barstoolguru wrote: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.canvasbck wrote: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.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
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.
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
I couldn't disagree more. It is NOT the government's job to idiot proof everything.
I'll oversimplify things here. If you try to idiot proof something, they will build a better idiot.
ETA: If you can produce some data showing that unrestrained dogs cause more injury accidents than other commonly performed distractions such as applying makeup, changing CD's, talking on a cellphone, ect. you could possibly sway me on this........................ok, you can't sway me, but I will stop arguing against more freedom grabbing laws.