# PA law HB1737 (2005) for Transporting Animals in Moving Vehicles



## crazy daisy (Jul 3, 2011)

The idea of this law came from an 11 year old boy from Rep Stevenson's Annual "There ought to be a law" contest

Pooch Safety Proposed by Pa. Lawmaker : NPR



> July 6, 2005
> A Pennsylvania lawmaker has come up with a bill to require seatbelts for dogs — to keep them from sticking their heads out the window. For Fido's own safety, yes. But also lives will be saved by eliminating the distraction of a big smiling dog's face out the window, ears and tongue flying in the wind. State Rep. Tom Stevenson (R-PA) says he got the idea from 11-year-old constituent Marc McCann in Stevenson's annual "There Ought to be a Law" contest.


The Pennsylvania General Assembly

*THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF PENNSYLVANIA *​ 
*HOUSE BILL *​ 

*No. 1737 **Session of 2005 *
INTRODUCED BY T. STEVENSON, CALTAGIRONE, CREIGHTON, GINGRICH, KOTIK, PICKETT AND YOUNGBLOOD, JUNE 15, 2005​ 
REFERRED TO COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION, JUNE 15, 2005​ 
AN ACT​ 
Amending Title 75 (Vehicles) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, providing for transporting pets in motor vehicles. The General Assembly finds that pets riding in automobiles have caused distraction to drivers and that this distraction sometimes results in automobile accidents and injury. It is in the interest of Pennsylvania motorists and passengers, therefore, to institute safety measures regarding transporting pets in automobiles. 

The General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania hereby enacts as follows: 

Section 1. Title 75 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes is amended by adding a subchapter to read: 

SUBCHAPTER F 

TRANSPORTING ANIMALS IN MOVING VEHICLES 
Sec. 4592. Transporting pets in motor vehicles. 

§ 4592. Transporting pets in motor vehicles. 
(a) Restraint rule.--A person who drives a motor vehicle in which a pet is transported shall restrain the movement of the pet in the vehicle. 
(b) Head out window.--A person who drives a motor vehicle in which a pet is transported shall ensure that the entire body, including the head, of the pet remains entirely inside the vehicle. 
(c) Permissible restraint systems.--A pet may be restrained within a motor vehicle by one or a combination of the following means: 
(1) A latched crate or carrier box which is installed in a manner which prevents it from becoming a moving projectile. 
(2) A pet seat belt system. 
(3) If the pet is a dog, a dog gate which separates the driver's area of the motor vehicle from the area in which the dog is confined. ​(d) Penalties.-- 
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), a person who fails to comply with the provisions of this section commits a summary offense as that grade of offense is defined under 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 1101 (relating to fines) and 1105 (relating to sentence of imprisonment for summary offenses). 
(2) When a person's failure to comply with this section results in a motor vehicle accident, the person commits a misdemeanor of the third degree as that grade of offense is defined under 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 1101 and 1104 (relating to sentence of imprisonment for misdemeanors). ​28 Section 2. This act shall take effect in 60 days.


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

*Hurray!!!!!!*

i am all for this in all 50 states!!!


----------



## Shalva (Jul 16, 2008)

I am thinking about this as honestly I have been thinking about how to contain natalie while this is a non issue for my goldens and flat coats... containing the wolfhound now is easier but as she grows is going to be more difficult... I drive a car that is big enough with the seats down... and I never let any of my dogs stick their head out of the car but I guess the restraint factor within the car is a problem.... I am open to suggestions ... but honestly most of the wolfhound folks do have their dogs lose in the car strictly due ot logistics... I am open to suggestions but this is of concern to me right now as i try and figure this out....


----------



## Deb_Bayne (Mar 18, 2011)

Wish they would pass a law here too, I see so many dogs with their head out the window and I cringe. Hearing about dogs blinded by bugs, rocks, debris etc.... just makes me sick. My husband saw a dog, German Shephard, in the back of a pickup, jumped while moving and hit by the transport behind. He had nightmares for weeks.


----------



## Dallas Gold (Dec 22, 2007)

Did it pass though? Here's what I found:
Last Action: Referred to TRANSPORTATION, June 15, 2005 [House]

This law would save lives: human and canine!


----------



## Elisabeth Kazup (Aug 23, 2008)

What does it say about us when common sense has to be legislated???

I see horse trailers going down the highway with the windows wide open, no bars and the horse's entire head and neck OUTSIDE the trailer! I just find it amazing that someone could look at their horse doing that and not think "Oh no, that's not good".


----------



## Hali's Mom (Oct 5, 2006)

Has anyone noticed the date of this proposal? 2005


----------



## Golden999 (Jun 29, 2010)

If this is the law here in Pennsylvania, it's not enforced. I ride around with my golden sticking his head out the window all the time. Right past police cars, even. And, you know what? The dog loves it. People outside coo at him, so they love it. Is it a marginal risk? Maybe. I only roll the window half way down, though, so he can't stick enough of his body out that he'd risk falling out or something if he lost his balance, the bulk of his weight is always inside the car.

But, you know what? It's a risk taking a dog for a walk, because he might grab some litter or drink out of a puddle for a few seconds before you can pull him away and get sick and die. Everything's a risk in life. Sitting here at this computer is a risk -- I could get carbon monoxide poisoning or pull a muscle or whatever. Maybe I'll see something that ticks me off and get so annoyed that my blood pressure shoots up and I have a heart attack (I do have hypertension, after all). My ceiling is leaking in one room -- maybe it'll cave in. Nothing's completely safe anywhere, but as adults we're supposed to have the right to take some small risks that we find reasonable sometimes.

People need to stop legislating crap like this. Don't they have anything better to do than take one of the few joys people have away from them? I love driving around with my dog. And, you know what? If he had to wear a seat belt he'd howl and whine and have a miserable time, so I wouldn't be able to take him with me very often.

Maybe that 11 year old and the people who are responsive to arguments from 11 year olds should be more worried that school buses have no seat belts for actual human children.

Geez. Every time I turn around something else is being proposed to make life worse. No talking on cell phones (That's a Maryland law). Here's another beer tax. Here's your $300 vet bill. It's BS. Just leave people alone and let them make their own decisions.


----------



## Deb_Bayne (Mar 18, 2011)

Golden999 said:


> If this is the law here in Pennsylvania, it's not enforced. I ride around with my golden sticking his head out the window all the time. Right past police cars, even. And, you know what? The dog loves it. People outside coo at him, so they love it. Is it a marginal risk? Maybe. I only roll the window half way down,


I ride a motorcycle and wear a full face helmet, I've gotten hit in the face with bugs and if I wasn't wearing my shield, I would have gotten them in the eyes. Just knowing what it does to dogs. and if you think it's just a marginal risk... so be it, I just hope you never have to experience a blind dog like my Dad grew up with because he let HIS dog stick his head out the window. It only takes one time. Sure dogs love it because of the wind and freedom, but they won't like the bug or rock that blinded them or worse killed them.

For your comment on laws, we now have a law against people talking on cell phones and thank goodness, not that it's doing a lot of good. Just wish the lady who hit my sister with her car wasn't talking on her cell phone when it happened, and right in front of a cop to boot, so she couldn't get out of it.


----------



## Sterling Archer (Feb 8, 2011)

What they should have passed is "the government should mind its own business" law. The stupid can spend time on a bill to make dogs wear seat belts but they can't find the time to make meaningful budget cuts. 2005...it's good to see that nothing's changed.


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

Golden999 said:


> If this is the law here in Pennsylvania, it's not enforced. I ride around with my golden sticking his head out the window all the time. Right past police cars, even. And, you know what? The dog loves it. People outside coo at him, so they love it. Is it a marginal risk? Maybe. I only roll the window half way down, though, so he can't stick enough of his body out that he'd risk falling out or something if he lost his balance, the bulk of his weight is always inside the car.
> 
> But, you know what? It's a risk taking a dog for a walk, because he might grab some litter or drink out of a puddle for a few seconds before you can pull him away and get sick and die. Everything's a risk in life. Sitting here at this computer is a risk -- I could get carbon monoxide poisoning or pull a muscle or whatever. Maybe I'll see something that ticks me off and get so annoyed that my blood pressure shoots up and I have a heart attack (I do have hypertension, after all). My ceiling is leaking in one room -- maybe it'll cave in. Nothing's completely safe anywhere, but as adults we're supposed to have the right to take some small risks that we find reasonable sometimes.
> 
> ...


 
Yeah, well, wait til you've incurred another vet bill for an eye injury sustained because your dog's head was hanging out the window. Sorry, but it's irresponsible to allow it.


----------



## Sterling Archer (Feb 8, 2011)

Pointgold said:


> Yeah, well, wait til you've incurred another vet bill for an eye injury sustained because your dog's head was hanging out the window. Sorry, but it's irresponsible to allow it.


Life is tough...wear a helmet. While I agree that would be a terrible thing to happen to a dog, the only way to really make sure that nothing happens to your dog or child is if you let them live in a padded room. That's not even a sure thing, as either of them is entirely likely to ingest said padding and choke to death. People are too protective of their pets and children.


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

Sterling Archer said:


> Life is tough...wear a helmet. While I agree that would be a terrible thing to happen to a dog, the only way to really make sure that nothing happens to your dog or child is if you let them live in a padded room. That's not even a sure thing, as either of them is entirely likely to ingest said padding and choke to death.


 
It is irresponsible and shows a lack of common sense to not do everything in your power to at least decrease the chances of injury to your dog, who has no say in the matter. 


In a previous thread, I wrote:
Trust me, I am no fan of legislating things like this which should be *SIMPLE COMMON SENSE.* But, as there are people who just don't get it, if it would deter them from stupidly allowing something that could injure or kill their pet (who has no choice) then I don't care if it's about the money and not the safety - because ultimately the pet IS safer. I have SEEN, first hand, the results of unrestrained dogs in MVA's. Not pretty, and not the dogs choice.


Are you okay with laws re: children having to be in car seats? All passengers wearing seatbelts? 


*Tips for traveling by car with pets*

Cats should be in a cage or in a special carrier to allow them to feel secure and prevent them from crawling under your feet while you’re driving.
A dog that must ride in a truck bed should be in a protective kennel that is fastened to the truck bed.
Dogs riding in a car should not ride in the passenger seat if it is equipped with an airbag, and should not be allowed to sit on the driver's lap.
Harnesses, tethers and other accessories to secure pets during car travel are available at most pet stores.
Pets should not be allowed to ride with their heads outside car windows. Particles of dirt or other debris can enter the eyes, ears and nose, causing *injury* or infection.
_Source: American Veterinary Medical Association_ 
__________________


----------



## Golden999 (Jun 29, 2010)

Deb_Bayne said:


> I ride a motorcycle and wear a full face helmet, I've gotten hit in the face with bugs and if I wasn't wearing my shield, I would have gotten them in the eyes. Just knowing what it does to dogs. and if you think it's just a marginal risk... so be it, I just hope you never have to experience a blind dog like my Dad grew up with because he let HIS dog stick his head out the window. It only takes one time. Sure dogs love it because of the wind and freedom, but they won't like the bug or rock that blinded them or worse killed them.


I'd like to see some scientific statistics on that. This is the first I've heard of any harm coming from a dog sticking his head out a window.

I used to be told a story about a kid playing with scissors and poking his eye out when I was a kid. But how many children who use scissors actually poke their eyes out? Should we not be including scissors with school supplies?

There's anyways a sad exception where something bad happens. People definitely die of carbon monoxide poisoning, sometimes even people who have detectors (They don't always work). I've read several articles about it in the papers over the years. Should we ban gas heat? Or is there a certain train of thought that if something is a really small number, you take as many precautions as you can and know that it's only one in a million that something bad happens?



> For your comment on laws, we now have a law against people talking on cell phones and thank goodness, not that it's doing a lot of good.


The statistics show that those laws don't do a lot of good, you're right on that. There are more accidents in the states that enact those laws, not less. It's only on closed circuits that studies show that cell phone usage causes more accidents. In real life, the statistics just don't back that up. Some people can handle talking on a cell phone and paying attention to the road, because they drive cautiously, give themselves plenty of space behind the car in front of them, and drop their phone immediately if they have to and apologize to the person they are talking to later. The people who talk on phones and can't handle doing it and driving, or who fail to be careful about it and take precautions, probably just move on to fiddling with the radio or turning around yelling at their kids in the backseat, or thinking about their big whatever that's coming up and find reasons not to be watching the road. It's not the cell phones causing the accidents, it's bad drivers.


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

Golden999 said:


> I'd like to see some scientific statistics on that. This is the first I've heard of any harm coming from a dog sticking his head out a window.
> 
> I used to be told a story about a kid playing with scissors and poking his eye out when I was a kid. But how many children who use scissors actually poke their eyes out? Should we not be including scissors with school supplies?
> 
> ...


 
Again:

*Tips for traveling by car with pets

*Cats should be in a cage or in a special carrier to allow them to feel secure and prevent them from crawling under your feet while you’re driving.
A dog that must ride in a truck bed should be in a protective kennel that is fastened to the truck bed.
Dogs riding in a car should not ride in the passenger seat if it is equipped with an airbag, and should not be allowed to sit on the driver's lap.
Harnesses, tethers and other accessories to secure pets during car travel are available at most pet stores.
Pets should not be allowed to ride with their heads outside car windows. Particles of dirt or other debris can enter the eyes, ears and nose, causing *injury* or infection.
_Source: American Veterinary Medical Association_ 
__________________


----------



## Sterling Archer (Feb 8, 2011)

Pointgold said:


> *It is irresponsible and shows a lack of common sense to not do everything in your power to at least decrease the chances of injury to your dog, who has no say in the matter. *
> 
> 
> In a previous thread, I wrote:
> ...


Would I let him do it at highway speeds? No. I don't see a problem with it around town though. 

Yes. I've had multiple car accidents, so I'm all about seat belts. My pets are always restrained. I just said that I allow him to put his head out the window if he feels inclined to do so.


----------



## Golden999 (Jun 29, 2010)

Pointgold said:


> Again:
> 
> *Tips for traveling by car with pets
> 
> ...


That's not a scientific study that talks about odds and what the risk is. It's just someone saying there is a chance, just like there's a chance of getting hit by an asteroid or struck by lightning. It's not really enough information for me to really know how seriously to take it.

This is one of those organizations that also probably says you must castrate your dog or be a bad dog owner, even though weight gain results in a lot of health issues for dogs and unaltered males tend to eat less. Just some organization's say-so on something isn't enough to convince me. 

A lot of organizations change their minds on stuff every few years, too. When I was a kid, all the kids and experts said dogs are pack animals and you need to be a clear alpha. Now they all say it's not like that. In another 20 years, they'll probably be saying a third thing. It's hard to know how seriously to take any of this stuff. To some degree, it seems safer to rely on my own judgement -- at least I know where I'm coming from.  There's sort of a culture in these groups and organizations that doesn't necessarily think the way I think or have my values, and sometimes they even I think a little intellectually dishonest by trying to push certain things because it furthers their aims, possibly at the expense of individual pets' quality of life. Like the neutering thing, they want to reduce the overall dog population, so they say you're an evil person if you don't want to put your dog through an unnecessary surgery (Which always has some level of risk to it) that creates problems with health in some dogs even when done right.


----------



## Sterling Archer (Feb 8, 2011)

Golden999 said:


> That's not a scientific study that talks about odds and what the risk is. It's just someone saying there is a chance, just like there's a chance of getting hit by an asteroid or struck by lightning. * It's not really enough information for me to really know how seriously to take it*.


That's really what this forum is all about...proselytizing. i.e. Buying from a breeder is the only way, letting your dog be a dog is bad/irresponsible, etc.


----------



## Noey (Feb 26, 2009)

I think they need to focus on the cat leash laws. Cats roaming the area are a danger to drivers, kids, other animals. I'd like a law requiring all cats be leashed while outside. If you own a cat it must be a house cat...not a roam the neighborhood and let the community care for it cat.


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

Sterling Archer said:


> Would I let him do it at highway speeds? No. I don't see a problem with it around town though.
> 
> Yes. I've had multiple car accidents, so I'm all about seat belts. My pets are always restrained. I just said that I allow him to put his head out the window if he feels inclined to do so.


 
You're special, so nothing will happen to your dog? I pray not. Worked too long in a vet clinic and saw too many dogs injured in one way or another because their owners saw no problem allowing them to (_______________). You may drive slowly, others might not, and dirt and debris can be kicked up by the tires of cars or trucks, or simply blown by the wind. But hey. It'll never happen to you, right?
:no:


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

Sterling Archer said:


> That's really what this forum is all about...proselytizing. i.e. Buying from a breeder is the only way, letting your dog be a dog is bad/irresponsible, etc.


 
Good grief.:doh:


----------



## Deb_Bayne (Mar 18, 2011)

Golden999 said:


> I'd like to see some scientific statistics on that. This is the first I've heard of any harm coming from a dog sticking his head out a window.


My Dad's dog story didn't hit the front page of the newspaper Much of what I know is word of mouth. I grew up with a lot of farmers and this is the most common occurrence we heard. 



> I used to be told a story about a kid playing with scissors and poking his eye out when I was a kid. But how many children who use scissors actually poke their eyes out? Should we not be including scissors with school supplies?


Actually around here they don't allow scissors in with school supplies, the teacher provides rounded plastic scissors to be used with supervision. 

I had a piano tuner who was blinded from scissors at 3 years of age... cutting a string. So Yes,,,,, it happens. I knew a girl in school who had a glass eye for the same reason. Just because YOU don't hear about it these accidents exist. 



> There's anyways a sad exception where something bad happens. People definitely die of carbon monoxide poisoning, sometimes even people who have detectors (They don't always work). I've read several articles about it in the papers over the years. Should we ban gas heat? Or is there a certain train of thought that if something is a really small number, you take as many precautions as you can and know that it's only one in a million that something bad happens?


Now that is being petty and ridiculous. Life is a risk, however, if we can make more people aware, because I have met people who just didn't have a clue even if it was smack dab in their face. Totally amazed at what dumb people do over and over again.



> Some people can handle talking on a cell phone and paying attention to the road, because they drive cautiously, give themselves plenty of space behind the car in front of them, and drop their phone immediately if they have to and apologize to the person they are talking to later. The people who talk on phones and can't handle doing it and driving, or who fail to be careful about it and take precautions, probably just move on to fiddling with the radio or turning around yelling at their kids in the backseat, or thinking about their big whatever that's coming up and find reasons not to be watching the road. It's not the cell phones causing the accidents, it's bad drivers.


Being a bus driver and on the road for the better part of the day, I have had the opportunity to follow many people talking on their cell phones. If I could I would video them and send them the video. MOST of them weave on the road, MOST of them slow down, speed up, continuously, MOST of them react slowly to hazards they didn't see until last moment. Yes, MOST people are distracted by life so why add a new technology into the midst and develop a new distraction? And it's not just the talking,,,, it is the texting too that is really puzzling, why do people think they can take their eyes off the road for the time it takes to type 10 words?


----------



## Sterling Archer (Feb 8, 2011)

Pointgold said:


> You're special, so nothing will happen to your dog? I pray not. Worked too long in a vet clinic and saw too many dogs injured in one way or another because their owners saw no problem allowing them to (_______________). You may drive slowly, others might not, and dirt and debris can be kicked up by the tires of cars or trucks, or simply blown by the wind. But hey. It'll never happen to you, right?
> :no:


No...you missed my point entirely. It is an individuals right to choose how to raise their pet. The state is responsible to ensure that said animal is fed, has water, and receives veterinary care when it's needed. Beyond that, people need to mind their own business. 

If I want my dog to ride in the bed of a pickup (which i wound never do), he'll ride in the bed of a pickup. If I want to allow him to ride with his head out the window, he'll ride with his head out the window. If people find that to be distracting, it's because they're too busy poking their nose into some other guy/gals business and isn't focused on the task at hand (navigating their vehicle safely from point 'A' to 'B').

That's the great thing about this country. I have the freedom to express myself and live my life as I see fit. I'm sorry that troubles you.



Pointgold said:


> Good grief.:doh:


What? It's true. Ask anyone that hasn't swallowed the animal welfare kool-aid that seems to be freely flowing on this board. Then again, people with my opinion are the minority here.


----------



## Shalva (Jul 16, 2008)

I never let my dogs hang their heads out the window the window is down just enough to allow a sniff but they cant fit their heads or muzzles out... that honestly scares me to death... I mean shoot I think about all the rocks that hit the windshield and bugs that hit my motorcycle helmet and imagine if it was just a couple inches to the left or right that it could easily hit and hurt my dog 

and honestly .... it is my job to protect them even from themselves... 

now keeping a wolfhound tethered in the car is a real challenge... I cant even find a darned harness that is going to be big enough for her as an adult... and a wolfhound sized crate in my forester is absolutely out of the question


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

Sterling Archer said:


> No...you missed my point entirely. It is an individuals right to choose how to raise their pet. The state is responsible to ensure that said animal is fed, has water, and receives veterinary care when it's needed. Beyond that, people need to mind their own business.
> 
> If I want my dog to ride in the bed of a pickup (which i wound never do), he'll ride in the bed of a pickup. If I want to allow him to ride with his head out the window, he'll ride with his head out the window. If people find that to be distracting, it's because they're too busy poking their nose into some other guy/gals business and isn't focused on the task at hand (navigating their vehicle safely from point 'A' to 'B').
> 
> ...


 
Oh, no. I did not miss your point at all. Sadly. Your point being that you'd apparently rather say "It's my dog I'll do what I want with him even if it's not safe or risks him being injured because NObody is gonna tell ME what to do."

My point is simply that it really isn't rocket science to take the path that exposes the dog to the least chance of injury. 

I'm just stupid, but the AVMA makes the point, how about those guys?
I AM all about animal welfare. Animal RIGHTS is an entirely different game. Perhaps you are unaware of the difference.


----------



## Sterling Archer (Feb 8, 2011)

Pointgold said:


> Oh, no. I did not miss your point at all. Sadly. Your point being that you'd apparently rather say "It's my dog I'll do what I want with him even if it's not safe or risks him being injured because NObody is gonna tell ME what to do."
> 
> My point is simply that it really isn't rocket science to take the path that exposes the dog to the least chance of injury.
> 
> ...


No. I'm too busy placing my animal in harms way to look into that.


----------



## fostermom (Sep 6, 2007)

Golden999 said:


> There are more accidents in the states that enact those laws, not less. It's only on closed circuits that studies show that cell phone usage causes more accidents. In real life, the statistics just don't back that up. Some people can handle talking on a cell phone and paying attention to the road, because they drive cautiously, give themselves plenty of space behind the car in front of them, and drop their phone immediately if they have to and apologize to the person they are talking to later. The people who talk on phones and can't handle doing it and driving, or who fail to be careful about it and take precautions, probably just move on to fiddling with the radio or turning around yelling at their kids in the backseat, or thinking about their big whatever that's coming up and find reasons not to be watching the road. It's not the cell phones causing the accidents, it's bad drivers.


Actually, I'd love to see the studies that you are citing saying that there are more accidents in states that enact those laws. Please provide a link.

I find it funny how many people seem to believe that *they *are fantastic drivers who drive perfectly while talking on their cell phones. Obviously they've never followed themselves as they run red lights, tailgate and straddle lanes because they are so engrossed in their conversation. I am thrilled that many states have banned talking on a cell phone (and at this time, our state has banned texting) while driving. I hope our state follows suit. And why a law had to be put in place to stop people from texting while driving is completely beyond me. I mean, seriously, what is so dang important that someone has to endanger the lives of all of those around them by texting?


----------



## fostermom (Sep 6, 2007)

Oh, and to stay on topic, I have no problems if I were required to have my dogs harnessed in my vehicle. I do it anyways without a law in place because I love my dogs and will whatever I can to keep them safe.


----------



## Shalva (Jul 16, 2008)

Sterling Archer said:


> No. I'm too busy placing my animal in harms way to look into that.


Sterline honestly.... 
I dont want to get into the whole libertarian bs.... and getting aside from the its my dog I will do what I want stuff... and nobody has a right to tell me... 

I guess my question for you is honestly 

why would you want to risk something that is so easy to prevent...??? 

I mean that in all honestly.. because I really don't understand. 

My dogs would love to have their heads out of the car... but I just don't let them ... first cause I worry and I have seen dogs get hit by flying things... but honestly the other piece is that the last thing I need is another vet bill.... 

when it is such an easy thing to prevent... why wouldn't you???


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

Sterling Archer said:


> No. I'm too busy placing my animal in harms way to look into that.


 
So it would seem.


----------



## Sterling Archer (Feb 8, 2011)

fostermom said:


> Actually, I'd love to see the studies that you are citing saying that there are more accidents in states that enact those laws. Please provide a link.
> 
> *I find it funny how many people seem to believe that they are fantastic drivers who drive perfectly while talking on their cell phones. *Obviously they've never followed themselves as they run red lights, tailgate and straddle lanes because they are so engrossed in their conversation. I am thrilled that many states have banned talking on a cell phone (and at this time, our state has banned texting) while driving. I hope our state follows suit. And why a law had to be put in place to stop people from texting while driving is completely beyond me. I mean, seriously, what is so dang important that someone has to endanger the lives of all of those around them by texting?


Yup. Statistically, drivers that talk on a cell phone are more likely to cause an accident than someone that's driving under the influence of alcohol. I of course don't have a link to support that position though. Who knows...that 


This is from a .com...so take it with a grain of salt.


> * 2009 Cell Phone and Distracted Driving Statistics *
> 
> *Please note that 2010 and 2011 cell phone and distracted driving statistics are not yet available. Please check back frequently for updated statistics.*
> 
> ...


http://www.edgarsnyder.com/car-accident/cell-phone/statistics.html


----------



## Shalva (Jul 16, 2008)

fostermom said:


> Actually, I'd love to see the studies that you are citing saying that there are more accidents in states that enact those laws. Please provide a link.
> 
> I find it funny how many people seem to believe that *they *are fantastic drivers who drive perfectly while talking on their cell phones. Obviously they've never followed themselves as they run red lights, tailgate and straddle lanes because they are so engrossed in their conversation. I am thrilled that many states have banned talking on a cell phone (and at this time, our state has banned texting) while driving. I hope our state follows suit. And why a law had to be put in place to stop people from texting while driving is completely beyond me. I mean, seriously, what is so dang important that someone has to endanger the lives of all of those around them by texting?


actually what the studies do show is that it is not hte act of holding the phone that is the problem it is the distraction that the phone itself causes that is the problem so the data that i have seen shows cell phone use period is an issue even when using a hands free set.... 

texting in every study is a problem... I have seen this data due ot my husbands job

and honestly everyone thinks they are a good driver... but experience tells us they are not


----------



## Sterling Archer (Feb 8, 2011)

The big factor is reaction time. If you're talking or texting on a cell phone while driving, it WILL have a negative impact on your reaction time. That extra distance you need to recognize the situation and react could be the difference between having time to spare and hitting a kid running out into the street.


----------



## fostermom (Sep 6, 2007)

Shalva said:


> actually what the studies do show is that it is not hte act of holding the phone that is the problem it is the distraction that the phone itself causes that is the problem so the data that i have seen shows cell phone use period is an issue even when using a hands free set....
> 
> texting in every study is a problem... I have seen this data due ot my husbands job
> 
> and honestly everyone thinks they are a good driver... but experience tells us they are not


I don't disagree with the fact that cell phone usage is the issue. You can't tell while driving around when someone is using a hands free or talking to someone in the car. You can tell, however, when they have a cell phone plastered to their ear while driving erratically.


----------



## Mirinde (Jun 8, 2011)

I'm pretty neurotic about Iorek when we're in the car. He's harnessed and tied to the back seat (and has never minded because it has always been this way)... we're actually leaving this evening to go buy a new car with a hatchback for even further safety in a crate. He has also never been allowed to stick his head out the window. If it's a hot day, I'll roll it down enough for him to maybe stick his snout through and get a whiff of fresh air, but that's it. We have manual windows now though, I don't think I'd be comfortable with that with power windows incase he accidentally stepped on the button. 

The thing is, I don't think it's fair to compare the things a dog may get into on a walk with the things that could happen to a dog with it's head out the car window. So much of what happens when you're driving is outside of your control...do you really have control over whether you hit that piece of rock and it ricochets into your dogs eye? However, on a walk, you do have the control to be hyper-vigilant of your surroundings and make sure you pick up that piece of litter before your dog eats it and keep them away from that puddle of water (or, better yet, teach a reliable leave it command). I think being in a vehicle can be a very uncontrollable situation when it comes to environmental factors and additional precautions should be taken. Until that becomes common sense, apparently it needs to be a law.


----------



## Golden999 (Jun 29, 2010)

fostermom said:


> Actually, I'd love to see the studies that you are citing saying that there are more accidents in states that enact those laws. Please provide a link.


Driver phone bans' impact doubted - USATODAY.com

http://www.iihs.org/research/topics/pdf/HLDI_Cellphone_Bulletin_Dec09.pdf


----------



## Shalva (Jul 16, 2008)

because they only banned holding the phone and they didn't ban talking on the phone 

holding the phone is not a problem.... talking on the phone in any manner is what causes the problem it is the distraction factor like sterline mentioned above, not the physical holding of the phone


----------



## fostermom (Sep 6, 2007)

Golden999 said:


> Driver phone bans' impact doubted - USATODAY.com
> 
> http://www.iihs.org/research/topics/pdf/HLDI_Cellphone_Bulletin_Dec09.pdf


Okay, I read both links and neither one stated that accidents *increased *after the bans were put into effect, which is what you claimed, only that they didn't appear to be decreasing.


----------



## Mirinde (Jun 8, 2011)

Also, only one of those sources could be considered remotely credible research and you can find at least one credible source on anything to prove any point, that's why you can't form a research report on one source alone.

Edit: On top of that, that one semi-credible source consistently uses the same reference...doesn't seem like a very broad study. Would we even be seeing any noticeable decreases in accidents at this point anyway considering how new the law is?


----------



## Elisabeth Kazup (Aug 23, 2008)

Actually, the problem with texting and phone talking is that those activities use the same parts of the brain that are used for judging distance, speed and location on the road. Your brain can't do both at the same time. It's like having one plug and two lamps: only one lamp can work at a time. When a person is using those parts of the brain for conversing, either verbally or by texting, the skills necessary to drive accurately are no longer engaged in that activity.

I think every person has the right to drive like maniacs if they want too. But not when other people are on the road and not when they have passengers, human or canine, in the car. You know what they say: your rights end where my nose begins or where that adorable Golden face with the black nose begins.


----------



## AlanK (Jun 28, 2008)

Lets not let this get out of hand. And please refrain from profanity even if it is cleverly disguised.


----------



## Dallas Gold (Dec 22, 2007)

My question was never answered--did this *proposed *2005 bill ever make it to *actual *law on Pennsylvania books?


----------



## Rob's GRs (Feb 25, 2007)

Dallas Gold said:


> My question was never answered--did this *proposed *2005 bill ever make it to *actual *law on Pennsylvania books?


 
Well I have not heard of this being law yet. My guess is it got stuck in a committee somewhere..................


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

I wasn't going to comment on this since I said enough on another thread... but....

I was driving to the post office for my work today and at various points there were cars cutting through red lights, cutting me off, somebody even used the turning lane to pass me - even though I was going 50 mph in a 45 mph zone. The guy in the van was in a rush to get over to the pizza place to grab lunch and I was in his way. Ironically, the zip around happened right in front of a police station. 

I have other things to worry about while driving. 

I do not notice other people's dogs poking their heads out of cars. Maybe an 11 year old being driven around by mom notices, but while I'm driving - I don't notice other drivers much less their dogs. They are not a distraction or a hazard to me. Stupid drivers breaking current laws are a hazard. Also deer crossing the road. 

Dear government, I will buckle up and drive the speed limit and obey the traffic signs. I have never used my computer to web browse while driving. I've never used my cell phone to text while driving. I don't even talk on the phone while driving for the most part. I'm a very safe and careful driver. Please enforce existing laws instead piling more on. Danke.


----------



## vcm5 (Apr 20, 2011)

Wait so is this an actual law or is it something that has not yet been passed?


----------



## Dallas Gold (Dec 22, 2007)

Rob's GRs said:


> Well I have not heard of this being law yet. My guess is it got stuck in a committee somewhere..................


That's what I thought, and it apparently wasn't revived since the latest information is from 2005.


----------



## Dallas Gold (Dec 22, 2007)

vcm5 said:


> Wait so is this an actual law or is it something that has not yet been passed?


I think it was proposed and died, way back in 2005. That happens to most bills actually, at least here in TX where they only meet for 4 1/2 months every 2 years :doh: and we pay them for that!


----------



## vcm5 (Apr 20, 2011)

I don't disagree that people should have their pets in a safe situation while driving, I was just curious because people were discussing it kind of like it was an actual law, so I guess I'm a little confused...?


----------



## Dallas Gold (Dec 22, 2007)

vcm5 said:


> I don't disagree that people should have their pets in a safe situation while driving, I was just curious because people were discussing it kind of like it was an actual law, so I guess I'm a little confused...?


It confused me too since someone posted it was law and it looked like to me it wasn't actually passed by the entire legislature.


----------



## vcm5 (Apr 20, 2011)

Well its an interesting conversation either way! Its so hard to know where to draw the line between safe and overprotective, so its nice for dog owners like me to get to read the debates on these issues!


----------



## Golden999 (Jun 29, 2010)

vcm5 said:


> Well its an interesting conversation either way! Its so hard to know where to draw the line between safe and overprotective, so its nice for dog owners like me to get to read the debates on these issues!


I'd just like it to be a situation where every pet owner gets to consider the issue for himself or herself and make the decision he or she thinks is best. If someone makes a different decision than me for his or her pet, that's their call. I don't like when stuff is legislated that really doesn't have to be when it comes to personal decisions like this (I feel differently when it comes to business regulations, but that's another subject  ).


----------

