Laserfiche WebLink
<br />9 <br /> <br />able to move it to higher ground with considerab"le effort. l~hen they <br />checked with a nea rby motel offi ce, the manager sent them back down <br />toward the ri ver to try to rescue two young womerl in a streams i de cabi n. <br />In order to get to the cabin, they had to cross a low flat area. When <br />they saw a wall of water rushing down the canyon, they clung to a nearby <br />car. When it began floating away, they grabbed a shrub which also was <br />undermined by the water. They were holding onto a pine tree when the <br />cabin was swept away. One of the young women managed to get out of the <br />cabi n and he 1 d on to a tree downstream. The other one was crushed in <br />the cabin. The two young men survived. <br />Throughout the evening, f1lany tourists driving through the canyon <br />met with 1 ands 1 i des and rockfa 11 s. Some turned back to Estes Pa rk or <br />Loveland, and others abandoned their cars and climbed the canJ10n wall. <br />Those in the latter group had the best chance for survival. <br /> <br />WHAT OTHER STUDIES HA~: SHOWN <br /> <br />Analyses of warning response in other situations catalogue numerous <br />behavior patterns in situations similar to the Big Thompson flood. <br />Hypotheses on responses and causes for them are drawn from flash flood <br />literature, warning response literature, and the pUblications following <br />the Big Thompson flood (see Table 1). <br />The flood experience is reviewed 'in White (1975) and in post-flood <br />survey reports by Federal agencies, primarily NOAA (1970, 1972, 1973). <br />Warning response is central to works by McLuckie (1970, 1973), Mileti <br />(1974). Drabek (1969) and Mileti, DrabE!K and Haas (1976). Table 1 il- <br />lustrates the hypotheses which have rece'ived attention in past research <br />and which are appropriate to the Big Thompson study. A complete list of <br />