Legislator wonders where the media hysteria was when we went to 75 mph

@SoDakCampaigns

New Legislator John Wiik was one of those who voted to put the speed limit to 80 mph as part of the highway plan. But he was a bit taken aback at the media hysterics over what is a small part of the measure:

I never would have imagined the complaints that came from that what I imagined as a minuscule change.  TV stations talking about truck tires that fail at 72–where was that report when the speed limit was raised to 75?  I understand the concerns, but South Dakota is not alone–we are now the 5th state with a top interstate speed limit higher than 75.  Texas is testing an 85 mph road.  The nice thing about a speed limit is that it’s a top end limit.  If you’re not comfortable above 70, drive 68.

Read it here.

John, one thing I learned long ago is that the mainstream media is about selling newspapers and ratings. If a story is boring, it’s their job to make it scary, drive up hysteria, find a villain, or otherwise do whatever they can to make it not boring.

Because that’s what we trust the media to do, isn’t it?

55 thoughts on “Legislator wonders where the media hysteria was when we went to 75 mph”

  1. Funny! South Dakotan’s I’ve talked to wondered where the increase came from and were surprised how fast it was introduced at the end of the session. They felt there was no reason to increase the speed limit and are a little weary of going on the Interstate especially in bad weather with the knuckleheads driving near or at 80mph.

    Freshman Legislator John Wiik will fit right in at Pierre!

  2. The selective outrage of our media is remarkable. They will let slide items of importance and rant about a 5 MPH increase in the speed limit. I was on I-90 last week and the first few minutes I drove the 80 MPH and then slowed back down to a comportable 70. No big deal.

    1. Dustin it isn’t necessarily driving less than 80 mph yourself but watching for situations that may arise involving other drivers. How will they be able to react to an emergency situation at those higher speeds and how will it affect those around them.

      It’s like your driving 45-50 mpg in really bad winter conditions being super cautious and having someone driving a 4 wheel drive pickup or SUV flying past going maximum legal speed with the 5mph tolerance as we always see with their false sense of security and then losing control ending up in the ditch hopefully not upside down or taking you out with them.

      1. I do about 30,000 miles a year. I can tell you that when the speed limit was 75, it was a speed suggestion. Personally, I referred to it as 75 with a fudge factor of 4. I never had any problem. There are certain parts of the Interstate system that 80 mph is not appropriate. As for emergency situations, I really find it hard to believe that 5 mph is going to make that big of a difference. There are others in which it is. I tried the new “limit” with a fudge factor of 4 and decided I think I like 80 just fine. There are still knuckleheads who think nothing of cruising down the road at 90 or more. That is where the trouble lies.

  3. I was northbound on I-29 in good weather, dry roads, and a car from the south bound lane was airborne across the median strip and came to a stop in the passing lane right in front of me. The driver was unhurt AND sober. He just lost control, and ended up on the wrong side of the highway.
    The medians were not designed to stop vehicles going much faster than 55, which was the speed limit when most of them were constructed.

    The new speed limit was just another effort, like the bicycle one, to repeal the laws of physics.

  4. “taking you out with them.”

    Knowing this, an being the smart driver you are, why would you get out on I-90 under those conditions?

    MAKE THE CHOICE to use alternative (“safer”) routes under bad conditions, and allow others the CHOICE to use I-90 at 80 mph.

    Where’s the problem? What’s the fuss?

  5. “The medians were not designed to stop vehicles going much faster than 55, which was the speed limit when most of them were constructed.”

    Actually, interstate construction standards are/were for a minimum of 70 mph in rural areas. Standards also exist for minimum media widths and when median barriers are warranted.

  6. It was in the early 90s that I passed an accident on I-29 in which a southbound vehicle crossed the median, struck a northbound vehicle which caught fire, and the driver of the northbound vehicle was killed.

    Around the year 2000, one of my coworker’s brother lost control on I-90, crossed the median, and was hit by a semi traveling in the opposite direction. My co-worker’s sister-inlaw was killed, the driver of the semi wasn’t injured, but being a truck driver had to endure more than the usual consequences of being involved in a fatal accident.

    It’s absolutely moronic for anybody to suggest that the speed you drive doesn’t affect anybody else. So don’t even go there.

  7. “were surprised how fast it was introduced at the end of the session. ”

    The senate bill was amended on March 10th with the 80 mph provision; the house passed the 80 mph increase a few days before that.

    How is that “introduced as the end of the session”?

    “Freshman Legislator John Wiik will fit right in at Pierre!”

    Oh now I see–you just wanted an excuse to rant against Wilk!

    Did you think no one would notice?

    1. “The senate bill was amended on March 10th with the 80 mph provision; the house passed the 80 mph increase a few days before that.”

      That isn’t true. Brian Gosch introduced the increase during a committee meeting he chaired on March 9.

  8. “It’s absolutely moronic for anybody to suggest that the speed you drive doesn’t affect anybody else. So don’t even go there.”

    1. After raising limits to 80 mph on interstates, neither Utah nor TX has an uptick in fatalities or crashes.

    2. If you believe what you claim, then make a choice to use a different route!

    1. You may wish to research the latest study from Utah regarding an uptick in crashes and fatalities. The one that has been quoted was shortly after their speed limit had increased.

  9. The 1974 act mandating a top speed of 55mph all over the country was done to reduce overall fuel consumption due to the oil embargo. It actually saved a fraction of the fuel it was estimated to save over the nearly 20 years the limit was in effect. Accident fatality rates went down at that time, but 73-74 was when numerous car safety laws were enacted and new cars of that era displayed a large increase in safety features over the recent used models still on the road. Someone needs to post a clear chart outlining the reaction times and braking distances at various speeds. If the increase between 55 and 70 is significantly flatter than the increase in reaction times and braking distances from 70 to 80, then there is a basis to worry about safety concerns, or so it seems. 75 seemed to be an ideal upper limit. Don’t fix what isn’t broken.

    1. Continuing – – two final notes: March 10th is pretty close to the end of the regular run of the legislative session. And the 80mph limit has taken away all the thrill that was previously part of driving cross-state at 80.

      1. The 2015 session opened on Jan. 13th and closed on March 30th.

        March 9th & 10th are nowhere near the end of the session, unless one wanted to make some snarky quip about Rep. Wiik.

        Come on, just admit it.

        1. The final legislative day is March 30th. The end of the regular run of the session is about two weeks before that date, on a year to year basis. That would be somewhere near, oh, say, kinda close to, maybe, March 10th.

          1. Continuing – according to this year’s legislative calendar, March 10th was the final deadline day for bills to have passed both houses, and the third to last day altogether, of the regular run not including the final day on the 30th.

    1. So, more fuel is consumed at higher speeds, meaning more fuel tax revenues for SD.

      Perfect.

        1. Minimum speed limit is 40mph. Nothing that says you can’t drive 55mph the entire way across the state at that rate of speed to achieve your maximum efficiency. Get this…IT’S YOUR CHOICE!

  11. 80 mph has nothing to do with road funding except perhaps to distract headlines away from a big tax increase. It was the first time in my five years in Pierre I felt like it was DC – sticking things in bills that we want just because we can. I voted no and not because I disagreed with a gas tax increase.

      1. “What happened seems pretty slimy to me. Slipping in and raising the speed limit was a distraction from the massive tax increase.”

        The point of this thread is that the speed limit increase was NOT a distraction when it passed.

        “Slimy”? “Distraction”? Sounds like you’re building a conspiracy???

  12. This is what South Dakota’s Constitution says:

    “Article 3 § 21. One subject expressed in title. No law shall embrace more than one subject, which shall be expressed in its title.”

    This is the title of the 2015 SB1: “revise certain taxes and fees to fund improvements to public roads and bridges in South Dakota, to increase the maximum speed limit on interstate highways, and to declare an emergency.”

    Revising (Increasing) taxes and fees to fund improvements to public roads and bridges AND to increase the maximum speed limit ARE two different subjects, unless you are a Common Core English graduate: http://www.creaturepleasurez.com/creatures/40686add958f2cfcd927870e25e615305b8bade9.jpg

    Very disappointed that anyone claiming to be a Republican was involved in this not the least of which because it represents a 27% tax increase.

    1. Watch out! Those that try to provide cover will say those that question this are part of a conspiracy!

    2. Not if the “tie-in” is the decrease in fuel efficiency as per above. It’s brilliant. Diabolical perhaps, but brilliant nonetheless.

  13. It’s not conservative to justify this by making it so people use more fuel. Quite the reach actually.

    Left this session a bit soured in how we are failing to steward the supermajority the voters entrusted to us – undoing the daschle law, trying to double initiated measure sig requirements, ignoring voters on the youth minimum wage (even though I’m for it I voted no), lowering vote thresholds from 2/3 to 1/2 for CAFO’s and drawing up frivolous lawsuit bills to make it harder to oppose CAFOs, making it harder for independent candidates to run, sneaking around the rules to pass a state debt collection bill brought to us by the Obamacare website rollout firm….

    None of it smacks of respectable leadership to me.

    1. Representative Hickey is exactly spot on in his assessment of this past legislative session.

    2. Kinda like this kind of conservative, eh Stevie?: October 28, 2013
      Celebrate South Dakota statehood by letting Leonard Peltier go
      It’s hard to throw a party when some in the room don’t share your excitement, or worse, when they resent the occasion or even your very existence.

      There is so much to celebrate in South Dakota’s 125 year state history and yet there are painful atrocities in our past and lingering present issues we ought not ignore. Revisiting them can facilitate healing. If not this year, when?

      We share this state with Native Americans who have a very legitimate historical and ongoing beef with us wasi’chus. When Governor Daugaard announced he was setting up a commission to plan our statehood celebrations, he asked for public input to solicit ideas of things we could include. It provoked this September 18 tweet from me:

      @stevehickey
      SD seeks ideas to celebrate statehood. Giving the Black Hills back ain’t happning but how about a meaningful reparation gesture of some sort.

      For the last number of weeks I’ve given prayerful thought as to what might constitute a meaningful gesture. Since the offenses are by and large justice-related, key pardons come to mind. What if we let Leonard Peltier go free? In native circles here and far abroad, Leonard Peltier has become a modern symbol of a couple centuries of horrific Indian injustices by our government.

      Sick and now just shy of seventy, he’s not hurting anyone and since his kangaroo trial nearly forty years ago, reasonable doubt has surfaced that he ever did. At best he was convicted on circumstantial evidence and since his incarceration several decades ago, the case against him has been seriously compromised. In 1986, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals acknowledged there had been the fabrication of evidence, withholding of exculpatory evidence, coercion of witnesses, improper conduct by the FBI and willful illegality on the part of the government. His trial is certainly one of the lower moments in American justice.

      Even if you are of the opinion this guy killed two FBI agents (and there is no evidence he pulled the trigger or even had the gun), my suggestion to let him go is an appeal to the fact that these murders were in the midst of a civil war-like situation aggravated by FBI agents terrorizing the Pine Ridge reservation in the wake of Wounded Knee II. Certainly, as a judge stated in 1992, the government is “equally responsible” for the death of its own agents.

      My appeal is also in consideration of that fact that there were more than a couple hundred natives mysteriously murdered during this period of time in hits and drive-bys—- some would say plausibly committed by U.S. Marshalls, tribal police, state-sanctioned paramilitary GOON squads, white vigilantes and government agents. If we are judging people on circumstantial evidence as we did with Peltier, why stop with him?

      Letting Peltier go is not about what he did or didn’t do or whether he is innocent or guilty, it’s an acknowledgment and admission of so much that “we did do” and so much that we have done.

      Recently I’ve floated this idea with elected officials in our state. I’d like to think Senators Johnson and Thune, Congresswoman Noem, Governor Daugaard and my colleagues in the South Dakota legislature would join me in formally seeking Presidential clemency for Leonard Peltier. Only President Obama can make this happen and he could do it today. If our Great Chief in Washington is truly empathetic toward the plight of the “REDSKINS,” he will do it.

      We can’t go back and fix Wounded Knee I, but it’s still not too late to redress Wounded Knee II. If we want to move into a new era, we need to let go of some things from the previous one. Time to let Leonard Peltier go and let that wound heal.

  15. Like it or not, the “one bill/one subject” has been interpreted liberally for decades.

    Raise taxes for highways and raise speed limit on highways– Acceptable

    Raise taxes for education and raise speed limit on highways- Not acceptable

    Disagree with raising the speed limit, disagree it was done via amendment and not separate bill, I don’t care.

    To raise a claim it is unconstitutional or an exception to what has been in the past, one is uninformed of historical standard interpretation and disingenuous if they haven’t protested probably the hundreds of comparable amendments the last few years.

    Undoing the Daschle law is correction of a bad idea in a prior legislature.

    CAFO’s: I am opposed to NIMBY (not in my backyard) whether it be homeless shelters or CAFO’s. Good changes in my mind.

    Minimum Wage: It is a law and not a constitutional amendment. The legislature is free to amend any and all laws. If voters disagree with having a youth minimum wage, they can vote out their representatives. Its how it works in a republican democracy.

    Sneaking implies something was done without transparency and to hide sinister motives. I knew what was done and the motive was to collect bills. Don’t like the policy, make it an election issue. Whine because you didn’t get your way, can’t help you.

  17. Representative Hickey,

    Since everything the Legislature did on your list was done by duly elected representatives within the powers entrusted to them, I find nothing inappropriate.

    Just because you disagree with the decision doesn’t make it “not respectable.” And, since you didn’t oppose every amendment in committee and on the floor which violates the “one bill/one subject” or “late submission” at the standard you are holding to the increase in the speed limit, you are being disingenuous.

    1. I spoke against every single thing I mentioned there on the floor, in caucus and elsewhere.

      What isn’t respectable is changing the rules so your team wins.

  18. Representative Hickey,

    I have no idea what you are talking about with regard to “changing the rules so your team wins” on your list. I sure as heck didn’t vote for my GOP representatives to pass Democrat ideas I disagree with.

    Daschle rule: I thought that was a bad law. I wanted Daschle to try to run for two offices as it would have made him easier to beat here. And, a Republican who wants to do it should be able to stand and let the people decide. Shouldn’t have passed it when we did and I’m glad we got rid of it.

    CAFO’s: Whether it be CAFO’s (which I generally support), homeless shelters (which I support), or porn shops (which I don’t support), I don’t think a super-majority should decide which legal businesses should operate where so long as they abide by the law.

    Youth Minimum Wage: Legislators who think the law should be changed and refuse to to do so is in my mind a failure to do their duty. Like anything the legislature does, there is a ballot box to express themselves.

  19. P.S. Of course you spoke against these things you oppose. But, did you speak and vote against every amendment that didn’t meet the strict “one bill/one subject” standard you want to apply to the speed limit? Did you vote and speak against every “late amendment?” Have you always done so? Have you ever proposed an amendment that didn’t meet this standard? Did you ever propose a “late amendment” to a bill on the floor or committee?

    Be careful how you answer.

    1. The good rev has been caught in this “whatever I think is proper; those who disagree have less than pure motives” mode of hypocrisy for too long now.

      When Rev. Hickey wants to win, his change in rules is a principled stand of course.

      1. Representative Hickey is making an important point about arbitrary rule changes. We’d do well to figure out what that point is and consider it carefully before we start assaulting him with ad hominem smears.

        Changing the speed limit, even in a way that endangers human lives, poses a much smaller long-term threat to human happiness than flouting the core principles of representative government.

        http://rapidcityjournal.com/news/local/seconds-to-mph-how-gosch-sped-state-to-mph-limit/article_36219d9d-275b-5c46-89b6-c70ad19514a2.html

        “Last year, Wyoming spent six months publicly considering an 80 mph interstate speed limit. This month, South Dakota spent only 90 seconds doing the same thing. The difference is state Rep. Brian Gosch, R-Rapid City, who pushed South Dakota’s new maximum speed limit into law with no public testimony and no public analysis of the potential effect on traffic safety.

        “South Dakota’s new maximum interstate speed seemed to materialize out of thin air on the Monday of the legislative session’s final week … During a committee meeting Gosch chaired on March 9, he got the speed-limit provision inserted as a last-minute, surprise amendment on an $85 million highway-and-bridge funding bill.”

        1. Gosch’s tactics are nearly identical to those used by Mark Mickelson in depriving any South Dakotan who registers with a party affiliation of the freedom to mount an independent campaign for public office.

          Surprise! No advance notice. No public discussion. No time for debate. Just boom.

          Troy Jones may call this duly elected representatives acting within the powers entrusted to them, but I’d call it duly elected representatives abusing powers they were entrusted to forgo.

  20. i’m hearing crickets on the ‘state collection bill from the obamacare rollout team’ line item.

    1. I think you might be mistaking the crickets for voices in your head. Plotting to form a team and take over your soul.

  21. Mr. Jones,
    “Like it or not, the “one bill/one subject” has been interpreted liberally for decades.” Only by those that are not conservative

    “Raise taxes for highways and raise speed limit on highways– Acceptable”
    Subjects: Raising taxes & raising speed limits, two different subjects – UNACCEPTABLE

    This is why the Republicans lost national prominence for a decade, because of emulating liberals unethical dirty dealings.

    Raise taxes for education and raise speed limit on highways- Not acceptable

  22. 1) The interpretation is not one of liberal/conservative but liberal/strict.

    2) As one who has been around the process across decades, the non-strict interpretation has been the practice for decades. 1970’s and into the 1980’s ultra-conservative Appropriation Chairman Bill Gramms was the master of utilizing a non-strict interpretation of “one bill/one subject.” Because he liked legislative strings on appropriations beyond what as appropriate in the Appropriations bill, he famously would put stings on any bill on the subject he could do it.

    3) Strict interpretation always ends up being arbitrary, capricious and cumbersome because it is often hard to discern what is the subject in practice (easy in theory). Let’s move off of the subject at hand as it is clouded by how one feels about the speed limit increase. How about we discuss the issue of water which floods private lands. Is it a water issue, is it a landowner rights issue, is it a wildlife issue, is it a taxation issue? If you are landowner, you think one way. If you are a city which depends upon that water for hydration, you think it is about that. If you are fisherman or boater, you think it is about that.

    And, then based on what is the issue (water, landowner, taxation, wildlife), you have a different interpretation of what is acceptable subjects which can be incorporated into the legislation. If you think it is a landowner issue, you will oppose wildlife components being considered. However, because the issue is more complex than just landowner issues, failure to address wildlife might get incomplete or contradictory results if covered in a separate bill.

  23. Speaking of the late great Senator Gramms, when I was in college, I had time to kill so I stopped in to see Senator Gramms at his small saw mill. If I remember correctly, it wasn’t active but just where he hang out in his retirement. Anyway, Governor Janklow threatened to sue him over one of his strings he put on a bill (clearly would violate a strict interpretation of “one bill/one subject”) not using “one bill/one subject” because Janklow would lose but over one he would win in court- Legislative interfering with Executive powers.

    I asked the Senator what he thought about Janklow’s threat to sue and the consensus Janklow would prevail. He admitted he’d lose but said “He won’t sue because I’ll still be Chairman and he is afraid of what lamb I’ll gut next session.”

    My point: The Legislative process is not black and white. We all love sausage but the making of it isn’t always pretty. As a strong fiscal conservative, I was glad Gramms was willing to make sausage.

    1. It’s more than a little ironic that Troy Jones accuses Steve Hickey of determining the acceptability of legislative tactics based on whether Representative Hickey finds the ultimate goal of those tactics agreeable. In reality Representative Hickey is arguing that the ends don’t justify the means, and Jones is arguing that they do.

      It’s also more than a little ironic that Jones accuses Representative Hickey of employing a double standard, when in reality that’s exactly what Jones is doing.

  24. I’m not arguing the ends justify the means (I’m not defending Gramms “strings” except to say it occurs and the only people who protest are when they disagree). I’m arguing that determination of what complies with “one bill/one subject” has historically been interpreted in a non-restrictive manner because determining germaneness strictly requires interpretation and is in the eyes of the beholder.

    I guarantee you EVERY legislator has voted for an amendment which opponents think is contrary to “one bill/one subject” but that legislator thinks is germane. Not because they have a double standard or a lack of integrity but support engenders a broader attitude about the issue vs. an opponent. Its similar to how we better understand and tolerate people we love than people we have no affection for.

    I go back to my water bill. A legislator introduces a bill to clarify public access issues to a lake that has expanded and flooded private land. Can a legislator offer an amendment which cuts property taxes for such land? Or does it have to be in a separate bill because the subject is water and not taxes?

    Or another example, a legislator introduces a bill to expand/enhance pheasant habitat. Can another legislator introduce a bill to decrease (or increase) the per day limit? If one deems strictly the subject is about habitat and thus not limit isn’t germane? But, if one deems it is about pheasant population propogation, reducing the limit is germane. That is the problem with thinking strict interpretation is practical. It requires a judge and the perspective of the judge(s) becomes arbitrary. A non-strict interpretation allows a more robust discussion of the issue completely without arbitrary limitations.

  25. Ooops: “Can another legislator introduce AN AMENDMENT to decrease (or increase because there will be more pheasants) the per day limit?”

Comments are closed.