Republican Bill Maze has proposed a bill in California that would make it illegal for drivers to drive with their beloved pets on their laps.
The bill passed the Assembly 44-11 on Monday and is on its way to the state senate before hitting the governor's desk. If the bill passes drivers that are in violation of the new law will be fined $35. It's quite a scary thought to think of what happens to these animals that are caught between an airbag and their owner in an accident.
Full Story: Autoblog
Comments (20)
who, in that case, is the driver?
Posted by waldorf and statler | May 7, 2008 10:22 PM
Posted on May 7, 2008 22:22
I dont care about that law, but that picture is awesome! hahaha!
Posted by Alex | May 8, 2008 2:20 AM
Posted on May 8, 2008 02:20
I think this might possibly be the best law ever passed in California. I don't live anywhere near California and I'm thinking about donating to his next campaign.
I'm tired of seeing people drive down the interstate with their dog licking their mouth. It's not cute, it's dangerous. Fluffy can sit in the back on the way to the park.
If you're incapable of going anywhere without your dog, to the point it rides on your lap in the car and you carry it into the mall, you've lost touch with reality.
Posted by Cheap Car Lover | May 8, 2008 5:38 AM
Posted on May 8, 2008 05:38
It's about time.
Posted by Gary | May 8, 2008 6:43 AM
Posted on May 8, 2008 06:43
My dad taught me that driving a car is like pointing a loaded gun at somebody, and you don't want any distractions when you drive else it increases the risk of accidents. Such as taking off anyway, knowing you have a wasp in the car :-o or cranking the stereo up so loud one couldn't hear another's horn blowing. I love my dogs, but I -never- let them even in the front seat beside me: they have always stayed in the back, usually with a leash attached to stop the 'jump over' thing. Nice going, California. Cudos.
Posted by WVO | May 8, 2008 7:13 AM
Posted on May 8, 2008 07:13
In general this sounds like a good idea. I don't want my dogs anywhere in the front seat when I'm driving, BUT not all "good ideas" need to be made into laws. Aren't there more important things out there to worry about? If someone is driving wrecklessly because of a pet in their lap, can't you just write them a ticket for wreckless driving? If the pet isn't affecting their driving, then mind your own business. Frivolous laws are just as annoying as frivolous law suits.
Posted by Rod | May 8, 2008 7:18 AM
Posted on May 8, 2008 07:18
GOOD! Now if only the rest of the US would do the same. People who keep their pet (cat, dog, bird, FERRET!!!) between the wheel and themselves are a danger to pedestrians, other motorists and the pet.
I can't count how many times I've been lucky my skills and attention have prevented me from hitting some shmuck more concerned about their pet getting window time than what's going on on the road.
Posted by stromm | May 8, 2008 8:54 AM
Posted on May 8, 2008 08:54
I'm all about it - whatever laws they want to pass that'll make the roads safer! Now how about laws to ban lollygaggers who putz around in the left lane, or increase the penalty for you damn people who are TOO DAMN LAZY TO USE YOUR FRIGGIN TURN SIGNALS!!!!
Posted by Vlad | May 8, 2008 8:58 AM
Posted on May 8, 2008 08:58
Blah blah blah... Of all you people complaining about people with pets on your laps - have you ever spoken on the phone while driving? How about speed? Probably all of you... blah blah blah.
Posted by Greg | May 8, 2008 12:06 PM
Posted on May 8, 2008 12:06
the cops almost fined me the other day but then they notice it was my girlfriend after all!!
Posted by waldork and wankler | May 8, 2008 12:27 PM
Posted on May 8, 2008 12:27
Ah, another inane law who's only purpose is to make the state more money. Notice they also set the fine so low that the people who actually DO this (Paris Hilton types) won't be deterred in the slightest and will have no problem paying thousands a year.
Posted by Totenglocke | May 8, 2008 12:32 PM
Posted on May 8, 2008 12:32
Have a dog, but he always is in the back.
Just want to a raise a "spin" on these safety laws.
In the days where we are trying to save the planet and get more mpg. We don't need any new safety laws for the next 10 years.
Whatever happened to being able to put the soccer team in the back of a wagon with no seat belts? That was efficient use of a vehicle. Currently we need multiple huge SUV's to fit more than 5.
Children need to be in the car seats until they much older compared to 20 years ago. In addition those car seats cut down on usable space and add extra weight to carry around.
Safety laws are destroying the planet.
Posted by Matthew Payne | May 8, 2008 12:56 PM
Posted on May 8, 2008 12:56
this is doggy discrimination if i want my shitzu to drive me home from the bar cuz im drunk i dont want the cops to give me a hard time !
Posted by Dennisil | May 8, 2008 1:50 PM
Posted on May 8, 2008 13:50
In my prior experience in law enforcement, we had no vehicular law covering for this. However, when issuing a citation for a vehicular infraction/accident, we would charge the at fault driver with an additional charge of driving when distracted. This was a catch all for all behavior that contributed to the accident or infraction (i.e cell phone use, animals in driver's seat while driving, etc). In states that have a partial tort clause, this would help to build a case that the driver's attention was divided and is contributory to the offense.
Posted by longdxcommuter | May 8, 2008 2:12 PM
Posted on May 8, 2008 14:12
WTF you are allowed to do that in the US currently.
here in Australia that was illgal long ago, except people out in the country with reals dogs(you knwo big ones) have their dog in the passanger seat in au te of course, but they don't exactly hace many places to crash so they get away with it. Plus those dogs are normally working dogs so when you tell them to sit they won't move.
I think while they make this ;aw for youy they sjould ban gay little dogs to. may as well buy a rat!
Posted by Luke | May 8, 2008 2:42 PM
Posted on May 8, 2008 14:42
@Rod:
It is true that people should be safer and make better decisions, without these things having to passed into law. It's also true that a police officer can already cite someone for driving recklessly by having a pet on their lap.
The reason you pass it into law, though, is this:
If a police officer cites someone for reckless driving because a pet is distracting them, the person who was ticketed will fight the charge. Since there presumably isn't anything in the CPL that explicitly requires the proper restraint of a pet, what will end up happening is that the JUDGE will end up having to make a decision regarding the legality.
In effect, the judge will create a citable statute with the decision. Basically, the law will be created at that time... it happens all the time in various levels of the judicial system - all the way up to the Supreme Court. The problem is that we don't elect judges to create new law.... that's why we elect our legislative representation.
Posted by Chris O. | May 8, 2008 5:21 PM
Posted on May 8, 2008 17:21
Ha ha, stupid American dogs!!! Shouldn't they be playing poker instead?
Posted by Bob | May 8, 2008 6:45 PM
Posted on May 8, 2008 18:45
can you imagine what would happen if the airbag went off?
Posted by trainreks | May 8, 2008 9:02 PM
Posted on May 8, 2008 21:02
Coman sence made law......................that's kinda sad.
Posted by Tommy Boy | May 9, 2008 5:07 PM
Posted on May 9, 2008 17:07
It's not wrong because it's illegal; it's wrong because it WRONG!
Posted by petabuse | May 9, 2008 5:30 PM
Posted on May 9, 2008 17:30