State officials, safety groups want to increase penalties for d...

There shouldn't be a list of all the "distractions" to drivers. It should be determined on an ad hoc basis. Lawmakers should note that some people are better than others at driving while seemingly distracted. I'm not bragging, but my attitude to cell-phone use, even with my headset, is that I'm always available to be 'distracted' by my primary task of driving. Also, what if the cell-phone user in a "no-phone zone" were reporting a life-threatening emergency in that zone? If the motorist didn't get in an accident, isn't the emergency report more important than adhering to every jot & tittle of the rules?

I assume there will also be a ban on billboards. Seriously, a billboard's sole purpose is to distract drivers.
Oh wait, or is this law simply a way to raise more revenue for the state? If that's the case (which it probably is), then forgte the whole "banning-billboards" idea.

YOU ARE ALL CRIMINALS NOW. This is the new DUI.

Too bad 90% of you will roll over and take it. "They're protecting us."

Chumps.

Women that do their hair, apply their makeup, and obsess about their looks while driving, ad naseum, are finally going to be punished? I hope this idea catches on. How about when they carelessly and purposely cut off other drivers because they think they are all that and the corner store?

All I can say is Thank God. Just today an idiot was texting as she blew off a stop sign. People are too damn stupid to know when they should and should not be on the phone.
If this is what it takes, I'm all for it!!!

the penalties should be increased, as well as enforcement.
most of the guilty party(s) think they can multi-task, but are incapable of walking and chewing gum. they are a danger to themselves as well as a menace to the rest of us.

I think anyone who lives in the city should have to take additional and reoccurring tests before getting and holding a driver's license. Many of these ppl don't drive on a regular basis, and when they do, they are a danger to all the other drivers on the road.

I'm not even going to go into what happens when one wonders onto the interstate....

I recall seeing a movie with Sean Penn and Kevin Spacey in it (Hurly Burly) from 1998.
In the first ten minutes of the movie Penn and Spacey are having an argument over their cell phones.
Penn's character is driving a car and and is having the argument, hands free, using a speaker style phone technology, whereby he does not need to hold his cellphone, he simply speaks and Spacey's character can hear him clearly on the other end.
Whether or not this technology was fiction (or non-existent at the time, 1998) in the film really does not matter.
Why do we not make the use of this technology in our cars and require (by law?) drivers who feel the need to talk on the phone while driving to use this technology?

Are they kidding? I have spent many hours hardly moving in traffic in Chicago, looking around my car for things to do. Maybe cleaning out my email while moving at 5 mph for 2 hours keeps me from falling asleep. More time should be spent addressing congestion, and perpetual construction issues, than worrying about how distracted a driver may be. If cars spent more time actually moving on Chicago highways, drivers wouldn't be so bored they get distracted.

Can we ban eating in cars too?

I'd rather be driving next to some guy on the phone, than some soccer mom trying to unwrap her three "lazy-excuse-for-not-cook ing-snack-wraps" while holding her toddlers bottle.

This sounds like the insurance companies have been lobbying in Springfield again. And it also looks like the Tribune is willingly going along with yet another idea to limit the freedoms of Illinois citizens.

When are the legislators going to tackle the REAL problems? The answer is, when the newspapers stop giving them free press for all these goofy ideas.

Perhaps they need to ban distractions for drivers, such as people selling Chicago Tribunes at busy intersections.

Or maybe thy need to ban politicians' election signs near busy roadways.

Rather than naming all sorts of behaviors that are prohibited while driving, why don't we be a little less nanny-state-like and just prosecute people who's distracted driving either causes an accident or causes another driver to have to take action to avoid an accident. This would make a lot more sense and actually make roads safer rather than just give politicians something to grandstand about, which is probably why it won't happen.

Thomas E Farrell II wrote:

I recall seeing a movie with Sean Penn and Kevin Spacey in it (Hurly Burly) from 1998.
In the first ten minutes of the movie Penn and Spacey are having an argument over their cell phones.
Penn's character is driving a car and and is having the argument, hands free, using a speaker style phone technology, whereby he does not need to hold his cellphone, he simply speaks and Spacey's character can hear him clearly on the other end.
Whether or not this technology was fiction (or non-existent at the time, 1998) in the film really does not matter.
Why do we not make the use of this technology in our cars and require (by law?) drivers who feel the need to talk on the phone while driving to use this technology?

Because the primary risk of using a cell phone while driving is not having only one hand on the wheel, but rather, the distraction of carrying on a 'phone conversation while driving. Tests have shown that using hands-free cell 'phones instead of hand-held cell 'phones has little effect on the risk.

One might wonder whether it is safe to converse with passengers while driving. The difference is that passengers are in the car, can see what is happening, and usually know when to shut up to avoid distracting the driver. Also, they can actively assist the driver.

this new legislation would clearly infringe upon the rights of the citizens. its bad enough that talking on the phone while driving in the city is illegal, but now they're considering banning it in construction zones too? its ridiculous. bad drivers drive poorly regardless of distractions, and a lot of good drivers drive well with distractions. what's next, banning listening to anything but talk radio in the car because music is distracting? I commute about 20 miles to and from work everyday and spend about 75% of that time either talking on the phone or texting at 70 mph, no wrecks, no tickets, nothing. its all about knowing how capable you are of multi tasking, and if you're good at it, then the government has no right to say that you can't do it while driving.

Anna wrote:

All I can say is Thank God. Just today an idiot was texting as she blew off a stop sign. People are too damn stupid to know when they should and should not be on the phone.
If this is what it takes, I'm all for it!!!

OK.. I'm usually one against new laws going on the books, but just the other day some dude almost mowed down my entire family as we were crossing the street at a crosswalk across from a beach (the crosswalk had a light, and it was red for him). He was texting or messing with an IPod or checking email on a blackberry or something. I mean this light turned 100 yards and 10 seconds before this guy gets there, and just because it wasn't a normal busy intersection he had no idea it was coming up... wife, husband, 2 1/2 year old and infant in a stroller almost mowed down. Fortunately the guy looked up at the last second with a look of abject shock on his face and stopped 10 ft. short, tires screeching.

Anyway.. long story short. People should not be texting or emailing while driving, just like they shouldn't be wearing earphones or watching TV on the dash (things which have been illegal for a long time now and for good reason).

Mr Z wrote:

this new legislation would clearly infringe upon the rights of the citizens. its bad enough that talking on the phone while driving in the city is illegal, but now they're considering banning it in construction zones too? its ridiculous. bad drivers drive poorly regardless of distractions, and a lot of good drivers drive well with distractions. what's next, banning listening to anything but talk radio in the car because music is distracting? I commute about 20 miles to and from work everyday and spend about 75% of that time either talking on the phone or texting at 70 mph, no wrecks, no tickets, nothing. its all about knowing how capable you are of multi tasking, and if you're good at it, then the government has no right to say that you can't do it while driving.

Certain people (primarily alcoholics) can drive very well at well over 0.8. I was one. I used to drink A LOT and I am a very good driver. at .12 I'm (or at least was... I never drive after drinking anymore) a better driver than most stone sober ones out there. Are you against mandatory BAC limits just because I can handle my booze? I'm not.

Mr Z wrote:

this new legislation would clearly infringe upon the rights of the citizens. its bad enough that talking on the phone while driving in the city is illegal, but now they're considering banning it in construction zones too? its ridiculous. bad drivers drive poorly regardless of distractions, and a lot of good drivers drive well with distractions. what's next, banning listening to anything but talk radio in the car because music is distracting? I commute about 20 miles to and from work everyday and spend about 75% of that time either talking on the phone or texting at 70 mph, no wrecks, no tickets, nothing. its all about knowing how capable you are of multi tasking, and if you're good at it, then the government has no right to say that you can't do it while driving.

There have been several studies which have clearly demonstrated that driving while talking on the 'phone greatly increases the risk of becoming involved in an accident.

I don't care whether some people think that they can drive safely while talking on the 'phone. It is clear that most people cannot!! And my right to life and my right not to be injured is more important than the "right" of someone to talk on the 'phone or engage in other distractive activities while driving.

Attitudes towards driving here in the U.S. are far too casual. That, plus extremely inadequate driver training and inadequate enforcement of traffic laws, explains why our road fatality rate is considerably higher than it is in several other prosperous countries. It is entirely too easy to get a keep a driver's license here.

To all the libertarian text-and-drive folks whining out there: Your rights end where the freedom and safety of others begins. Grow up. It's really not all about YOU. You're not special no matter what mom said.

Read this and think again.
http://www.prairienet.org/mattslaw/...

Great...Just Great!!!

How about drinking coffee?

How bout picking your nose, ears, butt, or scratching yourself?

Will the police still be allowed to type on the computer screens in thier squad cars and talk on thier cell phones or will they be required to pull over in a safe area first?
Or do they recieve special training to type/call/pick/scratch etc?

Will children need to be place in the drunk in order not to distract the driver?

Will parents have to pull over to a safe area to tell Joey to stop touching his brother?

Or will these items be addressed in subsequent legislation?

Maybe when Blago/Daley/Stroger will need additional funds for thier friends?

Oh I'm sorry this is all about public safety....Guess I've been living in Illinois too long