CapitolFax.com - Latest Comments in Question of the day

Re: Question of the day

Dupage Parent — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 00:19:56 -0000

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.

Re: Question of the day

Shelbyville — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 00:00:22 -0000

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.

Re: Question of the day

Shelbyville — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 00:00:22 -0000

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.

Re: Question of the day

Jack — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 22:58:00 -0000

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.

Re: Question of the day

Heartless Libertarian — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 18:23:39 -0000

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.

Re: Question of the day

VanillaMan — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 17:22:03 -0000

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.

Re: Question of the day

grand old partisan — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 16:07:36 -0000

â€˜Just Observingâ€™ says:

â€œGrand 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?â€

My answer: No, because 16-17 year olds are minors and 30 year olds are adults.

Now, letâ€™s reverse the argument. Earlier you said â€œparents should decide curfew not the government.â€ 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 â€“ unlike driving â€“ have no potential impact on the safety of others?

Both extremes are ridiculous, and (Iâ€™m assuming) not supported by anyone here. Weâ€™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).

Re: Question of the day

steve schnorf — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 15:04:05 -0000

some people seem to continue to have a problem understanding it isn't a curfew, Rich

Re: Question of the day

Truth — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 15:02:24 -0000

Oh, All Powerful Nanny State, can I go to the bathroom now?

Re: Question of the day

Just Observing — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 14:11:12 -0000

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?

Re: Question of the day

Rich Miller — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 13:51:22 -0000

=== It is poor inner city youth who are out walking===

If they're walking, they're not driving, so they're not impacted.

Re: Question of the day

b-dogg — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 13:46:54 -0000

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.

Re: Question of the day

John Bambenek — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 13:41:32 -0000

I think an irrebuttable presumption of guilt is always the best way to structure our laws and public policy.

[/snark]

Re: Question of the day

Heartless Libertarian — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 13:21:38 -0000

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?

Re: Question of the day

steve schnorf — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 13:18:33 -0000

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.

Re: Question of the day

Hearing Voices — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 13:05:25 -0000

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 â€¢Under 16: 9:30 p.m.; 16 to 18: 11 p.m. Sun.-Thurs., midnight Fri.-Sat.
Manhattan â€¢16 & under: 10 p.m. all week
Mokena â€¢Under 17: 9:30 p.m. Sun.-Thurs., midnight Fri.-Sat.
New Lenox â€¢Under 17: 11 p.m. Sun.-Thurs., midnight Fri.-Sat.

Don't let the kids leave home.

Re: Question of the day

grand old partisan — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 13:00:26 -0000

â€œThis is a stupid law. If I allow my son to stay out until 12 midnight, that should be between me and my son.â€

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 isnâ€™t just between you and your son or daughter. Itâ€™s a public safety issue, not a family one. I really donâ€™t see why so many people fail to understand that.

â€œDonâ€™t give them driverâ€™s licenses until their 18 if you are just going to legislate their freedom away.â€

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.

Re: Question of the day

Chanson — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 12:57:39 -0000

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.

Re: Question of the day

Six Degrees of Separation — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 12:55:06 -0000

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.

Re: Question of the day

Jaded — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 12:48:59 -0000

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.

Re: Question of the day

A.Voter — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 12:45:59 -0000

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.

Re: Question of the day

Anna — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 12:41:37 -0000

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.

Re: Question of the day

What planet is he from again? — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 12:40:55 -0000

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.

Re: Question of the day

The Ibenidiot — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 12:39:31 -0000

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.

Re: Question of the day

OneManBlog — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 12:34:31 -0000

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?