Do you like this story?
Anti-lapdog bill cruises through California Assembly toward Senate
By Keith Turner
May 8, 2008
As we previously reported, California is preparing to take the dogs off of our laps — while driving.
A bill introduced by State Assemblyman Bill Maze of Visalia makes it illegal for California drivers to tool around with their lovable pooch sitting in their lap. The measure passed the Assembly on Monday by a hefty 44-11 vote and now heads to the State Senate where its passage is expected.
A story by Jim Sanders in the Sacramento Bee points out that even though there are no statistics about how many accidents have been caused by drivers who are distracted by their pets, there is clear evidence that many people drive with a dog in their lap.
Eight percent of drivers surveyed by Nationwide Mutual Insurance in 2006 said they had held a pet while behind the wheel.
Maze also pointed to a recent American Automobile Association study that found pets and loose objects were common distractions and significant traffic hazards.
Violators of AB 2233 would not be penalized with higher insurance rates, but they could be slapped with base fines of $35 that could rise to about $150 through penalty assessments, Maze said.
Assemblyman Dave Jones, D-Sacramento, voted in favor of the legislation.
“Anybody with common sense has to know that they shouldn’t be driving with an animal on their lap,” he said. “But if there are some people who think it’s acceptable, I suppose the bill will send a clear signal.”
Read the rest of the article here.
As we mentioned before, this bill is clearly necessary to help protect those of us who know better from those who don’t, but it doesn’t go far enough. What is really needed is a seat belt law that covers not just people, but all beings traveling in a vehicle. With an unrestrained pet loose in a moving vehicle, too many things can happen — all of them bad:
- A loose pet can distract the driver away from what’s happening on the road, possibly resulting in an accident.
- When there is an accident, the unrestrained dog becomes a flying object, possibly hurting the dog and/or others in the car.
- And after an accident, a dog on the loose could potentially get free of the vehicle and run out into traffic, putting him at risk for getting hit by a moving vehicle.
So while the anti-lapdog bill is a good start, here’s hoping for a stronger, more effective solution to soon follow.
To participate in an online poll about the law, click here.
Share & Enjoy
|
Facebook
|
Twitter
|
Google Buzz
|
Digg
|
|
Technorati
|
StumbleUpon
|
Delicious
|
Email
|
Home
Fine ban drinking coffee, changing the radio station, switching cds while in the car; why don’t they ban rubbernecking, daydreaming, or for that matter enforce other laws like tailgating, unsafe lane changing, driving into the crosswalk while pedestrians are in it? People get into accidents for a multitude of reasons and its usually called bad judgement. Furthermore a police officer uses judgement to cite someone for unsafe driving whether its putting make-up on or shaving. Doesn’t our legislature have more important things on their plate?
Comment by Michelle Dietz — May 9, 2008 @ 12:54 am
Watch out! The devil is in the details and all that. Somebody had best read the fine print in this bill because there is a BIG poison pill. Specifically the ability for the goverment to put a lien on your house should your pet become lost in a natural disaster and the goverment wants to charge you to rescue it. Don’t have money to pay? Well, now you can lose your house! What this is doing in a bill to remove pets from drivers’ laps I don’t know. Pretty sneaky if you ask me.
Comment by Tessie — May 14, 2008 @ 10:43 am
The author of this piece suggests that “What is really needed is a seat belt law that covers not just people, but all beings traveling in a vehicle.” While I agree that dogs shouldn’t ride in people’s laps while they’re driving (or, for that matter, in a front seat at all, given the danger of airbags to dogs), to require “seatbelts” or even confinement to a crate for dogs travelling with their owners would mean that those like me would be required to violate the law & risk fines every time we took our dogs in the car. My 10-year-old, 80lb. Akita would not consent to being strapped into a seatbelt, under any circumstance. Furthermore, she cannot be crated because of severe orthopedic problems. I think busybody legislators should keep their paws off of anything that smacks of seatbelt/crate laws for dogs traveling in cars. If not, I’d like to invite them to try to strap my dog — or the many other dogs like her — into a seatbelt. Good luck with that!
Comment by Dee — May 16, 2008 @ 2:08 pm
I am so tired of dumb legislators like Maze (who represents rural areas) telling me what to do. My dog is content on my lap and sleeps most of the time in the car. Doesn’t Maze have anything to do ?
Comment by Lawrence P — July 31, 2008 @ 1:25 pm
I think seatbelts and/or crating your pet,should be up to the discretion of the owner. If California is supposed to be such a dog friendly state, Then why as one of his first matters of business, after elected, did Schwarzenegger propose: Cutting the waiting period that a dog has in the pound, from 6 days down to 3 days before EUTHANIZATION? To SAVE MONEY!!!!! How about a special tax for the citizens of California with an exorbitent INCOME? the people who can very easily afford it, instead of murdering the innocent dogs!!!!!
Comment by Kathy — August 3, 2008 @ 12:52 pm
Dogs should not be on laps of drivers in cars. If the dog has coniptions, gets antagonized by kids in a passing car, vomits/takes a crap etc etc the driver will swerve/freak and there will be a pile-up. Use common-sense for gawds sake. You don’t need the damn thing on your lap and it is **unsafe**.
Comment by Johnny — September 27, 2008 @ 11:08 pm