- Feb
20
2013
Way to go Steve Hickey! The Representative Reverend from Sioux Falls scored a small legislative coup yesterday when he successfully "smoked out" House Bill 1080, his plan to include speeding in the points system for revoking driver licenses. The House killed HB 1080 last month, but on the last possible day for such a manuever, Rep. Rev. Hickey got his colleagues to send the bill back to committee for another vote. House Transportation wrestled hard, but let the bill sneak back out to the full House on a 7-to-6 vote.
Among those voting to re-kill HB 1080 was Aberdeen police officer and rookie Rep. Dan Kaiser, who apparently balks as much at getting tough on dangerous driving as he does at enforcing other laws when he's on the beat.
Rep. Rev. Hickey's successful revival of HB 1080 came between failed efforts by his conservative pals Rep. Lance Russell and Rep. Stace Nelson to smoke out the anti-property-rights nutty gun bill HB 1129 and get-tough-on-illegal-immigrant-exploiters HB 1175.
How did Hickey make the cut when Russell and Nelson could not? Hickey's slick and tempered triangulation is one answer; old-fashioned research is the other. David Montgomery tells how data made Hickey's day:
Why the delay, and why the sudden success for Hickey in smoking out HB 1080? It has to do with new information he recently received from the Department of Public Safety.
“One of the pieces of information that was asked in the committee was, ‘Do the states that are surrounding us with a points system have a lower fatality rate?’ I was unable to answer that question,” Hickey said. “That’s a key piece of information.”
After three weeks of research, DPS came back to Hickey with a 13-page report showing states like Minnesota, Iowa and North Dakota, all of which will take away driver’s licenses for repeat speeding, have lower fatality rates per mile driven than South Dakota [David Montgomery, "Hickey Smokes out Speeding Tickets Bill," Political Smokeout, 2013.02.19].
Take away driver licenses, save lives—the case for HB 1080 doesn't get any simpler than that.
But in case any Marxists in Pierre need more reason to support HB 1080, turn to the Mitchell Daily Republic's reaction last month to the House's initial rejection of HB 1080. Not yanking leedfeet's licenses is class warfare:
At present, drivers can speed all they want, provided they’re able to pay the fines. At its best, the current system is a class-based privilege; at its worst, it’s allowing some of the worst drivers more opportunities to kill or maim someone in a traffic mishap.
...under current law, drivers who speed do not accumulate points that could result in their licenses being revoked. They get points for mistakenly driving through a red light, but not for intentionally driving 100 mph down the highway.
Again, if a driver can afford speeding, it’s no problem.
Got a big checking account? Go ahead, then. Speed all you want.
That’s the way it is in South Dakota, and that’s no way to make our streets and highways safe [editorial board, "Bill's Failure Will Protect Speeding for the Privileged," Mitchell Daily Republic, 2013.01.24].
HB 1080 still targets only the most chronic and incautious speeders: you'd have to get busted for doing 20 mph over the speed limit five times in one year or eight times in two years to lose your license. Under that standard, even Bill Janklow's license would have been safe.
But we don't need reminders of the abuse of wealth and power to pass this bill. Let's focus on plain old data. Taking speeders off the road makes us all safer. Do good, Legislature. Do better today. Support Rep. Hickey's House Bill 1080.
Update 2013.03.10 11:45 MDT: Here's a nicely formatted version of the data Rep. Rev. Hickey cites in the comment section below:
20 Responses to “Hickey Revives Bill to Get Tough on Speeders: Hooray for Research and Class Warfare!”
The Sioux City Journal had reported that the feds are threatening to deny some highway funds because teen driving deaths are among the worst in the US but has since taken the story from their archives. Curious how those resisting mooching from Uncle Sam in public but cave in committee.
Is the exclusion of speeding in our points system the reason SD has a higher fatality rate per mile driven than that of the states around us? Not very likely at all.
More likely is that a higher percentage of drivers in those states buckle up (and those states have primary enforcement seatbelt laws). Also more likely is that those states are tougher on drunk drivers than we are. Also more likely is that those states require driver training for teenagers and don't let them behind the wheel at age 14. I don't think including speeding in our point system will have any bearing at all on our fatality rate per mile driven.
Speeding Fatality Comparison Report Summary
Fatalities per vehicle miles traveled – F/VMT
F/VMT State % comparison to South Dakota
.73 Minnesota 116.4% FEWER fatalities than South Dakota
.98 Nebraska 61.2% FEWER fatalities than South Dakota
1.24 Iowa 27.4% FEWER fatalities than South Dakota
1.27 N. Dakota 24.4% FEWER fatalities than South Dakota
1.58 S. Dakota 0 baseline
1.62 Wyoming 2.5% MORE fatalities than South Dakota
F/VMT State Type of Speeding Statute
.73 Minnesota 3 speeding tickets in 12mo or 5 in 2yrs = suspension
.98 Nebraska 12 speeding ticket points in 2 years = suspension
1.24 Iowa 6 speeding tickets in 1 year = suspension
1.27 N. Dakota 12 speeding ticket points in 1 year = suspension
1.58 S. Dakota No points system for speeding only
1.62 Wyoming No points system for any moving violation
SUM: The point system directly and dramatically
impacts the traffic accident and fatality rate.
Sorry the columns got really messed up for some reason when I paste it here. The column at the right is the F/VMT rate - fatalities per vehicle mile rate.
Raw data such as that posted by Rep. Hickey fails to show that the points system has any effect on fatalities per mile driven. His data fails to take into account any of the factors I mentioned with a more direct bearing on fatalities.
Further, Rep. Hickey compares apples to oranges in his attempt to correlate fatalities per mile to speeding points systems. Some of his data refers to speeding tickets in a year. Some refers to speeding ticket "points" in a year. Some refers to speeding ticket "points" in 2 years. If Rep. Hickey wanted to provide meaningful information, rather than simply to buffalo his colleagues with inaccurate comparisons, he would adjust his statistics to how many actual speeding tickets per year a person could get in those other states. But doing that would undermine his thesis.
The problem is, if you're speeding, you're more likely to have an accident. If you're drinking you're more likely to have an accident. If you're texting or talking on the phone you're more likely to have an accident. If you have less than one year of driving experience (it seems not to matter how old you are when you start, it takes you a year to get good at it) you are more likely to have an accident. If you drive in bad weather you are more likely to have an accident. If you have inadequate tread on your tires you are more likely to have an accident.If you have a lot of kids in the car you are more likely to have an accident. If anybody sharing the road with you is doing any of those things, you are more likely to have an accident. If you drive back roads late at night in an effort to avoid people who are doing any of those things, you will run into a herd of deer, and have an accident. Unless we stay home and don't go anywhere, we're all doomed.
Yes Anne, we are all doomed. And yes, Rep. Hickey, adding speeding into the points system may have some marginal effect on the fatality rate per miles driven. But I suspect that programs like Larry Long's 24/7 program have a much larger impact on fatalities. We will never know how many lives have been saved by requiring people in the legal system to refrain from alcohol, but it has probably saved a few lives (and maybe marriages) already.
I do give Rep. Hickey credit for sticking with this and not giving up on his bill after it was killed in a committee. I'm curious to see how far it goes.
Cops who haven't a clue of why a crash occurs always add speeding as a factor. Speeding is easy to patrol for. Radar does the work..especially if they park so as to obstruct the speed limit sign.
Drunks are messy to arrest. They vomit in patrol cars. They mean a cop or patrolmen is likely to spend time in court instead of busy writing revenue-producing speeding tickets.
South Dakota may also have generally higher speed limits than surrounding states.
Hickey's data is mostly irrelevant.
If these Republican tie tighter enforcement to mandatory reductions in vehicle insurance rates, then they might be making some sense. But, be assured that then their data would be seriously scrutinized.
Rev Hickey,
I agree with Rorschach; you're risking committing a Type I error. Even if there is a correlation between speeding penalties and fatalities per vehicle miles traveled, there are a host of other concurrent variables which may be at work. Unless you control for them, you run the risk of making conclusions based upon spurrious data.
According to SD Dept of Public Safety's report on traffic accidents, Exceeding the Speed Limit contributed to 1.3% of all crashes (Table 3-18 on pg 48 of the report). Driving too fast for the conditions (i.e. when it's icy out) contributed to 8.1% of the crashes... technically not speeding, but still being silly. Seems like speeding isn't a big deal.
Now, exceeding the speed limit contributed to 14% of all fatal crashes in South Dakota in 2011. That's a bigger deal.
You may want to look at some of the research our neighbor to the East has done on traffic safety behaviors - 2012 Traffic Safety Behaviors Survey
Does Rep. Hickey support the texting while driving ban?
Rep. Hickey, if you have that report in PDF, I'd be happy to receive a copy and post it.
True, Rep. Hickey's numbers don't prove causation. But neither Type I error nor Anne's chain of risks absolves speeders from endangering our lives or legislators from imposing stronger penalties on such bad behavior. Driving at a safe speed is one of the most basic rules of responsible driving. Chronic failure to respect that rule justifies the state's taking your license.
"Driving at a safe speed" and violating the speed limit are two entirely different things.
A safe speed for a beat up old Geo Metro might be 45 regardless of road conditions. A safe speed for a Corvette with a competent driver may be 100 in good weather. A safe speed for your grandpa may be 20 around town and stay off the interstate altogether.
Hickey exhibits some studmuffinism:\
@ArgusMontgomery
By the skin of its teeth, Rep. @stevehickey's speeding points bill passes, 37-32. Needed 36. Heads to Senate.
Hickey! Stud!
"a competent driver"—R, I fear a lot of folks (like Janklow?) overestimate their competence. The speed limit is there for everyone, not folks who fancy themselves Danica Patrick. If you want to drive 100, that's what race tracks are for, not public spaces.
Sometimes speed limits are made to be broken. I can think of several places where the speed limit is significantly lower than the everyday flow of traffic, and far lower than safety would require at those locations. Police use those spots as speed traps and find easy pickens there.
My hope is that if this passes, Rep. Hickey will get a ticket every time he exceeds the speed limit by 1 mph.
Ah, ministers of the Lord fly with the wings of angels. They are i the "What me worry" crowd.
Steve Hickey February 21, 2013 at 12:38 pm | Permalink
"It always amazes me those who say they are pro-woman are often cold and callous toward the women who say they were coerced, they have deep regret, that abortion ruined their life, that they signed consent forms for surgery before seeing a doc, etc. These women are treated like they are emotionally unstable trash by your types. If abortion hurts 30% of women as some studies suggest, but let’s say it’s only 10%…. any other medical procedure would be strickly [sic] prohibited if 1 in 10 women were harmed. This bill, like the informed consent/anti-coersion [sic] bill, is very much pro-woman.
Question for you: do you think there should be a waiting period for those who want to buy a gun? Why or why not? The reason for my question is that I typically see those who are opposed to this abortion waiting period are FOR a gun purchase waiting period. Interesting irony."
R. the proper response to speed limits that are too low is to elect commissioners or legislators or will raise it to the proper level, not to break the law. A speed limit we find annoying doesn't rise to my civil disobedience threshold.
Then Cory, if we should find each other traveling the same direction I will waive politely to you as I pass.
Just make sure you don't have a phone in either hand.
Leave a Reply