South Dakota House Bill HB1242

South Dakota 2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/2/26
• Refer: 2/2/26

Caption

Require emergency personnel to use flares or emergency reflective triangles to mark stopped emergency vehicles in some circumstances.

Summary

HB1242 would require drivers of authorized emergency vehicles to use additional roadway warning devices in certain situations when the vehicle is stopped while responding to an emergency. Under the bill, emergency personnel would need to place three flares or emergency reflective triangles on the roadway as soon as practicable after stopping if visibility is reduced by weather, terrain, or time of day; if road conditions make it harder for motorists to slow or stop; or if the emergency is expected to keep vehicles at the scene for an extended period. The bill also specifies how the warning devices must be positioned. On two-way roads, one flare or triangle must be placed at least 100 feet in front of the vehicle, one at least 100 feet behind it, and one alongside it. On one-way roads or divided highways, the devices must be placed at least 100 feet and 200 feet to the rear, plus one alongside the vehicle. The measure amends existing emergency-vehicle exemption and traffic-offense provisions so that these added warning requirements become part of the legal standard for emergency vehicles and related crash liability.

Impact

HB1242 would amend South Dakota’s motor vehicle code, specifically § 32-31-3 and § 32-31-6.2, and add a new section to chapter 32-31 governing emergency vehicle stopping and roadway marking requirements. It would narrow the circumstances in which emergency vehicles retain traffic-law exemptions by conditioning those exemptions on the use of visual signals and, in specified situations, flares or reflective triangles. It would also expand the misdemeanor provision for drivers who cause crashes while violating passing/roadway safety rules to include collisions with stopped emergency vehicles marked under this bill.

Sentiment

The available voting history suggests limited but favorable committee support at the point the bill was tabled, with an 8-0 vote recorded on February 10, 2026. No committee transcript is available, so there is no recorded floor or committee debate to indicate broader support or opposition. Based on the bill’s safety-focused framing, the measure appears to have been treated as a roadway safety and emergency responder protection proposal rather than a controversial policy change.

Contention

The main policy question raised by the bill is whether emergency personnel should be required to deploy flares or reflective triangles in addition to existing emergency lights, and under what conditions that duty should apply. Potential points of contention include the practicality and safety of placing devices near active emergency scenes, the burden on responders in adverse weather or high-risk traffic conditions, and whether the added requirements are necessary given current warning-light practices. Because the bill was tabled and there is no transcript, no specific legislator or stakeholder objections are documented in the provided materials.