Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Traffic Law topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate moves forward on traffic-code changes; debate over speed limits and careless-driving language
Summary
Senate discussion of first substitute SB 17 focused on lane-flow rules, following distances, raising certain statutory maximum speeds and a new careless-driving definition that could enhance penalties when distractions coincide with moving violations; sponsors cite traffic-flow and safety studies, critics warn about unintended enforcement consequences.
SALT LAKE CITY — Lawmakers spent considerable floor time debating a first substitute to Senate Bill 17, a package of traffic-code amendments that would change maximum statutory speed limits in some cases and create a broadened careless-driving provision tying distracted conduct to enhanced penalties.
Senator Jenkins, presenting the bill, said the measure aims to improve traffic flow and safety by clarifying that a vehicle may not impede the flow in the left lane and by setting a two-second following-distance benchmark. Jenkins urged the Senate to consider study findings suggesting that allowing a more uniform flow can reduce crashes.
Several senators raised concerns about language that defines careless driving to include activities such as using electronic devices, eating or grooming when combined with another moving violation. Senator McCoy asked whether commonplace acts — for example, drinking coffee while slightly over the speed limit — could create a careless-driving enhancement. Jenkins said that was never the intention and pledged to “check into that and solve that on the third reading.”
Debate also touched on raising certain statutory maximums (examples cited: 65→70, 75→80) and on the difference between statutory maximums and actual posted limits, which remain subject to Department of Transportation studies and local determinations.
Senators split on the policy: some supported the bill’s traffic-flow and safety rationale; others said the expansion of criminal exposure concerns them and that the bill should be tightened before final passage. The first substitute was placed on the third-reading calendar after a procedural tally and will return for further amendment and final passage votes.
What happens next: Sponsors pledged to refine careless-driving drafting before third reading to avoid unintended enforcement outcomes; amendments and final language were expected when the bill returns.
