In miscellaneous provisions relating to operation of vehicles, providing for protection of children from second-hand smoke in vehicles; and imposing a penalty.
Summary
SB 1282 would amend Pennsylvania’s Vehicle Code to prohibit smoking in a vehicle when a child under 12 years old is being transported. The bill defines smoking broadly to include carrying a lighted cigar, cigarette, pipe, or other smoking device, and it would take effect 90 days after enactment.
The bill creates a new summary offense for violating the prohibition. A first conviction would carry a $100 fine, and a second or subsequent conviction would carry a $250 fine. The bill also limits enforcement by providing that a person may not be convicted under this section unless they are also convicted of another Vehicle Code offense that occurred at the same time.
Impact
SB 1282 would add a new section to Title 75 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, creating a child passenger smoke-free requirement within the state’s vehicle laws. It would affect drivers and passengers who smoke in vehicles carrying children under 12, and it would give law enforcement and courts a new summary offense with specified fines. The bill’s enforcement limitation ties the offense to another simultaneous Vehicle Code violation, narrowing when a conviction may be entered.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee debate or votes, the available context suggests the measure is straightforward and protective in nature, aimed at reducing children’s exposure to second-hand smoke in vehicles. The sponsorship by a bipartisan group of senators also suggests the proposal may have been framed as a public health and child safety measure rather than a partisan issue. No formal vote history or transcript comments are available to indicate opposition or support beyond the bill’s introduction.
Contention
The main potential point of contention is the scope of government regulation inside private vehicles, particularly whether the state should criminalize smoking when a child is present. Another possible issue is the enforcement structure: the bill only allows conviction if the person is also convicted of another Vehicle Code offense at the same time, which may limit practical enforcement and could be viewed either as a safeguard against overreach or as a constraint that weakens the bill. No specific objections or supporters are documented in the provided materials.
In miscellaneous provisions relating to operation of vehicles, providing for the offense of interference with operation or movement of a public transit vehicle.
In miscellaneous provisions relating to operation of vehicles, providing for the offense of interference with operation or movement of a public transit vehicle.
In commercial drivers, further providing for disqualification; in general provisions relating to operation of vehicles, further providing for obedience to traffic-control devices; and imposing penalties.
In general provisions, further providing for definitions; in general provisions relating to operation of vehicles, further providing for traffic-control signals and for pedestrian-control signals; in special vehicles and pedestrians, further providing for right-of-way of pedestrians in crosswalks; and imposing penalties.
In general provisions, further providing for definitions; in licensing of drivers, further providing for suspension of operating privilege; in rules of the road in general, further providing for overtaking vehicle on the left and providing for vehicles passing pedestrians on a highway; in special vehicles and pedestrians, further providing for penalty for violation of subchapter; and, in miscellaneous provisions relating to offenses in general, further providing for the offense of careless driving.