Hello everyone. I do a lot of hunting in the mountains and I have always been reasonably equipped for early season storms or blizzards, so I have come to the conclusion that I have probably more to fear from lightning than from the cold. From various online sites I have learned to stay away from trees and to squat down with my feet together in order to make as small a "signature" as possible. My question concerns what to do if I am on my ATV. The websites seem to indicate that a vehicle is only safe with the windows rolled up. Would it be better to "assume the position" next to the bike or would it be better to sit on it? Intuition tells me I'm probably better off on 4 rubber wheels than on my feet, but then my intuition has been wrong before. Sitting on the bike would make my profile considerably higher. What do you all think?
Regards, Vince

I think it would be best to stay off and away from your ATV. The ATV could act as a conductor and attract lightning. It is also important to remove all conductors from your person. Such as keys in your pocket. I'm sure some more knowledgeable people on this forum could add to this. These are just my thoughts from what I have read.

I think I'd get away from the ATV, the ATV has a lot of metal that could "attract" a lightening strike. Besides, staying on it your head would be the place that likely would get struck and I'm not sure how much the tires would help at that point.

During a strike, the damage depends on the path through which the energy flows. In a steel-enclosed vehicle, you are protected because the engery will typically flow along the outside of the steel structure and then "jump" to the ground. On any vehicle that is not enclosed, such as an ATV or a bicycle, the path of energy flow with be through YOU.

From what I've read, the best thing to do is to seek shelter (building, car). If that is not available, then find a low spot and make every effort to be the lowest thing around. Stay away from trees, poles, or the like, since just being near a strike could cause injury.

Here are a National Weather Service's Lightning Safety Outdoors web site:

http://www.lightningsafety.noaa.gov/outdoors.htm

Here is a web site the gives first aid instructions for responding to a lightning strike - interesting triage (sp?):

http://www.utahmountainbiking.com/firstaid/lightng.htm

From the NOAA site:

"Avoid leaning against vehicles. Get off bicycles and motorcycles."

http://www.lightningsafety.noaa.gov/outdoors.htm

http://www.lightningsafety.noaa.gov/index.htm

Pete

" Get off bicycles and motorcycles."

I guess it doesn't get any clearer than that!

Thanks everyone!

Vince

I knew that a mass casualty lightning strike is the one exception to the rule that, in an MCI, no breathing + no pulse = lowest priority; however, I didn't know the reasoning behind it (other than that pulseless lightning strike victims stand a much better chance of survival with CPR than trauma victims).

The explanation given - that anyone who is still breathing following a lightning strike is likely to keep doing so without assistance - makes sense, and fits in with what I've been taught (and been teaching).

Thanks.

I once rode my bicycle to work in a thunderstorm (truck was in the shop). Riding over the top of a high arch bridge it dawned on me that the highest object within a 5 klick radius was my head. Needless to say I was glad to get down from there without getting fried.
gino <img src="/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

aardwolfe, I don't quite follow what you are saying. To me, the article was saying that help goes first to those without a pulse or without breathing. And that the no respiration/no pulse victim is a lower priority to the no respiration/has a pulse victim only if you are alone and cannot aid all victims simultaneously. If there are enough people to do CPR the no respiration/no pulse victim would not be lower priority initially.

In a standard MCI (e.g. train crash) you only perform CPR on a pulseless casualty if there are enough first-aiders *after* you have taken care of all the other life-threatening injuries. Common sense would dictate that you don't refuse to do CPR on casualty A in order to splint a broken arm on Casualty B, for example. But you would treat someone who was at risk for shock, or any other life-threatening injury, before worrying about a casualty who had no pulse.

The one exception to this, according to my training, was a mass lightning strike. The explanation was that casualties whose heart has been stopped by a lightning strike have a much better shot at recovery than someone whose heart has been stopped by trauma.

What the article is saying - and it sounds reasonable to me - is that in a mass lightning strike, shock, severe bleeding, and internal injuries are not likely to be a concern; therefore, given limited resources, the casualties you need to worry most about are those who (a) have a pulse but are not breathing; and (b) have no pulse and are not breathing. Both of those are life-threatening situations; the first takes precedence simply because they have a higher chance of survival.