37 Comments - so-called "Austin Mayor" - Friday, Mar 14, 08 @ 10:46 am: Anything beyond blogging while driving probably constitutes “distracted driving.” – SCAM so-called “Austin Mayor” http://austinmayor.blogspot.com - Yellow Dog Democrat - Friday, Mar 14, 08 @ 10:47 am: It’s already a crime. It’s called “wreckless driving.” Sorry Rep. Pritchard…if you want to enhance penalties for certain kinds of wreckless driving, fine. But the is a bill looking for a problem. What I used to call a “We need to send a strong message” Bill. No, sorry, we don’t. It’s called the Illinois General Assembly, not the Illinois Broadcast Agency. The job is to solve real problems, not send messages. - Yellow Dog Democrat - Friday, Mar 14, 08 @ 10:50 am: Sec. 11‑503. Reckless driving; aggravated reckless driving. (a) A person commits reckless driving if he or she: (1) drives any vehicle with a willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property; or (2) knowingly drives a vehicle and uses an incline in a roadway, such as a railroad crossing, bridge approach, or hill, to cause the vehicle to become airborne. (b) Every person convicted of reckless driving shall be guilty of a Class A misdemeanor, except as provided under subsections (b‑1), (c), and (d) of this Section. (b‑1) Except as provided in subsection (d), any person convicted of violating subsection (a), if the violation causes bodily harm to a child or a school crossing guard while the school crossing guard is performing his or her official duties, is guilty of a Class 4 felony. (c) Every person convicted of committing a violation of subsection (a) shall be guilty of aggravated reckless driving if the violation results in great bodily harm or permanent disability or disfigurement to another. Except as provided in subsection (d) of this Section, aggravated reckless driving is a Class 4 felony. (d) Any person convicted of violating subsection (a), if the violation causes great bodily harm or permanent disability or disfigurement to a child or a school crossing guard while the school crossing guard is performing his or her official duties, is guilty of aggravated reckless driving. Aggravated reckless driving under this subsection (d) is a Class 3 felony. Like I said: already a crime. - Yellow Dog Democrat - Friday, Mar 14, 08 @ 10:54 am: BTW, there are towns in rural Illinois where everyone drives with a book in their car because train tracks run right through the middle of town and park to unload. THAT’S only part of the reason why this bill is clumsy and unnecessary. - Don't Worry, Be Happy - Friday, Mar 14, 08 @ 11:03 am: So putting on makeup is bad, but shaving is OK. Text messaging is bad, but reading/sending email is fine. What about eating? What about intimate relations? - Anonymous - Friday, Mar 14, 08 @ 11:04 am: “reading a map” Would a GPS that displays a map count as ‘reading a map’? If so i want my 500 bucks back! - Wumpus - Friday, Mar 14, 08 @ 11:06 am: What about drive through restaurants and eating while driving? What about when I ogle the pretty ladies who decide to wear very little? - anon - Friday, Mar 14, 08 @ 11:06 am: Driving with kids in your car can be, and is, every bit as distracting as cell phone use, map reading, and the rest of the list. - Rich Miller - Friday, Mar 14, 08 @ 11:08 am: I lived in Utah for a couple of years, and if you smoked your insurance rates were higher because the companies considered that a potential for distracted driving. State law allowed the insurers to do this. - IT Challenged - Friday, Mar 14, 08 @ 11:08 am: I don’t know how people can even text while driving. I’ve barely gotten the hang of texting while sitting on my couch (which tells you how old I am). And, really - people actually change clothes while the car is in motion?? But to address the actual post, I agree with YDD. We already have laws regarding wreckless driving. It seems arbitrary to ban something like applying make-up, but eating a cheeseburger with all the toppings falling out, balance a drink, and shovel in some fries while trying to wipe yourself off with a crumpled up McDonald’s napkin is okay (trust me, I’ve done this, and it’s distracting to say the least). - The Doc - Friday, Mar 14, 08 @ 11:13 am: I make a concerted effort to engage in “wreckless” driving on every single car trip. Accident avoidance is a top priority for me! - Kevin Fanning - Friday, Mar 14, 08 @ 11:17 am: haha - Bluefish - Friday, Mar 14, 08 @ 11:27 am: Considering I do half of what Pritchard has on the amendment, I would say none of it is distracted driving. - curious george - Friday, Mar 14, 08 @ 11:48 am: The simple act of defensive driving is distracting enough with all those other drivers trying to ruin my day. - MOON - Friday, Mar 14, 08 @ 11:50 am: This is crazy!!! Why not “driving with your wife in the car” - plutocrat03 - Friday, Mar 14, 08 @ 11:51 am: YDD did us all a service by pointing out what is already illegal. It is just today’s example of distraction by a member of the legislature. ” Look at me I am doing something useful” I am also too bust to work on the budget , spending or taxes. Wasn’t there a rush to define carjacking as a new crime a number of years ago? I guess the legislators though that the prosecutors were not smart enough to use grand theft auto and kidnapping to charge and punish offenders. - VanillaMan - Friday, Mar 14, 08 @ 11:53 am: You can’t measure “distracted”, but you can measure “wreckless” by the trail left behind. Stick with what can be measured. - little one - Friday, Mar 14, 08 @ 11:59 am: Sounds like all that needs to be done is more people sighted for reckless driving. If you are doing something besides driving and cause harm or danger than you will pay the price. - Chicago Cynic - Friday, Mar 14, 08 @ 12:03 pm: Reading thecapfaxblog while driving is prima facie “distracted driving.” Oh, and I’ve probably done this a time or two myself. Frankly, most Americans are such passive drivers they shouldn’t be trusted to do anything other than driving, but this is a hard area to legislate. - Bruno - Friday, Mar 14, 08 @ 12:17 pm: Maybe they can combine this with the “baggy ban” bill, and really make Illinois livable. This is just another example of just how un-serious our political class has become. If this was a real problem, there would be a really great way to solve it. Abolish Driver’s Ed and raise driving age to 18, cut the entire DE bureaucracy and the spending that goes with it. Mandate a much more stringent driver’s test (written and road), and impose higher fines on those at fault in accidents. Again, these forays into the mindset of the politician prove that they lack even the slightest sense of reality. The state is approaching bankruptcy, the entire political class would be under indictment if laws were defined and enforced more stringently, and this guy is trying to control “instrumentalities” that vary drastically across the population. Fiddling with “instrumentalities” while the Republic burns. Pritchard ought to laughed out of his seat, but it is likely another seat where the “opposition” party has cut a deal not to seat anybody. If I’m wrong, who is his opponent? Their campaign should be run on the basis that Pritchard can’t be taken seriously as an elected representative. - Little Egypt - Friday, Mar 14, 08 @ 12:26 pm: 5 kids in the back two seats of a minivan; a 12 year old engrossed in his IPOD; the 10 year old texting on her cell phone; the baby is wailing because he is extremely hungry and needs a bottle; the 3 year old is crying, screaming, and unbuckling herself from her car seat to search the floor for her lost “binkie”; the 6 year old is yelling that he can’t watch Sponge Bob on the overhead video because the 12 year old has his IPOD hooked into it watching a video he downloaded from YouTube about freestyle motocross jumps; the mother/driver is having a nicotine fit that can’t be satisfied because she doesn’t smoke in the car, she’s out of Moutain Dew Red to sip on, her GPS has quit working and she doesn’t know where in the heck she is. HER cell phone rings and it’s her husband quietly relaxing at home asking why she hasn’t come home yet with the take out Chinese for supper. Oops, forgot, her dashboard is buzzing, alerting her that she has 5 miles to go before she runs out of gas. That constitutes a seriously distracted driver. This, folks, is life. Now try to legislate that. - YouCan'tFixStupid - Friday, Mar 14, 08 @ 12:48 pm: Hey leave the poor guy alone. New Capitol bill, Nope. Funding education, nope. They have to legislate, it’s what he gets paid to do. Bob can’t seem to make any headway on what the state really needs so let’s just let him legislate common sense in uncommon times. - jerry 101 - Friday, Mar 14, 08 @ 12:54 pm: i saw a guy watching tv once on the expressway. seriously. he had a tv set up on his dashboard. not a GPS unit. He was watching a movie of some sort. that’s distracted driving. - Frank Booth - Friday, Mar 14, 08 @ 1:17 pm: do yoooooooooou have anyyyyy ideahowww haaarddd it isss tooo posthereeee willllleeee driiiivvvvinngg ooonnnnn theee hiwaaaaayyy? - Anon - Friday, Mar 14, 08 @ 1:21 pm: I watched Scarface coming back from Nashville, TN once. I don’t remember most of Tennesse or going through Kentucky at all. It made the drive seem shorter but it certainly was not the brightest thing to do. - Kevin Fanning - Friday, Mar 14, 08 @ 1:24 pm: lol at least it wasn’t a complete waste of time, good movie. - Ghost - Friday, Mar 14, 08 @ 1:27 pm: They let HAM radio operators run their radios while driving with special plates… Maybe we just need more pecial plates… One to allow text Messaging while driving, one to allow putting on makeup etc…. What about people talking, kids fighting, kids blowing bubbles, the DVD playing in the background, the guy in the car on the left who is swerving so much your distratced from the guy on the right….. Everyone drives distracted to one degree or another, the question really is about the need to limit or eliminate certain activities from vehicles to reduce the distratcions. I disagree that the wreckless driving statute covers this kind of stuff. But I hate the phrase distratced driving. Just ban certain activities and make it prima facie proof of neglience in an automobile accident lawsuit if somone was engaged in one of those acts at the time of the crash. texting, reading dressing by the driver and makeup by the driver all should go. - Huh? - Friday, Mar 14, 08 @ 1:31 pm: Happy - You remark about reading and sending e-mail is surely in jest. I have said this before, I have read too many crash reports to determine the contributory cause of a crash. The distractions can be anything: drunk, sleepy, asleep, stung by a bee, reaching a cell phone that fell on floor, trying to buckle of child back into a car seat, drink falling into lap. These were actual remarks written in the crash report. Driving distracted doesn’t fall into simple categories, such as reading, text messaging, eating, etc. Driving distracted is doing anything other than paying attention to the task of driving - keeping your eye on the road and hands on the steering wheel. Driving 60 miles per hour, a car travels 88′ per second. Those 88′ can mean the difference between avoiding a crash or trying to explain to the cop why you rear ended a can because you were reading the Capital Fax Blog. Little E - Sounds like Mom had a rough day. - Yellow Dog Democrat - Friday, Mar 14, 08 @ 1:54 pm: please pardon my synonym abuse. “Reckless”, not “Wreckless.” As a point of law, Pritchard’s bill actually weakens protections. Reckless driving is a primary offense. You can ticket someone for “wanton disregard” even if they don’t cause an accident. “Distracted driving” is a secondary offense, and can only be ticketed if there’s an accident, illegal lane change, etc. Reckless driving is a Class A Misdemeanor, while “distracted driving” doesn’t even count as a moving violation. Class A Misdemeanors are punishable by upto a year in jail, but first-time offenders are likely to get hit with the fine: up to $2,500. Thanks to State Rep. Howard, they are expungable. An earlier poster is correct: Pritchard should be ticketed for “Distracted lawmaking.” - downhereforyears - Friday, Mar 14, 08 @ 2:25 pm: In reading all of the comments I have actually changed my mind about how to enforce this problem. At first I was supportive of another statute outlawing certain activitiesw while driving. But I now believe that if we were to instruct the current law enforcement community to include activities that sould be considered wreckless while driving a car we might start to see an impact on stopping this dangerous behavior. After the first couple of citations it will be appealed and ultimately end up going to the supreme court. They will then decide that the currect law is too vague and direct us to clearly define what is meant by wreckless driving. Then we add the wording. eems so simple! - downhereforyears - Friday, Mar 14, 08 @ 2:27 pm: ooops I meant reckless….sorry yellow dog democrat. - phocion - Friday, Mar 14, 08 @ 2:53 pm: I always get distracted when I read the CapFax blog on my Treo while driving. - Pot calling kettle - Friday, Mar 14, 08 @ 3:58 pm: Leave the laws alone. YDD is right. Unfortunately, this is certainly not the only case of fixing what is not broken. Go here: http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/default.asp 9000+ house and senate bills. You don’t get that kind of productivity without lots of unnecessary fixes. They have (or had) a committee to wade thru the code and identify superfluous laws for elimination. Go figure. This one can go straight from one pile to the next. - IT Challenged - Friday, Mar 14, 08 @ 4:09 pm: YDD - actually, it is homophone abuse, not synonym abuse. But, either way, I did the same thing! - Little Egypt - Friday, Mar 14, 08 @ 4:11 pm: Huh, you bet Mom had a bad day. Guess who caught holy heck for simply asking about the Chinese takeout when she got home? Actually I can think of a group of people who do not drive distracted at all. One of them happens to be the little old lady I get behind every Sunday going to church. She goes a mighty 30 mph in a 55 mile zone. Not a mile faster and slows down to 20 when going through a small town with a 35 mile zone. She’s about the only person on earth who isn’t distracted. But she may be responsible for a few head-on collisions. So what’s worse, the van full of kids or Granny Clampet? - Rich Miller - Friday, Mar 14, 08 @ 4:14 pm: LE, you should’ve had my day. Bombarded with e-mails from Sun-Times readers who firmly believed I put the wrong photo in the column today and said it was clear evidence that I was an incompetent racist. LOL. - Huh? - Friday, Mar 14, 08 @ 4:15 pm: One of the things that I find the most ironic is that traffic and transportation engineers who design road projects are some of the worst drivers. You would think that the people who are supposed to know what it take to design and build a safe road should be some of the safest drivers. So, please keep your hands on the steering wheel and your eyes on the road. Driving is hard enough without texting, checking e-mail, putting on makeup, shaving, reading the newspaper/book, etc. If you really have to respond to the message, etc, please pull over to the side of the road and take care of your business. Oh, by the way - There has been some research that found people who are talking on their cell phone actually drive about 2 miles per hour slower than a person paying attention to the driving task. Now, I must practice what I preach. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.