Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Open thread
Next Post: Roundup: Ex-Speaker Madigan back on the stand
Posted in:
* Sun-Times…
Older drivers in Illinois wouldn’t be subject to regular mandatory road testing until age 87 under new legislation introduced in Springfield this week by proponents aiming to loosen some of the strictest rules in the nation.
The bill drafted by Illinois Secretary of State Alexi Giannoulias along with a bipartisan group of lawmakers would also create a new system for immediate relatives to ask the state to step in if they think their loved ones are no longer fit to drive. […]
Current law requires drivers who are 79 or 80 to take a behind-the-wheel test to renew their licenses. From age 81 to 86, they have to take the test every two years, and after that it’s every year.
Mandatory testing in Illinois started at age 75 before a temporary increase implemented early in the COVID-19 pandemic was made permanent.
* Politico…
State Rep. La Shawn Ford has filed a bill that would establish “a procedure for a special recall election” for the mayor of Chicago. It’s the same bill he’s filed every year since 2015, though it’s likely to raise eyebrows this time as Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson has faced persistent criticism, dreary polling numbers and a failed independent recall effort.
To the bill: “I’ve filed this every General assembly since Laquan McDonald was assassinated and Rahm Emanuel was mayor. This is nothing new, and it’s not personal. It’s about good policy,” Ford told Playbook of the legislation that has yet to get approval from Illinois lawmakers. “I think there should be a mechanism in place to allow for voters to recall the mayor of the city of Chicago.”
Ford even filed the bill the year he ran for mayor in 2019.
House Bill 1084 would also spell out the process for “a special successor election or special runoff election” to occur after a successful recall.
* HB1089 filed by Rep. Maurice West…
Creates the Illinois Container Fee and Deposit Act. Provides for a deposit value of 10 cents to be paid by consumers on each beverage container sold in the State by a dealer for consumption. Provides that, upon the return to a dealer or person operating a redemption center, the dealer or redemption center shall pay the value of the deposit back to the consumer as a refund. Sets forth requirements for administration of the program. Provides certain exemptions to the program. Requires that the refund value be clearly indicated on all beverage containers sold in the State. Provides for the Environmental Protection Agency to certify redemption centers. Prohibits snap-top beverage containers. Provides that persons violating the Act shall be guilty of a Class C misdemeanor. Prohibits the manufacture of certain beverage containers. Prohibits the disposal of beverage containers at sanitary landfills. Provides that deposits not passed on to the consumer through bottle redemption shall be distributed as follows: 75% to the Agency for environmental and conservation-related programs and 25% to each distributor in proportion to the number of beverage containers sold by each distributor in the State. Amends the State Finance Act to create the Illinois Container Fee and Deposit Fund. Effective immediately.
* HB1141 filed by Rep. Will Hauter…
Amends the Illinois Insurance Code. Provides that a group or individual policy of accident and health insurance or managed care plan that is amended, delivered, issued, or renewed on or after January 1, 2026 shall provide coverage for medically necessary general anesthesia, regardless of the duration, for any procedure covered by the policy, and that medical necessity shall be determined by the attending anesthesiologist or licensed anesthesia provider. Provides that an individual or group policy of accident and health insurance is prohibited from denying payment or reimbursement for anesthesia services solely because the duration of care exceeded a preset time limit. Amends the State Employees Group Insurance Act of 1971, the Counties Code, the Illinois Municipal Code, the School Code, the Health Maintenance Organization Act, the Limited Health Service Organization Act, the Voluntary Services Plans Act, and the Illinois Public Aid Code to require coverage under those provisions. Effective immediately.
* Rep. La Shawn Ford filed HB1143…
Creates the Compassionate Use and Research of Entheogens Act. Establishes the Illinois Psilocybin Advisory Board. Provides a timeline for the Board. Provides that the Department of Public Health, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Financial and Professional Regulation, the Illinois State Police, and the Department of Revenue may adopt rules and implement the Act. Provides for licensing to operate a service center, facilitate psilocybin services, manufacture psilocybin products, and test psilocybin products by certain State agencies, with certain requirements. Provides for the lawful manufacture, delivery, and possession of psilocybin products. Provides procedures for psilocybin services, including requirements for certain sessions, plans, and forms. Limits the sale of psilocybin products with certain restrictions. Provides for investigations and inspections under the Act. Provides for certain fees, fines, actions against a licensee, criminal penalties, and civil penalties for violations of the Act. Provides for administrative hearings and other requirements for disciplining an applicant or licensee. Provides requirements for psilocybin-producing fungi as a crop, food, or other commodity. Provides for labeling and packaging requirements. Imposes a tax on psilocybin. Establishes the Psilocybin Control and Regulation Fund and Illinois Psilocybin Fund as special funds in the State treasury. Limits home rule powers. Makes other provisions. Makes corresponding changes to the State Finance Act. Amends the Freedom of Information Act. Exempt certain correspondence and records under the Act. Amends the Illinois Independent Tax Tribunal Act of 2012. Adds the Act to the jurisdiction of the Tax Tribunal. Amends the Illinois Vehicle Code. Adds psilocybin or psilocin to the list of prohibited substances for a person driving or in actual physical control of a vehicle. Amends the Illinois Controlled Substances Act. Removes psilocybin or psilocybin products from the definition of “Controlled Substance”. Removes psilocybin and psilocyn from the list of Schedule I controlled substances. Effective immediately.
posted by Isabel Miller
Thursday, Jan 9, 25 @ 8:43 am
Previous Post: Open thread
Next Post: Roundup: Ex-Speaker Madigan back on the stand
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
No mandatory road testing until 87?
Uh, no. That’s way too old. My dad is 85 and growing up was the best driver I knew. Now, I won’t get into a car if he’s behind the wheel.
And yes, I am well aware that is anecdotal, but 87 until you have to prove you still have the chops to drive? Please.
Comment by Flyin'Elvis'-Utah Chapter Thursday, Jan 9, 25 @ 8:54 am
Seriously, who is advocating for no mandatory road testing until 87? If i’m an insurer covering drivers in Illinois between 75 and 87 and they remove mandatory testing, how do they not jack rates sky high, for a population likely on fixed incomes?
Comment by Chambanalyst Thursday, Jan 9, 25 @ 8:59 am
“Older drivers in Illinois wouldn’t be subject to regular mandatory road testing until age 87″
I get the intent of increasing this age is based on a misplaced claim of age-discrimination, but it’s not age discrimination any more than being required to be a certain minimum age to get a license. If the current age is age-discrimination, then so is 87.
Earlier this very week, a septuagenarian plowed their car into a local McDonalds and well into the seating area injuring people in the dining area.
The current laws don’t automatically remove the license based on age. The law simply requires more frequent testing in order to keep an existing license. That is far from a hardship and I’m not in favor of increasing the minimum age for additional testing.
—
Last year, the crash rate for Illinois drivers 75 or older was about 25 per 1,000 drivers
—
This is not the correct metric to use in an analysis. The correct metric is fatal accidents per mile driven, where this age group instead stands out as being far in the lead. Fatal crash rates increase noticeably starting at age 70-74.
https://www.nhtsa.gov/crash-data-systems/fatality-analysis-reporting-system
Comment by TheInvisibleMan Thursday, Jan 9, 25 @ 9:20 am
Keep the drivers tests! Please.
Comment by Formerly Unemployed Thursday, Jan 9, 25 @ 9:20 am
I give Ford credit for consistency - the way to take politics out of this though is to make the bill take effect after the next Chicago mayor election.
Comment by lake county democrat Thursday, Jan 9, 25 @ 9:39 am
87?? Sorry, but you are going to g to. Red to take a behind the wheel test LONG before that Mitch McConnell.
Comment by Simplicity Thursday, Jan 9, 25 @ 9:41 am
=I get the intent of increasing this age is based on a misplaced claim of age-discrimination,=
I think the real intent is to pander for votes.
Comment by JS Mill Thursday, Jan 9, 25 @ 9:52 am
Illinois should consider providing an elderly driver’s license option like California has. Rather than an unlimited driver’s license, CA offers a limited license allowing driving on city streets, etc. but not freeways / interstate highways.
Comment by RNUG Thursday, Jan 9, 25 @ 10:19 am
Illinois is one of the very few states that requires mandatory driving tests of older citizens.
Is it effective?
I do not know the crash statistics of older drivers in Illinois vs those in Arkansas or New Jersey or Ohio (to only name a few). If we have lower incidents of traffic crashes with older drivers, keep it. If not, I can certainly understand ditching the law.
Comment by Cool Papa Bell Thursday, Jan 9, 25 @ 10:20 am
== Container Fee and Deposit Act. ==
Back to the future? I remember bottle deposit fees as a kid.
Comment by RNUG Thursday, Jan 9, 25 @ 10:21 am
== Amends the Illinois Insurance Code ==
It’s truly a sad state of affairs when the legislature genuinely must consider passing a law to ensure that medically necessary anesthesia must be provided and paid for by insurance no matter how long the procedure takes.
Comment by Wisco Expat Thursday, Jan 9, 25 @ 10:23 am
=Illinois Container Fee and Deposit Act=
Forced beverage fees (read taxes) are the wrong approach. Most Illinois communities already have curbside recycling - let folks voluntarily use those services to reduce beverage container wastes in landfills. Retailers hate having to have a system for refunding deposits.
Comment by Donnie Elgin Thursday, Jan 9, 25 @ 10:31 am
-Compassionate Use and Research of Entheogens Act-
Huge credit to Rep. Ford for introducing this bill. While most people are aware of psilocybin’s breakthrough potential for treating a host of mental health conditions, it also has shown clinical potential as a theraputic preventative for cluster headache. If you’re unfamiliar with cluster headache, hit up the wikipedia page and steel yourself because it is a living nightmare of a condition.
Comment by sulla Thursday, Jan 9, 25 @ 10:45 am
IDK, but when I go for a walk I don’t see any older drivers blow through stop signs and speeding down residential streets. My gosh, I can only imagine the other thoughts you guys have about people in their 80’s.
Comment by Edge Thursday, Jan 9, 25 @ 10:47 am
The deposit tax idea is a good means to increase the recycling rate. It works and I support it.
Comment by Stephen Moore Thursday, Jan 9, 25 @ 10:52 am
Sadly, the criminalization of sifting through garbage will follow soon after the container fee and deposit act passes.
Comment by Loyal Virus Thursday, Jan 9, 25 @ 11:00 am
= CA offers a limited license allowing driving on city streets, etc. but not freeways / interstate highways. =
What Illinois really needs is a limited license that disallows driving in downtown Chicago.
Comment by JoanP Thursday, Jan 9, 25 @ 11:03 am
The SoS AG sure does like all of his media coverage, even when it’s at the risk of our safety.
Comment by JR Thursday, Jan 9, 25 @ 11:11 am
How are we already a thousand house bills? A support bill #100000 to ban shell bills.
Comment by Two Left Feet Thursday, Jan 9, 25 @ 11:30 am
I remember my parents bringing back glass bottles (those 8-packs of 16-ouncers) for deposit when I was little. Last summer, we were vacationing in Michigan, and I was tasked with doing the can and bottle returns. It’s all automated now. You put your receptacle in the machine, it scans the barcode, and if it’s a product the store sells, in it goes. If not, it gets spit out and you drop it into the waiting recycling bin. Print your receipt and cash out at the service desk. Nifty little system.
If it increases recycling rates and decreases public littering, I’m all for it. My one concern is its effect on and implementation at bars and restaurants.
Comment by Roadrager Thursday, Jan 9, 25 @ 11:30 am
==Forced beverage fees (read taxes)==
You get the dime back after you finish the drink. Do you also complain about the “shopping cart tax” at Aldi?
Comment by Roadrager Thursday, Jan 9, 25 @ 11:33 am
=shopping cart tax” at Aldi?=
Shopping at Aldi is optional - beverage tax is not.
Comment by Donnie Elgin Thursday, Jan 9, 25 @ 11:37 am
@ Chambanalyst
Insurance companies are going to jack up rates regardless of age. They already are, and they use all sorts of metrics, including some unrelated to driving ability (e.g., credit score).
@ Invisible Man
I am not ready to disagree with your broader argument for earlier testing, but your argument is flawed. Suggesting 5-year old citizens are discriminated against in the same context as 75-year old citizens is a false proposition upon which to base your argument. And 15 year old citizens are not comparable to 70 year old citizens either.
To the rest, let us avoid using anecdotes of bad people to discriminate against good people. Republicans do that with immigrants.
Driver’s tests for older people make sense for a host of reasons, including vision testing, medical conditions, and reaction time. But testing for those concerns outweigh any decision to assume old people cannot drive because the old person we know is a bad driver.
Comment by H-W Thursday, Jan 9, 25 @ 12:14 pm
- beverage tax is not -
Yes it is. It’s only a tax on laziness if you choose not to recycle it.
Comment by Excitable Boy Thursday, Jan 9, 25 @ 12:23 pm
This bill is going in the wrong direction. We need more testing at younger ages. I do a study every time I drive around Springfield and almost get side swiped by an elderly driver.
Medicare eligible citizens should take an eye/ear exam every 2 years, written exam every 3 years and driver’s test every 5 years until 75. Then you do all 3 every 2 years.
Comment by John Candy and Nuts Thursday, Jan 9, 25 @ 12:46 pm
“outweigh any decision to assume old people cannot drive because the old person we know is a bad driver”
But the law, or my comments, does not assume old people in general can not drive.
That’s what the test will determine for each driver.
I’d be perfectly happy if all drivers were required to demonstrate an ability to drive every X number of years after they get their license for the first time. Starting at the 10-yr mark would be fine, and then every x years after. Then accelerate that X number of years after the driver reaches 75yo.
I don’t think the law goes far enough in verifying driving ability to all ages. Removing any yearly checks at all is the opposite direction we should be going.
Comment by TheInvisibleMan Thursday, Jan 9, 25 @ 12:49 pm
=I’d be perfectly happy if all drivers were required to demonstrate an ability to drive every X number of years=
The DMV is a nightmare as it is - making every single driver regally road tests would make the system implode.
Comment by Donnie Elgin Thursday, Jan 9, 25 @ 12:57 pm
==Forced beverage fees (read taxes) are the wrong approach. ==
As mentioned above, it is a “tax” you can choose to pay if you are lazy. I consider it a user fee (like a toll) because someone will need to clean up after you: “deposits not passed on to the consumer through bottle redemption shall be distributed as follows: 75% to the Agency for environmental and conservation-related programs.”
There is a significant cost to society for roadside trash and decreased landfill capacity, and resources that end up in landfills result in the need for additional mining, which also has a significant societal cost. Currently, those costs are not adequately captured by the market. Fees like this put the cost back on the beneficiary who can then make a more informed economic choice.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Thursday, Jan 9, 25 @ 1:09 pm
@ Invisible Man
Right. As I suggested backwards, I do not disagree with your main point - more testing. There is good reason and evidence to suggest as we age, factors related to safe driving ability change for many. Anecdotally, I see it in myself (age 66). Hence periodic testing makes good sense. Indeed I would suggest contrary to Donnie Elgin that testing more often and earlier than 79 is a good thing. Eye exams should be required starting at 50 in my view.
But to the broader point more testing is a responsible thing to do in my view. Less testing should require proof that 80 years olds do not exhibit increasing risks as a a class relative to 70 year olds, and ten year windows assumes to little aging (in my opinion).
I just didn’t like the implicit comparing of teens with elders.
Comment by H-W Thursday, Jan 9, 25 @ 1:28 pm
I’m 75 and only drive about 4,000 or 5,000 miles per year. I support the present testing requirements beginning at age 80.
Comment by Retired SURS Employee Thursday, Jan 9, 25 @ 2:11 pm
=age 80 and older had crash rates higher than those of drivers ages 30-79 but lower than those of drivers younger than age 30. Rates of injury crashes generally followed a pattern very similar to overall crash involvement rates.=
With this data those under age 30 should have the same requirements as those over age 80
Comment by Mason County Thursday, Jan 9, 25 @ 2:26 pm
===With this data===
You left out the last bit about deaths.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Jan 9, 25 @ 2:33 pm
I’m going to risk being told this isn’t Google, but has anyone released the percentage of drivers in this age group that lose their license due to a failed test each year? I’d like to know how that number changes with age.
Comment by Excitable Boy Thursday, Jan 9, 25 @ 5:57 pm