47 Comments - 47th Ward - Monday, Jun 6, 11 @ 1:10 pm: It was an accident. A horrible and tragic accident, where negligence played a key role. That’s what civil wrongful death suits are about. It is horrible for the family of the victim, but there was no criminal intent. I don’t think jail time serves anyone’s interest here. Driving is a hazardous thing to do, and distracted driving is negligent for sure. But there are so many ways of being distracted, from changing radio stations to looking in the rear view mirror, that I don’t see a way to add penalties that aren’t ridiculously impossible to enforce, nor will they prevent people from being distracted while driving. We’ll only be able to do something about the negiligence after the fact. Adding penalties will not be a deterrent since there are too many distractions to list. It isn’t practical, and doesn’t serve the interests of justice. - ANON - Monday, Jun 6, 11 @ 1:11 pm: This is a toughie, especially since I know the Zaffke family. And I can’t imagine how they make sense of a tragedy like this. No, the sentence doesn’t seem to fit the crime at all, especially since it ended in an innocent woman dying. It’s horrific the driver was painting her nails and for anyone to think that’s ok while they are driving is astonishing. It’s easy to say lock up the driver and throw away the key. But being distracted, even if only for a second, has happened to all of us. The same kind of accident could have maybe occurred if you look down to change the radio station, to pick up something you dropped, etc. I don’t know how you separate the usual distractions from the straight up idiotic ones. I feel so sorry for all involved, but I also worry this is something that could have happened to anyone. It only takes a second for an accident like this to occur. - x ace - Monday, Jun 6, 11 @ 1:12 pm: No - Too Many Law already. - Cincinnatus - Monday, Jun 6, 11 @ 1:12 pm: This is one of the more interesting questions Rich has posed in quite a while. I give a qualified yes. If you do the crime, you should do the time. I am normally against more laws, but if the one mentioned by Zaffke were passed, we would be able to rid ourselves of the “law of the day” syndrome where legislators hop on the latest trend (I think the latest us texting, adding to DUI and a million other reasons to pull someone over). We can have a single law about reckless driving and forget trying to keep up with technology, drugs, booze and the rest. I have reservations about mandatory sentencing. Our prisons are already overcrowded, and with budget cutting, it makes sense to concentrate our scarce resources on violent offenders. Judges and juries should be the arbitrator of sentencing, however wage garnishment and other monetary means should certainly be imposed on offenders. - Just Observing - Monday, Jun 6, 11 @ 1:12 pm: This is a very tough and valid issue, but I think its hard to legislate — I think education will go further than penalties. - Shore - Monday, Jun 6, 11 @ 1:12 pm: I would support handsfree cellphone usage for people over 21, a ban on texting/other device use period and a ban on any use of any phone or texting or mobile device for anyone under 21, no exceptions. I think for people over 21, a dad going to work with a headset checking phone calls-that’s fine, but he shouldn’t be allowed to text or do emails. As for people under 21, the number of distractions they already have, the lack of experience driving-and I know in rural areas people drive at younger ages and are more experienced, I just don’t think they should be allowed to use the devices at all, no exceptions. Especially with some of the bigger vehicles they drive, the fact that many of them sometimes have cars full of kids, blaring music, debauchery and god knows what else just makes me think they shouldn’t be allowed to use them. - Vote Quimby! - Monday, Jun 6, 11 @ 1:19 pm: Yes. A car is a 3,000 pound weapon, and like any weapon can be used for good or bad. Driving is a privilege, and as this case illustrates something can go horribly wrong in an instant. We need to re-focus on the responsibilites as a driver. - chuddery - Monday, Jun 6, 11 @ 1:20 pm: 47th Ward hits my feelings on this exactly. However, I want to add that I think the comparison to drunk driving misses the mark a bit. If someone drives drunk we can objectively measure how drunk a person is by looking at their BAC after the fact. You can’t do that with “distracted driving.” As a result, making penalties harsher for “distracted driving” put a great deal of discretion in the hands of prosecutors. They end up being the one’s who decide how distracted someone was without the benefit of at least some objective evidence. I feel for the guy who lost his mother, but he comes off like a guy out for revenge. While that’s very understandable, revenge doesn’t seem to be a great reason to create more punitive punishments for highly subjective offenses. - chuddery - Monday, Jun 6, 11 @ 1:23 pm: ==If you do the crime, you should do the time== As pithy as that slogan is, isn’t this question about whether this is a crime, not what the sentencing should be? - Ahoy - Monday, Jun 6, 11 @ 1:26 pm: No, I think this is dangerous territory. What actually constitutes as distracted driving? How about a mom who has 2 small children fighting in the back seat? If she accidentally hits someone should the law mandate that she go to jail and ruin her family as well… because of an accident? I feel for the families, however, ruining more families due to accidents is probably not the best solution. We need to work towards solutions, but over-reacting and causing more problems is not the answer. On a side not, our prisons are already full of people where the punishment does not fit the crime, let’s not add more bodies to our over-crowded, un-productive prison system. - NIref - Monday, Jun 6, 11 @ 1:29 pm: Faced with the potential consequences, it’s a perfectly rational decision to drive distracted. People understand that they currently can get away with it without penalty. The fact of the matter is that driving requires more attention than most people give to it. Cars are dangerous when not controlled properly. The driver feels the false security inside the cage, but outside of it, they have no clue what damage cars can do. In the end, distracted drivers hurt, maim, and kill innocent road users, and should be punished accordingly. They may not learn, but it should act as a deterrent for others. Drivers need to be aware of the actual costs and risks of operating a vehicle, and increased penalties would do as such. - Cheryl44 - Monday, Jun 6, 11 @ 1:30 pm: How about we start pulling people over now for driving while using a handheld phone? Maybe people will give up that (illegal) activity if they get socked with a fine for it. - Anonymous - Monday, Jun 6, 11 @ 1:34 pm: No. I think this takes us further down the ’slippery slope’. To Ahoy’s point - if I’m stung by a bee in my car and lose control, is that distracted driving? No? What about if I’m just trying to shoo the bee out a window? As a nation we continue to criminalize everything but the law shouldn’t be about revenge. Bad stuff happens. Not all of it is criminal. - Insane citizen - Monday, Jun 6, 11 @ 1:38 pm: I voted yes because it doesn’t make sense and that seems to be the prevailing political wind. Distracted driving should be a worse crime than reckless homicide. - Realist - Monday, Jun 6, 11 @ 1:40 pm: I think we are quickly becoming a draconian society that wants to lock people up and throw away the key, no matter what the offense is. This incident is tragic, but it was an accident, had the driver thought there was a chance she would kill someone that way, she would not have been painting her nails. If she was just angry and drove her car into this person (road rage) then obviously that would be different, but we should not imprison people for accidents, even when the person was acting stupidly, it was an accident. - Yellow Dog Democrat - Monday, Jun 6, 11 @ 1:44 pm: Increasing penalties for reckless homicide involving distracted driving will do nothing to reduce fatalities. Increasing the penalties for the underlying offense of “distracted driving” would help, but there are problems with that. The #1 cause of distracted driving accidents is drinking coffee. #2 is eating. #3 is changing the radio station. Unless we’re going to ban radios from cars and ban drive-through coffee and food service, any enforcement of distracted driving statutes is going to be spotty and subjective. A MUCH better use of state resources is increasing public education about distracted driving. YES, painting your nails is an egregious example that flies in the face of common sense. But coffee, food, radios and cell phones are the most common culprits. Until people understand that, just as the drinking and driving message was drilled into heads, then its not going to change. - Robert - Monday, Jun 6, 11 @ 1:45 pm: I voted no - at the risk of sounding insensitive, which accidents occur when someone is not distracted? Generally if you are at fault in an accident, that accident occurred because you were otherwise distracted. Seems difficult to separate radio switching vs. nail polishing vs. rubbernecking vs. just spacing out. - Chefjeff - Monday, Jun 6, 11 @ 1:46 pm: There are too many variables to write a just law. If one hits and kills a sympathetic victim, a child, or a young mother, juries will be more inclined to “punish” regardless. What if it’s a dark and rainy night and the victim is jaywalking? Laws ought not be written dependent on time of day. Would 10 years of safe driving be a mitigating factor? - zatoichi - Monday, Jun 6, 11 @ 1:47 pm: What becomes ‘distracted’ while behind the driving wheel of a moving car. Drumming on the steering wheel? Drinking through a straw? On a cell phone while smoking? One hand out the window, flapping in the breeze? Daydreaming? Talking to a passenger? Fixing your hair in the mirror? All minor stuff, but every one of them takes focus off driving a couple 1,000 pound device. Painting nails while driving and getting off for $15,000 with no serious jail time is pretty reckless, but how is a cop supposed to determine what is ‘distracted’ and what is a serious accident? - Shore - Monday, Jun 6, 11 @ 1:50 pm: the law should be very clear. -over 21-able to use hands free cell phone service -under 21 no use of any devices whatsoever the rest of the stuff- nails ect, there’s stupid and then there’s illegal and they are not always the same. - Slick Willy - Monday, Jun 6, 11 @ 2:25 pm: I voted yes. I hate more laws, but there seems to be a trend in society for blaming others and not taking responsibility for our actions. I think this contributes to Realist’s thought about society becoming more Draconian. If people were more responsible for their actions, victims might be willing to forgive. However, when that round thing sticking out of the dashboard gets in the way of eating, putting on makeup, texting, etc. It is really hard to drum up compassion for someone who kills or maims a fellow motorist or pedestrian. - anaon - Monday, Jun 6, 11 @ 2:39 pm: non-violent offenders should not be in jail. this person should pay a lot of money to the family, of course, but why ruin her life too and make the state pay for her time in prison. let her work and have her life; maybe force her to do X number of hours touring the state doing seminars on distracted driving explaining how awful it was that she killed a woman because she wasn’t paying attention. sentencing guidelines need to become much more creative and productive as opposed to life-ruining and expensive. does anyone really think that this lady, if ever given a chance to drive again, is going to paint her nails and kill someone else? i doubt it. - Sir Reel - Monday, Jun 6, 11 @ 2:46 pm: Think of it this way. If you want to kill someone, wait till they walk or bike along a road, then do an “improper land change” on the victim and suffer at most a “minor traffic violation.” - Sir Reel - Monday, Jun 6, 11 @ 2:47 pm: Oops. Should read “improper lane change.” - Chuck - Monday, Jun 6, 11 @ 2:48 pm: Who’s going to pay for all these people in jail when we are having to cut the budgets for everything now. - globalguy - Monday, Jun 6, 11 @ 2:51 pm: I think the penalty fits the crime. Just because we’ve all been stupid behind the wheel or know folks who have doesn’t make up for taking someone’s life. And I believe stiffer penalties can act as a deterrent. Across Western Europe where penalties are much stiffer for driver negligence (i.e. permanent loss of the license), accidents are less. - wordslinger - Monday, Jun 6, 11 @ 3:07 pm: Yes. It’s not an accident if you rear end a car while yapping on your phone, or eating, or texting, or reading email, or doing your nails, or drinking a beer, or who knows what. Driving is serious business. It’s licensed, it’s not a right. - Inish - Monday, Jun 6, 11 @ 3:08 pm: Painting your finger nails is a far cry from shooing a bee out the window- but I find I am frustrated by the sentence, not the crime. It is about time we institute a stupid tax- for cases like this where they are beyond distracted and just plain reckless. I assume we could get out of debt rather quickly. My condolences to the family. - Roadiepig - Monday, Jun 6, 11 @ 3:11 pm: Being a highway maintainer, I have had to” run for the ditches” far to many times over the past 28 years.in the old days, radio tuning and being distracted by someone else in the car was the usual reason. Now? Almost always the person who doesn’t see are big orange trucks with flashing strobe lights and crash barriers attached has their cell phone in the ear or in their hands texting. I don’t see where added jail time solves the problem once an accident happens, but I am all for higher monetary penalties, plus maybe suspending a drivers license for a decent amount of time as a deterant. Something has go change, because our “crash trucks” are getting more and more… - Wensicia - Monday, Jun 6, 11 @ 3:37 pm: Exactly who gets to define “distracted”? Sending people to already overloaded prisons makes no sense here. There are plenty of penalties that can be assigned that don’t involve jail time, and are probably more effective. Besides, civil lawsuits are always an option. I think this woman has suffered and will pay for her crime; unlike with DUI abusers, I doubt she’ll make the same mistakes again. - Aldyth - Monday, Jun 6, 11 @ 3:45 pm: People are responsible for their own actions. Drive drunk and kill someone - go do serious jail time. Drive stoned and kill somone - go do serious jail time. The same should apply to painting your nails at the wheel, holding a cell phone conversation, changing the CD, bending over to pick up your fallen purse, or when you dump your Big Mac all over your lap. You’re responsible. Go to jail. - Downstate Commissioner - Monday, Jun 6, 11 @ 3:50 pm: Voted yes, but have problems with it. My daughter drives and texts, with two children in the car, all of the time. Scares the crap out of me; maybe if she thought her license could be suspended for a couple of months, maybe she would think about it. Am not innocent of distracted driving myself, but try to avoid talking on the phone unless absolutely necessary. Distracted driving that results in a death should carry a jail sentence. - just sayin' - Monday, Jun 6, 11 @ 5:01 pm: Reminds me of the old saying, bad facts make bad law. The circumstances of that particular case are awful, no question. But normally we don’t throw people in prison over stupid mistakes where there was clearly no intent to harm. - Plutocrat03 - Monday, Jun 6, 11 @ 5:21 pm: I voted no. Current law contains the distracted driving element, so there is a way to convict someone of that criminal offense. Current law also allows the victim to sue a driver for negligence, so if the goal is to financially punish someone civilly, it can be done. This seems like a make it easy for the plaintiff’s bar law. - Retired Non-Union Guy - Monday, Jun 6, 11 @ 5:57 pm: Voted no, for most of the reasons already listed, including the facts there are already laws covering such incidents. A new law would leave too much discretion in what / when to bring charges. What we need is a law against ridiculous levels of stupidity … but I don’t know any way to put that in a statute … - Justice - Monday, Jun 6, 11 @ 6:16 pm: Driving is a privilege and carries with it a responsibility to drive safely and attentively. Folks must realize that ignoring these common sense rules while behind the wheel carries a penalty. Over time, the message will stick. Do we mean to run into someone, veer off the road, drop a cigarette in our lap, spill our drink, drop our sandwich, look down to text or dial our phone…? No, but it may well cost someone their life. The point is not punishment, or revenge, but through placing a severe penalty in place for not paying attention while behind the wheel, perhaps we can save a life or keep someone out of harms way. - Esquire - Monday, Jun 6, 11 @ 7:41 pm: I witnessed a car swerving in an erratic manner recently. I wondered if the driver was drunk? When I cautiously passed the vehicle, I saw that the young adult male in the driver’s seat was more interested in texting than following the Rules of the Road. I think that the penalties should be increased if an accident results from such actions. More tickets need to be issued when police cars find motorists driving while distracted. - Metro-Eastender - Monday, Jun 6, 11 @ 8:52 pm: I voted Yes primarily because of the law that Zaffke is hoping to push for. I do agree that the event that took the life of his loved one was an accident, a tragic accident that was an accident nonetheless. Distracted driving can lead to deaths. Whether it is a motorcyclist, bicyclist or other motorist that is killed, the responsible party should have to serve some penalty, whether it is time behind bars or fines. This is a dilemma and only chose “yes” because it adds another option with which prosecutors can work with in similar cases. It is a difficult question, very far from straight-forward. In a vacuum it would be easier, but that is a luxury that we do not have in this great state. - JN - Monday, Jun 6, 11 @ 9:16 pm: RIP Matthew Wilhelm, who was killed in Champaign-Urbana in 2006 by a distracted driver while riding a bicycle and wearing a helmet. Matthew had recently been awarded his Masters Degree in Mechanical Engineering from the UofI. The driver, Jennifer Stark, was so far off the road that she struck Matthew with the driver’s side of her car. At the time of the accident, she was downloading ringtones for her cell phone. She was convicted of Improper Lane Usage and given the maximum sentence: six months probation, a $1000 fine, and was ordered to attend traffic school. Anyone who voted no: be aware that this woman may be the driver behind you. - JN - Monday, Jun 6, 11 @ 9:21 pm: Also, motorcyclists across the state are still sitting at red lights waiting for Ms Stark’s car to come along and trigger the traffic sensor on their behalf. - South of the Loop - Monday, Jun 6, 11 @ 10:05 pm: Yes. Way too often when someone is not driving right, they are on a cell phone, or on a cell phone and smoking, or just today smoking and eating a hamburger. Pull over people. I have had people come in my lane when I have had to go as far as I could in my lane to avoid being hit, and honk. Then they get in their lane. The rest of us have to be more awake and help these people drive. And being from a family where my Dad and Brothers all ride bikes, I know the dangers of being on a bike, you are unprotected from cars. Bikers have to ride with their lights on at all times, and yet many don’t see them. Painting your nails is never more important than operating a motor vehicle. Never. It is no accident when you do something stupid……like painting your nails?! Inexcusable for sure. She got off way too easy. I have seen way too many people doing things while driving that they should never do, shaving with an electric razor, putting on makeup, feeding babies, yes holding a baby jar in the left hand, a finger around the wheel, and a spoon with the right hand, I have seen this one more times than I care to admit. - Paul S. - Monday, Jun 6, 11 @ 10:06 pm: JN, I understand your point and it is a tragedy; however, you are rationalizing that the person who caused the accident is without remorse or extreme guilt. That person is most likely scarred for life because of a stupid mistake. This law presupposes that we all have the ability to live perfect lives and abide by all the freedom sucking laws that seem to be created. This law is a horrible law. It sets out only for revenge. If a person is killed, that is terrible and we must make a law that ruins the person’s life more than the guilt of the trauma and put them in prison from which they will never be able to find a job or function in society. It is against the law to drive and text — guess what? Everyone is still doing it. There needs to be more education out there. I watched a driving video from Germany that was very graphic; it portrayed real reenacted accidents that showed how the people flew around when not buckled to distracted drivers plowing over a kid in on a bicycle. That video made an impact on my driving — not some stupid law. Lay off the laws and start working with the people to keep them out of the court system. Start pressuring safe driving by showing what really happens — blood and all — to those people who are in accidents. That will do it. - Palatine - Tuesday, Jun 7, 11 @ 7:15 am: Texting when driving is much worse than in most cases a DUI. Enough of the education it’s time to put the hammer down. - JN - Tuesday, Jun 7, 11 @ 8:19 am: Ms Stark laments how the incident has “ruined my life.” No comment on the status of Matthew’s life. - Esteban - Tuesday, Jun 7, 11 @ 8:32 am: It was nothing more than reckless driving fueled by vanity. - Louis Howe - Tuesday, Jun 7, 11 @ 8:35 am: 47th Ward nailed it. Driving is a dangerous activity and simply adding jail time won’t meaningfully detour negligent behavior. - JustMe - Tuesday, Jun 7, 11 @ 8:46 am: I voted yes but it may be hard to prove in court Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.