Elburn still considering larger fines for distracted driving

ELBURN - Elburn Village Board members continued their discussion of creating a local ordinance about the use of cell phones while driving so the village could set higher fines than the fines attached to the state statute for that offense.

“Distracted driving has become a huge problem,” said trustee Chris Hansen. “Everybody complains about it; everybody knows about it; sees it.”

State statute fines for distracted driving are progressive, with a first offense costing $75, second offense $100, third offense $125 and fourth offense at $150.

According to Village President Jeff Walter, there have been a significant number of serious accidents in and around Elburn during the past year or so, many of them with fatalities as the outcome.

Walter said that many of these crashes have involved distracted drivers, looking down at their phones. Whether it has involved another car or worse yet, a motorcycle driver, “there’s been a horrific number of deaths.”

The discussions about implementing a local ordinance centered around making the fines large enough for it to be a significant deterrent.

“I have no problem of Elburn having the reputation that you’re not going to come here and text and drive and kill somebody,” said trustee Chris Hansen. “I’m perfectly fine with that. I was looking at a fine of $500.”

Attorney Bill Thomas said that a fine of $500 would be larger than any other traffic offense, with the exception of the fine for driving without insurance.

However, Walter said that there is a fine of $450 for illegally driving through a railroad crossing.

“This is way more serious than that,” he said. You want to make an impact.”

Trustee Ken Anderson brought up the fact that younger people have a much stronger attachment to their phones.

“Is there a goal to educate the young people (about the dangers of phone use while driving)?” he asked.

The state statute includes some exemptions, such as the use of a phone to call 911, or the use of a GPS system.

Trustee Luis Santoyo said that when he worked in a police department, he didn’t ask what the person was doing with their phone.

“If you’re driving and you’re looking at your phone, that’s an unlawful use of an electronic device,” he said. “If you’re looking at your phone, you’re not looking at the road.”

Trustee Pat Shuberg said that there are “all kinds of things” that can be distracting when someone is driving. She said that likely everyone can recall “that fleeting moment” when you did something that took your attention away from the road in front of you.

Thomas said that one drawback of the local ordinance is that the incident would not be reported to the state for inclusion on the individual’s driving record, with the option of suspending a driver’s license. He said that the state statute would have “more teeth.”

Chief Nick Sikora said that he would want to give his officers the discretion of using a local ordinance or going by the state statute, depending on the situation.

“I would want to leave it to the officer to choose,” Sikora said.

Walter said that he agreed with Chief Sikora about that.

“It would be another tool in their bag,” he said.

The board members agreed to continue the discussion at a future meeting, with the addition of a calculation of the costs associated with the options, including the officers’ time in court, if necessary.