Is traveling in convoys allowed?

[skeptic]

Interestingly, I just ran across this, from Mike Rowe.  It say much that can relate to this subject.  I agree with most of what he suggests, and I even like the song Be Prepared that is linked.  https://mikerowe.com/2018/05/otw-death-of-the-boy-scouts/

[scoutldr]

I love Mike Rowe.  This echos everything I believe about the BSA and I was that young Scout, too. 

[SiouxRanger]

11 hours ago, DuctTape said:

These other drivers were oblivious to everyone else due to their primary objective of staying in a group. 

Excellent point. A bona fide data point to evaluate the wisdom of convoying.  I've seen that in funeral processions with 20 or 30 cars.  Running stop signs en masse, etc.

I once saw a strange pattern of streaming traffic coming off a side road onto a state highway (very rural)-all running the stop sign.  No hearse in view, and given the layout and topography, had there been a hearse, it should have been in view, but apparently it was so far ahead of the procession as to be out of sight. No vehicles had funeral running flags on the hoods, nor headlights on… All confusing to me. No traffic control-officers.

At my father-in-law's funeral procession not so long ago, in Tennessee, police officers accompanied the procession and even blocked off major roads for a few minutes. And, AND, all oncoming vehicles pulled off the road in a show of tribute. Never seen that before.

Funeral processions are just one subset of  "vehicle convoy scenarios." But it does demonstrate how the normal traffic rules get distorted (totally ignored) in certain circumstances. And how other drivers, not aware that other vehicles who all consider themselves "in a convoy," have no idea of the "convoy mentality" and may well end up entangled in the convoy.

To my eternal regret, regarding the rural funeral procession, I got intermixed in the funeral procession. To avoid that, I would have had to come to a complete stop on a major state route until about 20 cars ran the stop sign to keep up with the funeral procession. I made the right decision from a safety viewpoint, but I still feel like an intruder into a private moment.

11 hours ago, skeptic said:

How about we simply agree that actual convoying is not the best idea,

My troop ALWAYS convoyed, for all of my 24 years there, and I led the convoy for all those years.

NO ONE ever questioned the practice. AND THAT is the problem.

"Never questioned." 

"We've always done it this way."

In my opinion, that is never a good answer.

Well, in my case, and my failure, the question was never asked…I just trod the road always taken.

"Two roads diverged into a yellow wood…" -Frost

Richard Feynman was unable to resolve a physics problem by 7%. All his work led him to an answer that was 7% off accepted theoretical physics.

And so, Feynman reviewed ALL the prior academic papers regarding the issue.

And found them to be 7% OFF.

Feynman was right.

Feynman was right all along.  Feynman is a Nobel Prize winner.

"Simply agreeing" may be accepting the inaccurate conclusions of others.

11 hours ago, skeptic said:

A policy, maybe not on paper.  Common sense is all we need.  Why do we need to make it bigger than needed?

"A policy, maybe not on paper…"

So, if not on paper, where do we find the Convouy "policy" of the US wide national organization of the BSA?

11 hours ago, skeptic said:

How about we simply agree that actual convoying is not the best idea, and that defensive driving and obeying the law are paramount.

Convoying and not driving defensively and not obeying the laws are not mutually exclusive. One can convoy and follow all the rules of traffic law. (The question is whether the participants of the convoy are instructed on how to do that-and THAT is a good point.)

In my experience, I anticipated lights changing to red, traffic loads, etc.…adjusted speed accordingly.

We never had a traffic related issue.

We planned our routes to maximize travel on major highways, interstates, with few access points to minimize traffic issues.

11 hours ago, skeptic said:

How about we simply agree

 Essentially a statement:  "I'll tell you what to think/believe…"

I have a simple philosophy: "I don't ask that anyone believe or think (accept my beliefs) and I don't accept any compulsion that I believe this of anyone else."

12 hours ago, skeptic said:

as I have little patience at my seasoned age for nonsense.

"seasoned age"

Well, I'm over 70.

(and my Wood Badge resume is 4 pages long, and most positions I've held in Scouting are at least 10 years, many over 20, (most simultaneously) at Council, District, Troop, and Pack level).

 

12 hours ago, skeptic said:

for nonsense.

How does one mix discussions of "safety" with "nonsense?"

My sole adult/parent life has been involved with shepherding my sons through Scouting to Eagle. I have been the lead of my sons' troop and have NEVER heard of convoying issues.

[SiouxRanger]

And for mixing discussions of nonsense and safety.

I am known for, and sometimes derided for, being a a "safety nut."

And the safety issue of convoying entirely escaped me.

 

 

[SiouxRanger]

But I know not how to rebuild an eye lost to trauma, nor repair a broken bone, nor restore breath to a crushed body.

I DO  know how to discuss safety in advance of horrific loss.

Extremism in defense of Safety is no Vice.

[qwazse]

9 hours ago, SiouxRanger said:

At my father-in-law's funeral procession not so long ago, in Tennessee, police officers accompanied the procession and even blocked off major roads for a few minutes. And, AND, all oncoming vehicles pulled off the road in a show of tribute. Never seen that before.

I saw that once in northern Indiana. Some places have unwritten rules that are more solid than legislation,

[skeptic]

Well, I said I would not say more, but being sure about what I thought I had seen, I found an online copy of the discontinued Tour Permit.  Here is what I likely read and to which I referred. Read the last line or two; it specifically says "If more than one vehicle is used to transport our group, we will establish rendezvous points at the start  of each day and not attempt to have drivers closely follow the group vehicle in front of them."

"' 1. We will use the Safe Swim Defense in any swimming activity, Safety Afloat in all craft activity on the water, and Climb On Safely for climbing activity. 2. We will use trucks only for transporting equipment—no passengers except in the cab. All passenger cars, station wagons, recreational vehicles, and cabs of trucks will have a seat belt for each passenger. 3. We agree to enforce reasonable travel speed (in accordance with national, state, and local laws) and use only vehicles that are in safe mechanical condition. 4. We will be certain that fires are attended at all times. 5. We will apply for a fire permit from local authorities in all areas where it is required. 6. We will at all times be a credit to the Boy Scouts of America and will not tolerate rowdyism or un-Scoutlike conduct, keeping a constant check on all members of our group. 7. We will maintain high standards of personal cleanliness and orderliness and will operate a clean and sanitary camp, leaving it in a better condition than we found it. 8. We will not litter or bury any trash, garbage, or tin cans. All rubbish that cannot be burned will be placed in  a tote-litter bag and taken to the nearest recognized trash disposal or all the way home, if necessary. 9. We will not deface trees, restrooms, or other objects with initials or writing. 10. We will respect the property of others and will not trespass. 11. We will not cut standing trees or shrubs without specific permission from the land owner or manager. 12. We will collect only souvenirs that are gifts to us or that we purchase. 13. We will pay our own way and not expect concessions or entertainment from any individual or group. 14. We will provide every member of our party an opportunity to attend religious services on the Sabbath. 15. We will observe the courtesy to write thank-you notes to persons who assisted us on our trip. 16. We will, in case of backcountry expedition, read and abide by the Wilderness Use Policy of the BSA. 17. We will notify, in case of serious trouble, our local council service center, our parents, or other local contact. 18. If more than one vehicle is used to transport our group, we will establish rendezvous points at the start  of each day and not attempt to have drivers closely follow the group vehicle in front of them.

 

So there we have it.  Now I can shut up and know I saw and read what I thought I had.  

[InquisitiveScouter]

On 5/3/2024 at 6:11 PM, InquisitiveScouter said:

And, for the history buffs, see page 49 in the attachment, right side, #10.

 

2007 Printing, BSAGuideToSafeScouting.pdf 1.25 MB · 6 downloads

See this post... This policy was solidly in place within the last 20 years, but is no longer found.

Edited June 13 by InquisitiveScouter

[fred8033]

39 minutes ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

See this post... This policy was solidly in place within the last 20 years, but is no longer found.

THANK YOU !   I love seeing how documents change over time. 

I've repeatedly compared versions of G2SS, GTA and rank requirements.  It's extremely useful to understand how things evolve.

[RememberSchiff]

6 hours ago, fred8033 said:

THANK YOU !   I love seeing how documents change over time. 

I've repeatedly compared versions of G2SS, GTA and rank requirements.  It's extremely useful to understand how things evolve.

I wish it was SOP for all BSA documents, press releases, messages, etc to be CLEARLY DATED (publication and effective) WITH AUTHOR (person or group) on Page 1 and again on page footers.

My $0.02,

[SiouxRanger]

13 hours ago, RememberSchiff said:

I wish it was SOP for all BSA documents, press releases, messages, etc to be CLEARLY DATED (publication and effective) WITH AUTHOR (person or group) on Page 1 and again on page footers.

My $0.02,

I have  one of those date stamps by every chair where I work and a stamp pad.  Everything gets dated. (And the time also.)

A client gives me two conflicting directions to me regarding dispositions in their Will. Very important that I can document which direction was LAST.

All of my documents bear revision dates, so I can tell which document was "last."

"Tom gets $400,000."  Then later, client directs "Bill gets the $400,000."

If I can't prove which client direction was "last" client's estate pays either Tom or Bill $400,000 and I pay the other $400,000.

I don't charge "attorney's fees"-I charge "insurance premiums."

If I can't prove I followed my client's directions, I am liable, or at least embroiled in a morass of debate and accusations likely to spoil years of life.

National's slack adherence to dating protocols leaves room for huge ambiguities.  Ambiguity = RISK.

National, being so risk adverse, why would it not adhere to standard practices in the various industries that produce documents that change over time? Like surveys.  Or building plans.  Engineering drawings. All of the surveys I've ever seen have revision date history and initials of the folks responsible.  State statues are smothered with overwhelming evolutionary history.

An internet search on a topic will produce hits to a plethora of documents and if they are not dated, it is a fool's errand to determine which is the most current guideline to be followed.

And, can anyone shed light on why there is NO National voice on this forum responding to the excellent discussion here?

[SiouxRanger]

On 6/12/2024 at 6:05 PM, skeptic said:

Well, I said I would not say more, but being sure about what I thought I had seen, I found an online copy of the discontinued Tour Permit.  Here is what I likely read and to which I referred. Read the last line or two; it specifically says "If more than one vehicle is used to transport our group, we will establish rendezvous points at the start  of each day and not attempt to have drivers closely follow the group vehicle in front of them."

And  I do not doubt you for one second.

What concerns me is that this point is likely missed by far too many. And if the risks of convoying are high, then National should make a much better effort to emphasize them.

National has done a fine job emphasizing the risks of people riding in the beds of pickup trucks.  That has been a no-no since my early days in 1969-perhaps even earlier before my camp staff days. I never see that violated, and I am at camp at least a day a month.

Whether the Tour Permit is currently required or not, the accident statistics behind the statement in the Tour Permit:

"If more than one vehicle is used to transport our group, we will establish rendezvous points at the start  of each day and not attempt to have drivers closely follow the group vehicle in front of them."

-have not changed.

If statistics showed that convoying increased the risk of accident in convoying group travel at the time that that statement was included in the Tour Permit, with the demise of the Tour Permit, the risk remains the same.

Essentially, Tour Permit or not, the danger of convoying remains high and no one should do it.

By way of example:

I caution: "Tom, be careful with the chainsaw-it could cut off your foot."

If I no longer caution Tom, who continues to use the chainsaw, does the risk of cutting off his foot decrease?

No. Tom no longer gets a warning, that is all.

Curiously, by eliminating the Tour Permit, risk adverse National, has ELIMINATED one level of warning to Scouters about the danger of convoying.

And by so doing, has actually INCREASED the risk to National's secondary insurer.

Hmmmm.

[skeptic]

Once more, reality of human nature rears.  The long discourse here proves that few paid any real attention to the material on the permits.  They just made sure to fill in the blanks and hopefully verified the various certifications of training and licenses.  In our troop we asked for verification of driver information, including coverages.  We also made it clear that if warranted, some might not be drivers, for whatever reason.  We did accomplish one thing though.  Almost the first thing one scout would say when all were in.  "Seatbelts".