58 Comments - ANON - Monday, Jun 23, 08 @ 10:07 am: On the one hand, I don’t appreciate the govt. telling me how late I can allow my kid to be out. On the other hand (and I hated when my parents said this to me, but totally see the soundness in it now), there isn’t a whole lot a teen needs to be out doing that late. - Vote Quimby! - Monday, Jun 23, 08 @ 10:07 am: No. This should be handled at the local level. Despite what IDOT traffic safety director says in the referenced article, I think gas prices are cutting down on any problems more than this law has or ever will. 10 o’clock on a summer night!? It can take that long for a house to cool below 90 degrees. - Leroy - Monday, Jun 23, 08 @ 10:09 am: >Is this a sound statewide law? Absolutely! And we are all safer because of it. There is not a right of another I won’t trade away for my added security. Ben Franklin, be damned! We are all in this together. - grand old partisan - Monday, Jun 23, 08 @ 10:10 am: Yes, and it needs to be enforced more. This is a public safety issue. Fatalities accidents caused by teen drivers increase dramatically after 10:00pm, and 2/3 of the fatalities in those accidents are people other than the teen driver him/herself. Having teens driving around after 10:00pm is dangerous for them, and anyone else on the road - Vote Quimby! - Monday, Jun 23, 08 @ 10:10 am: ===This year through April 15, 22 teens ages 16 to 19 have died in traffic crashes in Illinois, according to a news release from Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s office. That compares with 57 deaths of the same age group during the same period last year. “Thirty-five fewer teens died during the period of this program,” said Mike Stout, … “Now, there’s no way for us to say it was only because of that. But when the number is that significant, I believe anybody will look to this program and say . . . it worked.”=== Is this how the administration judges success? Pick a coincidental statistic and claim it as your own? - Tony @ -30- - Monday, Jun 23, 08 @ 10:13 am: It’s a silly law. Teens - or anybody, really - can get into trouble at any time of day or night. It should be handled at the very local level - that is, by the parents, not the government. It also has to be quite hard to enforce - unless the police officer is pulling someone over for actually breaking a law (speeding, etc.), how does the officer know how old the driver is? He or she could be 17, or they could be 19, or 22 for that matter. Kind of a waste of time and resources. - Ghost - Monday, Jun 23, 08 @ 10:14 am: I would say no. First, there may be a few kids working whose jobs would have them out after 10p. Second, I do not see how the curfew has any real impact on automobile accidents. We have various other laws relating to number of teens in the car, zero tolerance with any alcohol etc. Does not really seem to be a need for a time curfew such as this. All of that said, I think what we really need to do to cut donw on Teen auto accidents is raise the minimium age for non-farm drivers license’s - Huh? - Monday, Jun 23, 08 @ 10:20 am: Where are the parents enforcing the curfew? - Speaking At Will - Monday, Jun 23, 08 @ 10:21 am: Can’t we just outlaw people between the ages of 16 and 18. That will probably be the next press release from Jessie Whites office. It would make us all so much safer, I will contact the S.O.S. office on the double. - Just Observing - Monday, Jun 23, 08 @ 10:28 am: Terrible law. Parents should decide curfew not the government. We can save lives by mandating ALL persons regardless of age be home by 6:00 p.m. every day of the week — but society values freedom. - VanillaMan - Monday, Jun 23, 08 @ 10:31 am: We know that curfews help societies control young people who at their age fall prey to crimes easily. We know that curfews help keep young people safe. Naturally young people wouldn’t like curfews. We don’t like laws that impede on our movement or make us feel like kids. What needs to be done is to enlighten people on the benefits and reasoning to curfews. If this was done, then the law wouldn’t be questioned as often. Just as we now understand why there is a law against jumping off railroad tressle bridges into the rivers and creeks below, if properly enlightened, teens will understand curfews too. - Levois - Monday, Jun 23, 08 @ 10:32 am: I agree that it should be either local governments or the parents setting up the curfews for teenagers. Especially under the age of 17. I don’t think this is a sound law. - Downstate weed chewing hick - Monday, Jun 23, 08 @ 10:33 am: This is just another example of the nanny state. I would prefer our state government to concentrate on doing its primary function, at which, it is an abject failure by any standard. Leave the parenting of my kids to me. - Central Illinois - Monday, Jun 23, 08 @ 10:37 am: The law is ridiculous - you cannot even go to a late movie, the muny, a cardinal baseball game or anything unless you have a parent with you. Can’t i give my child a note saying he has permission to be out. This is just big brother wanting to make money at the expense of families who are already struggling. - Pickles!! - Monday, Jun 23, 08 @ 10:41 am: Law is necessary because parents can’t handle their kids. They let them run amok, and then the state has to step in. Discipline begins at home, not in the state legislature. - Central Illinois - Monday, Jun 23, 08 @ 10:43 am: I know of a teen who worked at Ponderosa and the police stopped her each night on her way home when after several times they could have guessed that is where she was coming from at the exact same time each night, with work clothes on and the smell of kitchen grease because that is where she worked - It is more like harassment. Additionally, my son was stopped twice last night at the entrance to town and the exit of town that he needs to drive through to get home from his girlfriends’s house. The cops just stop the cars because they know the odds are in their favor that it may be a teen - they don’t need any other reason to pull you over. - He Makes Ryan Look Like a Saint - Monday, Jun 23, 08 @ 10:53 am: This is a stupid law. If I allow my son to stay out until 12 midnight, that should be between me and my son. The early curfew doesn’t allow them to go to a late movie, or a drive in during the week. What’s next a law telling them they have to brush their teeth twice a day at certain times? - JonShibleyFan - Monday, Jun 23, 08 @ 10:53 am: I think it’s a good law, and would argue that anyone who suggests it should be strictly local is missing an important point. It is unreasonable to expect anyone, let alone teens, to know every municipality’s law (and unlike the “peaceable travel” laws applying to firearms, one can not disarm a teen and lock them in the trunk - tempting though that may be). As a teen, I hated the curfew laws. As an adult and a parent, I recognize they provide an important layer of protection for teens from drunks and drunk drivers, from their own driving limitations, and for everyone from teens who, through no fault of their own (typically), are not yet mature or experienced enough to always make good decisions. I know many adults for whom this applies as well - but some laws protect their rights to make bad decisions, while others correspondingly deal more harshly with the bad decisions they make. The system isn’t perfect - but neither is it random. - Reality - Monday, Jun 23, 08 @ 11:19 am: Like my parents told me countless times….”nothing good happens late at night.” GOOD LAW. ENFORCE IT. - Crystal Clear - Monday, Jun 23, 08 @ 11:20 am: Its like my Mom always said, “Nothing good happens after 10 pm.” The difference, it was my Mom that said it, not the government. - bud - Monday, Jun 23, 08 @ 11:20 am: No. It is a ridiculous reach by state government into personal freedom. Don’t give them driver’s licenses until their 18 if you are just going to legislate their freedom away. - anon - Monday, Jun 23, 08 @ 11:21 am: The law was the result of a Chicago representative who saw teen curfewas as an issue in his district. It’s like the gun laws being pushed statewide. If an issue stems from a local need or a perceived problem, then pass a local ordinance to deal with it and leave the rest of us alone. - bud - Monday, Jun 23, 08 @ 11:22 am: Er…that’s “they’re” not their. I hate making that mistake. - Just Observing - Monday, Jun 23, 08 @ 11:23 am: Vanilla Man said: “if properly enlightened, teens will understand curfews too.” Hahahahahahhahahahahahahahahah!!!!!!!!! - wordslinger - Monday, Jun 23, 08 @ 11:25 am: As I get older, my first instinct is to take away from others any right or privilege that I enjoyed at a younger age, so I’m conflicted… No, it’s too much, too broad. I’m sure the actuarial tables are right, but so what? There are other laws and other methods to prevent teen drunk driving. Price of liberty and freedom. Keep it local control and let the cops exercise some good common sense. An 11 p..m. curfew gives cops in Chicago or East St. Louis or Cicero or Aurora the power to roust a group of kids hanging on the corner, hopefully before there’s trouble. You don’t need the same law to harass 17-year-old going home after closing up the Dairy Queen in Tampico. - Rich Miller - Monday, Jun 23, 08 @ 11:25 am: JO, try to explain yourself rather than just “laughing” at another commenter. - Central Illinois - Monday, Jun 23, 08 @ 11:26 am: Well Vanilla Man why don’t you enlighten us so we can enlighten our teens if you know so much about it - Central Illinois - Monday, Jun 23, 08 @ 11:27 am: My mistake i guess it should JO enlightening us - Plutocrat03 - Monday, Jun 23, 08 @ 11:28 am: This another of many laws we have on the books which were passed by the legislature to make citizens believe that they are actually doing something. The answers above are also indicative of the kind of society we live in. One of the above answers “If I allow my son to….” seems to be reasonable in this instance, but where does disagreement with a law make something OK? Does it make sense if the behavior in dispute is underage drinking or smoking? One of the side effects of our freedom in this country seems to be electing to violate laws if it is convenient to us at that moment. This law falls into the bin of unfunded mandates as far as I am concerned. The legislature does not provide any funding for this and allows local police departments to exercise their ‘judgement’ which opens the door to harassment of young citizens and unequal treatment based on the whim of the local authorities. - Ryno - Monday, Jun 23, 08 @ 11:28 am: I reject this question of the day. I choose to opine on how much the Cubs kicked the W Sox rears, or will Big Brother (aka capt fax) prevent such a discussion? You all can go on living and pretending what happenned this weekend didn’t…but it did. Oh yes, it did. - wordslinger - Monday, Jun 23, 08 @ 11:28 am: Reality, I think your parents knew better — that’s why they told you that - Anon - Monday, Jun 23, 08 @ 11:29 am: It’s a good law. I live in a very nice neighborhood, but there are parents who have no idea where their 10 year olds are. Seriously, a 10 year old can play at my house 3 nights a week, and no adult will ever show up to find out where the kid is and who they are with. These same parents certainly aren’t making any effort to establish appropriate boundaries for their teens, and teens are still very much children. It’s unfortunate that the state needs to step in to make families accountable, but the need is there because no one is watching out for many, many children. - Rich Miller - Monday, Jun 23, 08 @ 11:33 am: Ryno, was there a ballgame this past weekend? I hadn’t noticed. - OneManBlog - Monday, Jun 23, 08 @ 11:34 am: The only interesting thing about this, unless there is some loophole in the law, I would have been subject to it for the first 2 1/2 months I would have even been in college. Is there a going to/from school exemption? - The Ibenidiot - Monday, Jun 23, 08 @ 11:39 am: I think the law is overly restrictive. Why should all the responsible teens suffer for the bad apples. Teens driving after 11 PM is not inherently dangerous. Drunk kids driving is. Enforce the DUI laws. - What planet is he from again? - Monday, Jun 23, 08 @ 11:40 am: It’s a stupid law. My job as a parent is to draw that line. I think my home town had a curfew when I was a teenager, but I honestly have no idea if they did or what it was. All that mattered to me was what time Mom and Dad told me be home by. - Anna - Monday, Jun 23, 08 @ 11:41 am: This law makes no sense for rural areas. Many times teenagers who play sports or work are not able to be home by the driving curfew. In addition, the driving curfew is earlier then the curfew established by many of the towns in our area. As the parent of 2 teenages I should be the one making the decision of when they should be home - not the State. - A.Voter - Monday, Jun 23, 08 @ 11:45 am: There is a school and work exemption in the law (but none for church activities). As the parent of a 17yo, I have mixed feelings. It adds a layer of enforcement but being home by 10 on a weeknight in summer or during school break is kind of unrealistic. - Jaded - Monday, Jun 23, 08 @ 11:48 am: Dumb law. It is my job to raise my kids, not the state’s. When I was 16, I workded at a gas station and often closed it down at midnight. I don’t know much about the law but didn’t see any work exception referenced in the article. Kids working at most fast food restaurants can often work after 10 PM. If this is a sound law, then certainly a state law that closes all bars at 1 AM makes great sense. After all, whether your 16 or 25, no good comes from being out after 1 AM. - Six Degrees of Separation - Monday, Jun 23, 08 @ 11:55 am: If parents are mindful of their children’s activities, they will enforce their own rules as they see fit. There are lots of cell phone or text messages near “curfew” time from our home, gently reminding our brood of their limits [that’s another thing - we have far more potential connectivity between parents and children today than 30 years ago thanks to advances in communication technology]. The statewide curfew laws are really a catch-all for various things…inattentive parents, kids who are suspected of mischief without any overt evidence, etc. The intent is noble, I guess, but the carrying out of curfew laws often lacks fairness or reasonableness as many point out here. I remember being on my own at age 17, often needing to travel late at night to be at the next day’s work location. Fortunately, I was never hassled over it, but I would’ve been pretty irritated if I was. - Chanson - Monday, Jun 23, 08 @ 11:57 am: It seems somewhat strange that my 16 year old grandchild must be driven home if time needed on a school computer project, runs past curfew when he lives less than a mile away. - grand old partisan - Monday, Jun 23, 08 @ 12:00 pm: “This is a stupid law. If I allow my son to stay out until 12 midnight, that should be between me and my son.” Your son is not driving around on an enclosed track. There are other people out on the roads whose lives are statistically proven to be in more danger when teens are out there with them at night. So, no, this isn’t just between you and your son or daughter. It’s a public safety issue, not a family one. I really don’t see why so many people fail to understand that. – “Don’t give them driver’s licenses until their 18 if you are just going to legislate their freedom away.” Graduated Drivers Licensing (ie, granted limited driving privileges during a probationary period) makes for better drivers than simply handing people keys at a certain age without restrictions. That keeps not only them safer, but everyone else on the roads, too. - Hearing Voices - Monday, Jun 23, 08 @ 12:05 pm: To make things really clear, add specific town curfews and no one knows when you are legal. Here are curfews from 4 towns that are in our school district: Frankfort •Under 16: 9:30 p.m.; 16 to 18: 11 p.m. Sun.-Thurs., midnight Fri.-Sat. Manhattan •16 & under: 10 p.m. all week Mokena •Under 17: 9:30 p.m. Sun.-Thurs., midnight Fri.-Sat. New Lenox •Under 17: 11 p.m. Sun.-Thurs., midnight Fri.-Sat. Don’t let the kids leave home. - steve schnorf - Monday, Jun 23, 08 @ 12:18 pm: This isn’t a curfew law at all. Each local jurisdiction can set a curfew of its choosing. This simply says a covered person’s drivers license isn’t valid after a certain time at night. Apparently, it will come as a great shock to most people, but we’ve had the same law on the books for as long as I can remember, all that changed recently was the time (I think). People don’t know about it. Parents don’t know about it. Law enforcement doesn’t know about it (I asked a high ranking police officer about 10 years ago, he knew of no such law). To the extent that law enforcement does know about it, they rarely enforce it, and when they do they appear to use pretty good judgement and discretion. I told my youngster about this 15 years ago (age 16), had had driver’s ed within the past year, and she didn’t know it, and denied that it was true. Parents, I have told all my kids that there is nothing per se wrong with staying out late, but that if I made a list of (when I was a teenager) all the bad things that occurred after midnight, and all the good things, the bad list would be much, much longer, and that I suspected they would be able to truthfully tell their kids the same thing. Oh, and btw, your car insurance may well not be valid if your kid has an accident. You are allowing a person without a valid driver’s license to operate your car. - Heartless Libertarian - Monday, Jun 23, 08 @ 12:21 pm: I am sick of the safety police. We must think of other people, other people, other people. Yeah, we get the point. There are other people out on the roads. So, why don’t we just make a curfew for everyone? We would all be a lot safer now, wouldn’t we? Wouldn’t that make you feel oh so much safer than the segregationist bull-honkey most of you have been spouting? - John Bambenek - Monday, Jun 23, 08 @ 12:41 pm: I think an irrebuttable presumption of guilt is always the best way to structure our laws and public policy. [/snark] - b-dogg - Monday, Jun 23, 08 @ 12:46 pm: This law is a continuation in the War on the Poor. It is not rich kids driving their nice cars around in the suburbs who will be affected. It is poor inner city youth who are out walking or hanging out outside past curfew which will be targeted. - Rich Miller - Monday, Jun 23, 08 @ 12:51 pm: === It is poor inner city youth who are out walking=== If they’re walking, they’re not driving, so they’re not impacted. - Just Observing - Monday, Jun 23, 08 @ 1:11 pm: Grand Old Partisan: I guarantee that it would be statistically proven that if you extended the curfew to age 30 it would also save lives. Would you support it then? - Truth - Monday, Jun 23, 08 @ 2:02 pm: Oh, All Powerful Nanny State, can I go to the bathroom now? - steve schnorf - Monday, Jun 23, 08 @ 2:04 pm: some people seem to continue to have a problem understanding it isn’t a curfew, Rich - grand old partisan - Monday, Jun 23, 08 @ 3:07 pm: ‘Just Observing’ says: “Grand Old Partisan: I guarantee that it would be statistically proven that if you extended the curfew to age 30 it would also save lives. Would you support it then?” My answer: No, because 16-17 year olds are minors and 30 year olds are adults. Now, let’s reverse the argument. Earlier you said “parents should decide curfew not the government.” I can only assume that you also disagree with laws forbidding teens from drinking, smoking, and purchasing pornography. Why not just leave it up to parents to handle those things, which – unlike driving – have no potential impact on the safety of others? Both extremes are ridiculous, and (I’m assuming) not supported by anyone here. We’re tinkering around the middle ground. I think that the establishment of a probationary period of restricted driving, such as we have with GDL, is a sensible compromise that respects the teens need to acquire independence (there is this whole thing called the weekend, 2 days and 20-some hours of potential teen drive time!) with public safety (motor vehicle accidents are the #1 killer of teens in America, and 2/3 of people killed in teen-caused crashed are not the teens themselves). - VanillaMan - Monday, Jun 23, 08 @ 4:22 pm: It is the responsibility of our public servants to keep our society safe. Curfews have been enforced for generations because they work. If parents are unable to prevent their teens from becoming crime victims, then the state needs to do this because it is in our best interest to keep our communities safe, as well as keeping our young adults safe. This is the way it is. Curfews are a cornerstone of a safe society because they work in harmony with law enforcement. It sounds very childish to complain about this law because it inconvenients you. Being a parent or teen means being responsible and sometimes this creates inconvenience - sorry, that’s life. If you think curfews are inconvenient, try dealing with teen funerals. We need less of them. - Heartless Libertarian - Monday, Jun 23, 08 @ 5:23 pm: Thinking about this subject for much of the day… If less teens are killed driving, why is that a reflection on the teens and not of drunk drivers in general? Have all the rates, in this study cited by Vote Quimby, gone down? Or is it just teen deaths? And also, a note to teens… If your parents want you home at a certain time, but you would rather stay the night at your girlfriend’s house, just tell them that you fell asleep and it was after midnite, so you had to stay there because of the curfew. I am sure Grand Old Partisan will understand. - Jack - Monday, Jun 23, 08 @ 9:58 pm: I joined the Navy at 17 almost 30 years ago. I would not have been happy if I was stopped because of some silly curfew while I was driving back to Great Lakes late at night after seeing my girlfriend in Springfield. Sixteen and younger is more appropriate. - Shelbyville - Monday, Jun 23, 08 @ 11:00 pm: So, the driving laws were changed by an hour. OK. That gives parents more power. If your kids driver’s license is no good, neither is their insurance. I hope there is an exemption for teens that are married. - Shelbyville - Monday, Jun 23, 08 @ 11:00 pm: So, the driving laws were changed by an hour. OK. That gives parents more power. If your kids driver’s license is no good, neither is their insurance. I hope there is an exemption for teens that are married. - Dupage Parent - Monday, Jun 23, 08 @ 11:19 pm: This is a good law. Parents won’t/can’t seem to force their teens to do anything anymore. We’re all safer for this law. In reality, this simply gives police another reason to stop a car which will lead them to bigger legal infractions. I would hope that a cop would do the perfunctory review and then let a basically law abiding kid get home. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.