TexasCHLforum.com

WildBill wrote:

barstoolguru wrote:puma guy wrote:LEO's have more than enough to do already without having to be on the lookout for unrestrained pets in vehicles. It will go unenforced for the most part, which, in my book makes it idiotic.

and to think I though they got paid to enforce the law.

I just love to pay taxes so that we can pay LEOs to enforce idiotic laws.

I love to pay taxes so they can sit in a doughnut shop or 7-11 drinking coffee... when I drove a truck it didn't matter what was in the back, it was paying freight...no different than a cop...They get paid to do a job no matter how menial… sorry not all jobs are glamorous and full of flash but at 28.00+ an hour we need something for our money

puma guy wrote:LEO's have more than enough to do already without having to be on the lookout for unrestrained pets in vehicles. It will go unenforced for the most part, which, in my book makes it idiotic.

and to think I though they got paid to enforce the law.

you need to take them rose colored glasses off

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Association, almost 5,500 were killed in accidents caused by distracted driving in 2009. So far, the National Highway Traffic Safety Association does not have a specific category that identifies accidents caused by drivers distracted by pets; however, the statistic is housed in categories like distracted passengers.

WOW, who would have figured dogs doing this? Thank god they don't have a goldfish restraint law !

While the exact numbers are not available, it is estimated that tens of thousands of people are injured in car accidents by unrestrained dogs. We all know of the dangers of texting or using the phone while driving, but being distracted by a pet free in the car has now been added to the list of distracted driving activities. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Association, almost 5,500 were killed in accidents caused by distracted driving in 2009. So far, the National Highway Traffic Safety Association does not have a specific category that identifies accidents caused by drivers distracted by pets; however, the statistic is housed in categories like distracted passengers.

Dog in cars contributing to car accidents
http://www.pennsylvaniaaccidentinjuryla ... ents.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

and by the way everyone knows why the chicken crossed the road.... to show the amadillo it could be done

"If I have an accident and die because I wasn't wearing a seat belt that's MY problem, not the government's. Courts serve a constitutional and proper role of government; telling me what's good for ME, and requiring me to do things by law that the government thinks are good for ME, is an improper and unconstitutional role of government."

If you want to kill yourself I have no problem with that but when you do it puts a strain on the system because someone (obviously not you) is going to have to clean up the mess. the problem here is when someone has a loose animal in the car distracting them they create a road hazard which affected everyone including the government because when you crash they/we have to clean up the mess and that makes it everyone’s problem. So we can say that the government has a right to protect the population by making a law for the good of everyone. Remember if people were not so self-centered and though past the nose on their face we would not have so many laws to start with

VMI77 wrote:

barstoolguru wrote:Laws to control bad driving and leaving fines have been going on for nearly a 100 years.

And bad driving is still uncontrolled, with fewer fatalities primarily a result of improved technology....better cars, seat-belts, and air bags.

barstoolguru wrote:What you and other anti-government people see as a bad law I see as a law that just might save a life and who knows it might be yours!

What do you consider an "anti-government" person? I highly doubt ANYONE on this board is "anti-government." I'm not anti-government, I just want the government to do that, and ONLY that, authorized in the US Constitution. The people on here complaining about government are complaining about the government as it now exists: overbearing, intrusive, huge, corrupt, and unConstitutional.

The oft cited liberal nonsense that any law that MIGHT save a live is good can justify ANY government action, including murdering people, since a case can always be made that if the State kills 10,000 people it will save 10,001. It's a slogan used as a substitute for thought, not an argument.

barstoolguru wrote:"If I took my three-year-old son, and placed him unrestrained in the backseat of my car, this is what would happen: He’d be jumping all over the place. He’d definitely try and climb into the front seat. He’d probably attempt to take the wheel. He’d end up on my lap. He’d punch me in my nose. We’d probably crash and die and maybe take a few people with us."

Your child, or someone else's child, is YOUR problem, not mine; and I can assure you, that none of the behavior quoted above happened with either of my children when they were three years old. What you're quoting is an abdication of responsibility on the part of the child's parent --poor parenting. A law isn't going to fix that, and it will apply to those of us who are responsible parents, punishing us, while the irresponsible parents remain just as irresponsible.

Here’s the problem with your comment: you can't see the forest because there are too many trees in your way.

I agree with you that there are too many laws that restrict us. The constitution says a have a right to pursue happiness and to me that’s drinking and driving today but the law says I can’t. How dare them to make a law that infringes on my rights.

That burns me up and you are right if I run into someone else because I was drunk and cripple their kid that should be between me and them not the government. After all every person that drives is a responsible adult and has common sense

[/quote]


Should something be done about unrestrained animals? ABSOLUTELY! Let's see a campaign targeting every pet store that talks about the potential harm and helps to educate owners. Let's see public service announcements that encourage owners to be responsible with their pets. Lets NOT put another law on the books that does little or nothing the address on the problem.
[quote]

So let’s say we implement this great plan to educate the public (or should we say over educate them). Who is going to pay for all this education… the tax payer…again...no because these programs are generally paid for through fines levied from people that choose to ignore the law.
As far as putting another law on the book that does no good is a bunch of bull. Laws to control bad driving and leaving fines have been going on for nearly a 100 years. What you and other anti-government people see as a bad law I see as a law that just might save a life and who knows it might be yours!


"A sampling of New Jersey pet owners showed support for the initiative, even as some motorists cruised local highways with dogs serving as co-pilots."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/sto ... 55305178/1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


"If I took my three-year-old son, and placed him unrestrained in the backseat of my car, this is what would happen: He’d be jumping all over the place. He’d definitely try and climb into the front seat. He’d probably attempt to take the wheel. He’d end up on my lap. He’d punch me in my nose. We’d probably crash and die and maybe take a few people with us."
http://www.trentonian.com/article/20120 ... -state-law" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

N.J, is not the only state ...
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/lifestyle/2 ... d-driving/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

puma guy wrote:

barstoolguru wrote:

puma guy wrote:

barstoolguru wrote:
thats a lot of road pizzathats 99,999 more then the 1 thats someone claimsl

Before you start quoting me please get the facts correct. I never said anything about dogs falling out of trucks in my anecdote. The dog I referenced was injured in a car wreck as stated in the story. I still don't see the data you are quoting for 100,000 dogs dying as a result of falling out of a vehicle, truck or otherwise. I did read the blog on the Parade story which quoted Humane Society information about 100,000. I don't know if those are the same "facts" you refer to from Edmunds.

While they don't let them fall out of trucks ask the Humane Society how many animals they euthanize a year nationally. Years and years ago there was a real Humane Society in Houston. I know because I spent many hours helping my dad perform pro bono services for them. The gentleman that ran it (a retired attorney) would never have an animal put down unless it couldn't be saved and that was precious few. As Forrest Gump says. That's all I have to say 'bout that!

So your saying it’s OK for dogs to get killed because the will be put down? The fact is god never intended for every animal to live. Out of a litter of 8; 6 of them would be part of the food chain in the wild. Sorry but a dog falling out of a truck is an accident. All I am saying is it’s a good thing to strap a dog in wither it be in the vehicle or out. People don't like to be regulated but when that animal is subjected to someone’s poor judgment maybe someone needs to step in

Oldgringo wrote:

speedsix wrote:

barstoolguru wrote:

That said, we see dogs up here (Montana) with their heads out the windows and dogs down there (Pineywoods) in the back of pickups. The dogs seem to enjoy it. The owners are responsible to man and God... and, that's the way it is, Good Night.

We've all seen dogs riding in the back of pickup trucks as the trucks fly down the highway. The dogs look to be having fun, but by living in the fast lane they risk injury from flying objects. Eye injuries are common, but there is an even greater danger: according to a California state legislator, approximately 100,000 dogs a year nationwide are killed because they jump or are thrown from a pickup. There's no reliable way of estimating how much damage and how many serious accidents such incidents cause.
Many local and state governments, and some states, now regulate how dogs can be carried in pickup beds. California, for example, requires dogs in the open back of a pickup to be either in a cage or cross-tied to the truck unless the sides of the truck are at least 46 inches high. The laws don't apply to cattle or sheep dogs being used by farmers and ranchers. Violators can be fined $50 to $100 for a first offense and up to $250 for a third offense. (Cal. Vehicle Code sections 23117, 42001.4.)
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/ ... r2-11.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

here is your one dog falling out of a P/U

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

here is another one....

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.ehow.com/how_7769472_safely- ... truck.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

here it is again... works for me

puma guy wrote:

barstoolguru wrote: For the people that drive around with a dog in the back of the truck. The man says I only seen one brought in to the vets office… well yea the rest were road pizza. They usually don’t make it and when they do fall out it makes a heck of a road bump and the people behind him are the ones that have to swerve to avoid the animal and that puts them in danger

Unless you have data to support the claim that they all end up as road pizza I seriously doubt that happens to all but the one that was brought into the vet. In the first place animals have a much different physiology than humans. Weight to bone strength and having four legs give them the abilty to absorb shock much greater than us. Also, weighing less the impact is not as dramatic. Cats survive falls from 30 story buildings. My point is that animals survive trauma you and I might succumb to were circumstances purportionally equal. I wonder what the laws are for people riding in the back of a truck? (rhetorical - no need to answer)
Back to OP topic... the law is to protect the animal while riding, not keep idiots from letting their pet cause an accident. We'll need more laws to protect us from idiots. NJ and NYC will probably be the first to write one.

How to Safely Transport a Dog in a Truck

By Brooke Turner, eHow Contributor

Help your dog avoid death or injury by transporting them safely in your pickup truck.

More than 100,000 dogs die each year from falling out of pickup trucks, according to Joanne Helperin of Edmunds.com. Although it is not recommended by most experts to allow a dog to ride in the back of a pickup truck, there is a relatively safe way to transport your dog in a pickup truck. Keep in mind that some states have laws that do not allow dogs to ride in the back of a pickup truck at all.


thats a lot of road pizzathats 99,999 more then the 1 thats someone claims


Read more: How to Safely Transport a Dog in a Truck | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/how_7769472_safely- ... truck.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Law is order in liberty, and without order liberty is social chaos. -Archbishop Ireland

Law is order, and good law is good order. -Aristotle (384 BC - 322 BC), Politics

It is the spirit and not the form of law that keeps justice alive. -Earl Warren (1891 - 1974)

Good laws lead to the making of better ones; bad ones bring about worse. -Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712 - 1778)

People love laws when they work for them and hate them when they work against them- barstoolguru (1959- present)

Nor do I want to have to worry about the teenager who must answer her latest text because "OMG, bobby dumped Sally",

they are working on it :
http://gma.yahoo.com/massachusetts-teen ... ories.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Massachusetts Teen Aaron Deveau Found Guilty in Landmark Texting While Driving Case

canvasbck wrote:

barstoolguru wrote:We don't need more government intervention but you have to look at it this way too that there are a lot of people that drive with dogs in their laps or hanging on them. That makes a road hazard to the rest of us. The last thing I want to worry about is some blue hair having her little labra doddle clawing her already weak shaky arms and hands while she is plowing I-35 so little pookey can get his anal glands expressed.

For the people that drive around with a dog in the back of the truck. The man says I only seen one brought in to the vets office… well yea the rest were road pizza. They usually don’t make it and when they do fall out it makes a heck of a road bump and the people behind him are the ones that have to swerve to avoid the animal and that puts them in danger
So IF not for the safety of the animal maybe for the other people that share the road

Nor do I want to have to worry about the teenager who must answer her latest text because "OMG, bobby dumped Sally", Or the dude craining his neck to see the hot chick walking down the seawall plows into folks waiting at the stop light. But I don't want laws FORCING behaviors.

Sooooooooooo many liberties are lost when we start trying to pass laws just to protect people from their own or other people's stupidity. You do realize that (overall, not just traffic accidents) when people get hurt, 95% of the time it is because they did something themselves to cause the accident. Only about 4% of the time they get hurt from someone else doing something to them. The other 1%...........stuff just happened.

It’s a crying shame we need laws to regulate the population but they are needed because as the world gets more complicated it is needed or otherwise we would have a lawless sociality. Before the car was invented we had no need for laws regulating them then the first man was run over and then the laws to protect the citizen from the sloppy driver.

you mention the man rubbernecking a woman; there will never be a law to stop that because you can’t prove it. Texting...if it was never invented we wouldn't need a law to say you can't do it while driving. Common sense says it dangerous but yet 10 of thousands do it every day and cause accident and people get hurt. so yes there needs to be a law against it because people can't be trusted.

Same with dogs in cars... why should they not be strapped down... why? You have to have a seat belt, your kids have to have a child safety seat? But your dog can just run around the vehicle and be an obstruction while you are driving.
Your right it’s only a problem IF YOU get run over. If someone else gets hit because of their dog it’s OK because it’s not you.
REmember driving is a privilege and it’s not your constitutional right