Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
They need to be careful how they word this one. What about drivers who use a cage seperating the occupant and cargo area and keep the dog in the cargo area of SUV's?
I would be on board with making it illegal to have dogs roaming free in truck beds and making it illegal for dogs to be in the front seat area near the driver (but allowing them to roam free in the back seat). I've seen dogs sitting on top of the tool box where a sharp turn could throw them out. My dog is content lying in the back seat and doesn't try to get up near the driver's seat.
see i wouldnt be for no front seat, my dogs ride up front, they ride restrained via harness cliped into a special booster seat. the ONLY reason they rdie up front is because i can actually turn OFF my front airbags (airbags can be killers especially on anything under 40lbs...) i cannot however turn off the airbags in the rear...
they ride well, they lay down or sit and keep to themselves, being strapped in they cant get to me if they tried and im not fussing over them either.
i do not think it should be a SEATBELT law, i do however think it should be a restraint law, a secured crate or kennel, a barrier (even one of those net ones), seatbelts/harness and clip in systems, tiedowns for flatbed trucks (i dont like the idea of anything riding in the back of a flat bed without some kind of crate, but at least secure your animal so it cant get tossed overboard... or hung!)
pretty much something to keep dogs off their owners laps, out of owners faces, and more secure if an accident happens.
ive seen dogs thrown through windsheilds, ive seen dogs thrown into windows but not hard enough to break the glass (brain matter is NOT pretty), ive seen them slam so hard into the back of the seat infront of them its seriously hurt and even killed people. ive seen people trying to drive with fluffy (and my all time stupid idiot award was a guy with a german sheperd ON HIS LAP!!!) sitting between them and the steering wheel...ect.
and it just makes me wonder...if they think that is acceptable, what else is acceptable...
is it only acceptable because its "just a dog", what if it was a kid? what if that person with fluffy distracting them slammed into your car with your family in it, and killed your kids? would you still think its "just a risk you take" no youd think that person is an irresponsible douch who shouldnt have a lisence...so why is it different when you do it...
**please note im not refering to any particular person with the "YOU" comments, just a general comment**
and yes, going out of the house is dangerous no matter what...(i am actually agoraphobic thanks...)
but therese nessicary risks, then theres IDIOTS who put mine and my families life in danger for their convenience...
reckles driving is reckles driving, it doesnt matter what the cause of the recklessness is...
and on the other sid eof it i DO agree that this should be a mute point, its RECKLESS driving and should be treated as such, there shouldnt NEED to be a seperate law for it, it should, along with unrestrained children, doing your makeup, texting and driving ect, be covered under laws already in place...
but its NOT...why not?
its illegal in ct to talk on your cellphone while driving...
and yet every day i see people yacking away...they drive past cops while talking on their cells and the cops dont do ANYTHING...they dont pull em over, nothing...its not like these cops are doing anything other than sitting waiting for people speeding, WHY are they not enforcing these laws?
so i know a restraint law would be no different...theyd just sit back and watch it happen, against the law or not...
BUT at the same time, it SHOULD be enforced, either under current reckless driving laws or via its own coverage...
see i wouldnt be for no front seat, my dogs ride up front, they ride restrained via harness cliped into a special booster seat. the ONLY reason they rdie up front is because i can actually turn OFF my front airbags (airbags can be killers especially on anything under 40lbs...) i cannot however turn off the airbags in the rear...
they ride well, they lay down or sit and keep to themselves, being strapped in they cant get to me if they tried and im not fussing over them either.
i do not think it should be a SEATBELT law, i do however think it should be a restraint law, a secured crate or kennel, a barrier (even one of those net ones), seatbelts/harness and clip in systems, tiedowns for flatbed trucks (i dont like the idea of anything riding in the back of a flat bed without some kind of crate, but at least secure your animal so it cant get tossed overboard... or hung!)
pretty much something to keep dogs off their owners laps, out of owners faces, and more secure if an accident happens.
ive seen dogs thrown through windsheilds, ive seen dogs thrown into windows but not hard enough to break the glass (brain matter is NOT pretty), ive seen them slam so hard into the back of the seat infront of them its seriously hurt and even killed people. ive seen people trying to drive with fluffy (and my all time stupid idiot award was a guy with a german sheperd ON HIS LAP!!!) sitting between them and the steering wheel...ect.
and it just makes me wonder...if they think that is acceptable, what else is acceptable...
is it only acceptable because its "just a dog", what if it was a kid? what if that person with fluffy distracting them slammed into your car with your family in it, and killed your kids? would you still think its "just a risk you take" no youd think that person is an irresponsible douch who shouldnt have a lisence...so why is it different when you do it...
**please note im not refering to any particular person with the "YOU" comments, just a general comment**
and yes, going out of the house is dangerous no matter what...(i am actually agoraphobic thanks...)
but therese nessicary risks, then theres IDIOTS who put mine and my families life in danger for their convenience...
reckles driving is reckles driving, it doesnt matter what the cause of the recklessness is...
and on the other sid eof it i DO agree that this should be a mute point, its RECKLESS driving and should be treated as such, there shouldnt NEED to be a seperate law for it, it should, along with unrestrained children, doing your makeup, texting and driving ect, be covered under laws already in place...
but its NOT...why not?
its illegal in ct to talk on your cellphone while driving...
and yet every day i see people yacking away...they drive past cops while talking on their cells and the cops dont do ANYTHING...they dont pull em over, nothing...its not like these cops are doing anything other than sitting waiting for people speeding, WHY are they not enforcing these laws?
so i know a restraint law would be no different...theyd just sit back and watch it happen, against the law or not...
BUT at the same time, it SHOULD be enforced, either under current reckless driving laws or via its own coverage...
Very well said. I tried to rep ya but have to spread it around first
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
