3800 Important changes in law for 2006

[Ten32]

I just got my Illinois State Police law update for 2006 and there are some important changes I thought you guys should know about.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer and I am not providing legal advice. There may be errors or omissions in the following, please check the 2006 Illinois Vehicle Code for full details. I take no responsibility for the reliability of this information.

625 ILCS 5/6-108, 12-603.1, 25/4b
Provides that every person under the age of 19 (not 18) must wear a seat belt while riding as passenger in a car driven by a person under the age of 18.

625 ILCS 5/12-215
Provides that blue oscillating, rotating, or flashing lights are prohibited whether lighted or unlighted except on specified vehicles.

625 ILCS 5/12-604.1
Provides that a person may not operate a motor vehicle if a TV receiver, video monitor, TV or video screen, or any other similar means of visually displaying a TV broadcast or video signal that produces entertainment or business applications is operating and is located in the motor vehicle at any point forward of the back of the driver's seat or is operating and visible to the driver while driving a motor vehicle. Does not prohibit use of navigation devices.

625 ILCS 5/12-610.1
Provides that a person, under the age of 18, who holds an instruction permit or a graduated license, may not use a wireless phone while driving a vehicle on a roadway. Does not apply while calling law enforcement, medical help, or other emergency services.

625 ILCS 5/12-610.1
Prohibits a person from operating a motor vehicle that is equipped with registration plate covers. Defines registration plate covers as any tinted, colored, painted, marked, clear, or illuminated object designed to cover any of the characters of a license plate or distort a recorded image of any of the characters of a license plate recorded by an automated red light enforcement system or automated traffic control system.

625 ILCS 5/12-613
Prohibits the possession and use of radar or laser jamming devices in all vehicles. Provides that a vehicle or driver may not be stopped or searched solely on the basis of a violation or suspected violation of this provision.

Click to read more...

 

[GTPquickRB]

and who passed these?

 

[chipmonk212121]

....the legislature........who esle would...... the pope? and thats radar JAMMING not radar DETECTING.......FYI

 

[preussenGTP]

Provides that a person, under the age of 18, who holds an instruction permit or a graduated license, may not use a wireless phone while driving a vehicle on a roadway. Does not apply while calling law enforcement, medical help, or other emergency services.


when are they going to pass a law that will make it unlawful for EVERYONE to stop driving while talking on their freakin phones!!!!

 

[chipmonk212121]

no, they just need to pass the headset law everywhere........and go from there

 

[imported_Theautoguy]

So now its illegal to use radar detectors or just "jamming" devices?

 

[Ten32]

Originally posted by Theautoguy@Dec 25 2005, 04:17 PM
So now its illegal to use radar detectors or just "jamming" devices?

[snapback]108344[/snapback]​

Just "jamming" devices. Detectors are still legal.

 

[Ten32]

Originally posted by 98GTPquickRB@Dec 25 2005, 10:39 AM
and who passed these?

[snapback]108311[/snapback]​

Do I need to take you back to high school civics?

 

[chipmonk212121]

i think he skipped his HS civics classes to go play with his car

 

[Ten32]

Originally posted by chipmonk212121@Dec 25 2005, 07:26 PM
i think he skipped his HS civics classes to go play with his car

[snapback]108351[/snapback]​

Well fair enough then.

 

[framos242]

Thanks for the info.

 

[Partyhardoo69]

Originally posted by framos242@Dec 26 2005, 03:56 PM
Thanks for the info.

[snapback]108381[/snapback]​

radar jammers.....now they can regulate light :angry:



oh and i have a laptop in my car all the time...i have windows media player up with my play list, and soon to be gps....does this mean i can get introulbe for playing music through it????

 

[Ten32]

Originally posted by Partyhardoo69+Dec 26 2005, 04:50 PM-->

<!--QuoteBegin-framos242

@Dec 26 2005, 03:56 PM
Thanks for the info.

[snapback]108381[/snapback]​

radar jammers.....now they can regulate light :angry:



oh and i have a laptop in my car all the time...i have windows media player up with my play list, and soon to be gps....does this mean i can get introulbe for playing music through it????

[snapback]108383[/snapback]​

[/b]

The way I'm reading the law, you can get in trouble for this if you have any screen except a built-in or dash-top nav system. Even if you get out of it in court since you're using the computer as nav, you'll almost definitely get pulled over for using it. If it gets tested in court, I'll let you know.

 

[sweetness]

Originally posted by chipmonk212121@Dec 25 2005, 01:56 PM
no, they just need to pass the headset law everywhere........and go from there

[snapback]108326[/snapback]​

I was under the impression that studies have shown no difference between using a headset and just using the cell phone. its not that you are holding the phone, but that you are distracted by the conversation.


BC

 

[dole21]

Originally posted by sweetness+Dec 27 2005, 01:11 AM-->

<!--QuoteBegin-chipmonk212121

@Dec 25 2005, 01:56 PM
no, they just need to pass the headset law everywhere........and go from there

[snapback]108326[/snapback]​

I was under the impression that studies have shown no difference between using a headset and just using the cell phone. its not that you are holding the phone, but that you are distracted by the conversation.


BC

[snapback]108443[/snapback]​

[/b]

I disagree....

I use my cell about 1500 minutes a month while driving for work. Before I had the headset... having to hold a phone up to you're ear as you are turning the wheel backin up etc...is dangerous. Now I will set the phone on my console...and with my headset on can have both hands on the wheel and move freely.

Now granted..a normal conversation..im talking. When i start fiddling on the laptop looking at a map etc is when I myself get distracted

and I'd like to thank that guy who created rumble strips along the interstates. :lolsign:

 

[GTPquickRB]

625 ILCS 5/6-108, 12-603.1, 25/4b
Provides that every person under the age of 19 (not 18) must wear a seat belt while riding as passenger in a car driven by a person under the age of 18.

This law states that any passenger over 19 in a car with a person under 18 doesnt need to wear a seatbelt. WTF? Why do they make a pointless law like that. So everyone over 20 is gonna die because they werent wearing a seatbelt.....good idea. How about the state legislature gets their heads outta their asses and pass a couple of laws that actually bear some significance to our society. Or maybe just not be a bunch of dumbasses and pass a law that says seatbelts are mandatory. hmmmm - that would be a good idea......they wouldnt pass that - it makes too much sense to pass a law that might save lives.

625 ILCS 5/12-610.1
Provides that a person, under the age of 18, who holds an instruction permit or a graduated license, may not use a wireless phone while driving a vehicle on a roadway. Does not apply while calling law enforcement, medical help, or other emergency services.

Yeah, this is gonna save lives. don't let kids talk on the phone.

Question: Is this going to be a stoppable offense? Or will this be tagged onto a moving voilation once the officer realizes the person is under 18? IF it is a stoppable offense, it's gonna piss a helluva lot of people off. Say someone over 21 is driving, and they're in a hurry to get to an appointment, and they're talking on the phone, they get pulled over. It makes them later than they were in the couple minutes they're gonna need to wait for the officer to approach the car, ask for ID and registration etc. Than they speed to make up for the time. I don't get it. Its just stupid. Target everyone or dont target anyone. It would be like saying its illegal for black people to own guns because of the higher crime rates in areas with black people. If it becomes a stopable offense, its profiling. not racial, so maybe its ok, but its profiling.

Why did i ask who passed these...........because half our lawmakes don't deserve their posistion. They make laws for themselves.....not their constituents

 

[Ten32]

Enforcement of the cell phone law is likely to occur only in conjunction with other stops or at accident scenes for just the reasons listed above. I'll probably end up getting some training on this later in the first quarter, I'll keep everyone posted.

 

[chipmonk212121]

Originally posted by 98GTPquickRB@Dec 27 2005, 11:59 AM
625 ILCS 5/6-108, 12-603.1, 25/4b
Provides that every person under the age of 19 (not 18) must wear a seat belt while riding as passenger in a car driven by a person under the age of 18.

This law states that any passenger over 19 in a car with a person under 18 doesnt need to wear a seatbelt.  WTF?  Why do they make a pointless law like that.  So everyone over 20 is gonna die because they werent wearing a seatbelt.....good idea.  How about the state legislature gets their heads outta their asses and pass a couple of laws that actually bear some significance to our society.  Or maybe just not be a bunch of dumbasses and pass a law that says seatbelts are mandatory.  hmmmm - that would be a good idea......they wouldnt pass that - it makes too much sense to pass a law that might save lives.

625 ILCS 5/12-610.1
Provides that a person, under the age of 18, who holds an instruction permit or a graduated license, may not use a wireless phone while driving a vehicle on a roadway. Does not apply while calling law enforcement, medical help, or other emergency services.

Yeah, this is gonna save lives.  don't let kids talk on the phone. 

Question: Is this going to be a stoppable offense?  Or will this be tagged onto a moving voilation once the officer realizes the person is under 18?  IF it is a stoppable offense, it's gonna piss a helluva lot of people off.  Say someone over 21 is driving, and they're in a hurry to get to an appointment, and they're talking on the phone, they get pulled over.  It makes them later than they were in the couple minutes they're gonna need to wait for the officer to approach the car, ask for ID and registration etc.  Than they speed to make up for the time.  I don't get it.  Its just stupid.  Target everyone or dont target anyone.  It would be like saying its illegal for black people to own guns because of the higher crime rates in areas with black people.  If it becomes a stopable offense, its profiling.  not racial, so maybe its ok, but its profiling. 

Why did i ask who passed these...........because half our lawmakes don't deserve their posistion.  They make laws for themselves.....not their constituents

[snapback]108468[/snapback]​

^--- for president

 

[GTPquickRB]

thank you

 

[chipmonk212121]

can i be in your cabinet i wanna be secretary of partyin down!

 

[chipmonk212121]

...who gets to be monica then?

 

[Toasty]

hey since we're on the topic of legalities and such...

whats il law say about our clear corners?

 

[Ten32]

Originally posted by Toasty@Dec 30 2005, 11:18 PM
hey since we're on the topic of legalities and such...

whats il law say about our clear corners?

[snapback]108776[/snapback]​

625 ILCS 5/12-208( b )
Every motor vehicle... shall be equipped with an electric turn signal device which shall indicate the intention of the driver to turn to the right or to the left in the form of flashing lights located at and showing to the front and rear of the vehicle on the side of the vehicle toward which the turn is to be made. The lamps showing to the front ... when signaling, shall emit a white or amber light ... The lamps showing to the rear ... shall emit a red or amber light.


That's the law on turn signals (edited for just the relevant info), there doesn't seem to be any prohibition on clear corners. I can't find any law restricting side markers except for vehicles of the second division (large trucks, etc.). I must again disclaim: I am not a lawyer and I could be wrong, so do your research.

 

[GTPquickRB]

Originally posted by Ten32@Dec 31 2005, 03:11 PM
625 ILCS 5/12-208( b )
The lamps showing to the front ... when signaling, shall emit a white or amber light ... The lamps showing to the rear ... shall emit a red or amber light.

[snapback]108822[/snapback]​

so we can have a white light as the turn signal? i thought they HAD to be amber

 

[Ten32]

Originally posted by 98GTPquickRB+Dec 31 2005, 03:52 PM-->

<!--QuoteBegin-Ten32

@Dec 31 2005, 03:11 PM
625 ILCS 5/12-208( b )
The lamps showing to the front ... when signaling, shall emit a white or amber light ... The lamps showing to the rear ... shall emit a red or amber light.

[snapback]108822[/snapback]​

so we can have a white light as the turn signal? i thought they HAD to be amber

[snapback]108828[/snapback]​

[/b]

The Illinois law (as I am reading it) states amber or white. You can look it up yourself, the section is 625 ILCS 5/12-208( b ).