the noise of constant media.
I also think this is an issue that will be formed around public perception and peer pressure, not individual laws. When the public starts looking upon those who have no business being out there as endangering others or preventing lives from being saved in some way that can have a huge impact on behavior. It wouldn't take much to make that distinguishable to the public after a few ad campaigns and possibly an endorsed training course.
It's tough to picture hard legislation that could regulate or ban chasing. But, government money could be spent in public ad campaigns much like drinking and driving, texing while driving, etc. that may try to curb the number of people out on the roads...I could see this in OK and KS real easy. Maybe it works with the FCC to get a handle on the media side of it, issuing fines for anything considered over the line, or in response to the public danger it works with the media directly to tone down the sensationalism of it.
In the last three weeks, in most interviews I've seen with law enforcement they have been positive that there is a need for chasers and their eyes on the storms are necessary. I think chasers build awareness of situations with each of their individual followings through Facebook and Twitter, and in their personal circles that may get lost in the noise of constant media.
I also think this is an issue that will be formed around public perception and peer pressure, not individual laws. When the public starts looking upon those who have no business being out there as endangering others or preventing lives from being saved in some way that can have a huge impact on behavior. It wouldn't take much to make that distinguishable to the public after a few ad campaigns and possibly an endorsed training course.
Jake Orosi
EF4
Skydiving is only regulated because it uses the air; so its regulations are all FAA regulations. The FAA was not created to regulate skydiving.
Likewise, storm chasing is regulated by the various state motor vehicle agencies. These agencies weren't made specifically to regulate storm chasing, but since storm chasing utilizes motor vehicles and public roads exclusively, the state DOT necessarily "regulates storm chasing" by the same token that the FAA "regulates skydiving". Perhaps not as extensively - but then I started out that post by saying that already.
Eric Wind
This doesn't matter. The FAA has specific guidelines for skydiving, including chute riggers. There are also various hobby-specific organizations that issue their own guidelines, complimentary to the FAA. There's no such thing for storm chasing.
This isn't the same thing. You're still reaching. Storm chasing is simply not a regulated hobby, much less "more" regulated than any other high-risk hobby.
Last edited by a moderator:
Karen St John
EF3
There would be no need to pass any kind of law to regulate storm chasing...LEO's just need to shut down sections of the highway in an emergency situation.
Elaine Spencer
EF3
I agree that state motor vehicle agencies don't "regulate" chasing, per se, any more than they regulate any other form of highway travel.
That said, that may not stop state legislators or local city/county councils/boards from attempting to do so via ill-concieved legislation.
If this does happen, I have a few tips to offer based upon my day job experience reviewing state agency regulations and monitoring legislation.
At the state level, bills usually have to be heard/reviewed by a committee before they are voted on. The same may be true for many city councils or county boards/commissions with regard to proposed ordinances. The most efficient way to kill off bad legislation is at the committee stage, so that it never gets to a full vote.
Should a really bad anti-chasing bill come up in OK or KS or elsewhere, my suggestion would be for chasers living in those states to immediately contact the chairperson of the committee to which the bill is assigned, and express your concerns. If the bill is scheduled for a committee hearing, contact the chairperson well ahead of time and ask if you or someone else can testify on behalf of your group. (You can't just show up on the day of the hearing and expect to be allowed at the mic.) Make sure your testimony is written out ahead of time, and submit a copy to the committee chair for their records. If you can get someone from an official body such as the local NWS office to back you up, all the better.
Very few bills introduced in any given year at the state or federal level ever become law, because most don't make it past the committee hearing stage. I wouldn't hit the panic button just yet -- it's too early to tell whether any of these anti-chasing proposals have staying power, and many state legislatures are either already done for the year or won't come back into session until fall, by which time they will have moved on to other issues. But if anti-chase measures do get serious, this is probably the best way to quash them before they pick up momentum.
That said, that may not stop state legislators or local city/county councils/boards from attempting to do so via ill-concieved legislation.
If this does happen, I have a few tips to offer based upon my day job experience reviewing state agency regulations and monitoring legislation.
At the state level, bills usually have to be heard/reviewed by a committee before they are voted on. The same may be true for many city councils or county boards/commissions with regard to proposed ordinances. The most efficient way to kill off bad legislation is at the committee stage, so that it never gets to a full vote.
Should a really bad anti-chasing bill come up in OK or KS or elsewhere, my suggestion would be for chasers living in those states to immediately contact the chairperson of the committee to which the bill is assigned, and express your concerns. If the bill is scheduled for a committee hearing, contact the chairperson well ahead of time and ask if you or someone else can testify on behalf of your group. (You can't just show up on the day of the hearing and expect to be allowed at the mic.) Make sure your testimony is written out ahead of time, and submit a copy to the committee chair for their records. If you can get someone from an official body such as the local NWS office to back you up, all the better.
Very few bills introduced in any given year at the state or federal level ever become law, because most don't make it past the committee hearing stage. I wouldn't hit the panic button just yet -- it's too early to tell whether any of these anti-chasing proposals have staying power, and many state legislatures are either already done for the year or won't come back into session until fall, by which time they will have moved on to other issues. But if anti-chase measures do get serious, this is probably the best way to quash them before they pick up momentum.
Similar threads
