Forgive the pun, but mobile lap dogs are one of my pet peeves. How Johnny Law can ban cell phone yakking whilst driving yet allow a motorist to pilot a vehicle with a canine– or two or three– sitting on his or her lap is beyond my powers of comprehension. And yet the AP tells us that “Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is vetoing a bill to fine motorists $35 for sharing the driver’s seat with lapdogs or other animals.” Other animals? Let me see if I’ve got this straight. I’m free to drive down a California road with a goat perched on my testicles but I can’t do so whilst calling my psychiatrist to ask why I’m driving with a goat perched on my testicles. I’ll pay $25 to the first reader who can direct me to a news story where an airbag blew a canine into the chest cavity of a driver, and killed the bitch (either one). Anyway, Arnie considers an anti-lap dog bill a frivolous piece of legislation. “Schwarzenegger says he’s signing only bills that are ‘the highest priority for California.'” Mind boggled. Farago out.
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
second the boggled mind bit.
also since the handheld mobile law was enacted i’ve seen plenty of morons still carrying on in the idiot-fashion, the latest some moron woman yapping into her mobile whilst weaving lane to lane in heavy traffic up a steep freeway incline.
awesome idiocy & of course the highway patrol nowhere to be seen …
There is really no appropriate response for this, except that it’s stupid. Seriously stupid stupid stupid. As a professional driver I can tell you that anything that distracts the attention of a driver from driving is dangerous. So how can a cell phone distract a driver but not an animal is beyond me. Does anyone know of a state that actually bans such “frivolous” things? Thank you.
@bloodnok
awesome idiocy & of course the highway patrol nowhere to be seen …
I know how it is brother, where’s a cop when you need one, right? I guess “Serve & Protect” means to serve out those tickets and protects the (monetary) interests of the county (city, state, whatever…).
I came close to a head-on today while preparing to turn left into my driveway on our nice quite street. Speed limit 30. The other driver, on the wrong side of the oad and going, perhaps, 50, was a woman with a cell phone glued to her ear. Sight distance here is limited by a curve and a hill.
I stopped dead. Her first reaction was a swerve in the wrong direction. At the last second, she barely cleared my bumper and used the grass to get straightened out. She never slowed down.
Texas needs to bar cell phone usage.
1) I have a lap dog and she is nowhere near as distracting as a phone call, texting, kids, or even using a navi system.
2) Why does freedom loving Americans think the solution to every complaint is a new law? I guess freedom isn’t really so free, is it?
The governator obviously is not concerned about the dogs’ safety, either. Same with those who drive with their dogs on their laps.
Nonetheless, strictly from the point of view of distraction, I strongly suspect eye for cars is correct that dogs are less distracting than wireless communication technology.
California has the most screwed up traffic laws in the nation, and I live here. For example, there is no requirement to use lane discipline … you know, passing on the left? Motorcycles are permitted to “lane split”, which means they can weaving in between cars traveling in the marked lanes at will. Annual vehicle safety inspections? Nah, don’t bother. Enforcing excess noise, improper headlight or any other vehicle related rules … doesn’t happen. Do you want to build a brand spanking new kit car or hot rod using parts ordered from catalogs, frame, engine, driveline and all? Just call it any model year you feel like and you are good to go.
Then there are little basic safety devices like shoulders and guardrails. California’s secondary roads have fewer or these last century inventions than those of any other state I’ve lived or driven in, and I’ve been to almost every state in the lower 48 on my many long distance drives.
Our legislature is also a strange beast. They pass laws at a breakneck clip and then leave it up to the governor to say yes or no. Why Schwarzenegger said no to this one is a mystery. Maybe his Hollywood pals like to let the dogs out?
Freedom doesn’t mean the freedom to put everyone else’s life at risk for your convenience or amusement. BTW, using a hand held cell phone while driving is now illegal in California, but I see people doing it all the time. The recent multiple fatality train wreck in So. California featured a train conductor doing text messaging when he was supposed to be driving the train. He died and sent 24 other people to their graves as well. Don’t give me that freedom sturm und drang.
Robert, you forgot to mention that California is in the middle of the biggest budget battle in history. The State is on the verge of doing the banking collapse deja vu, and what do our legislators preoccupy themselves with? Lap dogs.
I say BRAVO to Arnie for putting a stop to this bs and saying he will only look at relevant legislation.
Here’s a link to a news story about a pet dog that killed in a traffic accident by the airbag going off while sitting in its owner’s lap. Not much detail, but it sound credible.
http://www.wtoc.com/Global/story.asp?S=7236426
But still, as others have point out, dog are not as distracting as cell phones or texting while driving.
Anti-cellphone lawas are a pet peeve of mine. There has never been any credible evidence that cellphones in any way increase the likelihood of an accident. People go on and on about ‘horse sense’ and how ‘it just makes sense’, but there are a few things to think about before we go reducing freedom and giving police a new reason to harrass me.
1) Despite the huge increase in cellphone usage, there has not been a similar increase in accidents.
2) Lots of things distract a driver. The radio, food, makeup, a sunset and other drivers are a few examples. By this silly logic, we ought to ban good looking cars and drivers, both of which cause accidents.
3) There is a clear ‘level of risk’ that each person has. If the person were not on the cellphone, that person would be messing with the radio or examining neighborhood gardenias.
4) Real statistical analysis records every incident. Most anti-cellphone people do not remember the times they have been cut off by someone not on a cellphone. The reason there have been no credible studies of this subject is, of course, that the people using cellphones will never admit it, so unless police are allowed to examine call logs for each accident, it would be unlikely to get reliable data. Knowing this, one laughable survey used the usage of a cellphone after an accident as a proxy for usage during the accident. Of course, people with cellphones are often using them after the accident for obvious and legitimate purposes.
5) Driving down a road is not actually the same as driving professionally, ie in a truck or the Indy 500. It just doesn’t take that much concentration. The margin of error in a reasonably well-equipped car is enormous. I realize this is not so for a transit bus, having owned and driven same, but it certainly is for a Dodge Neon.
Anyway, the strongest evidence against cellphone bans is, imho, the simple fact that despite near geometrical increase in the use of cellphones, there has not been a geometrical increase in the number of accidents, but we’ve been subjected to a ban that is patchwork, at least here in Texas, such that you do not know what the law is at any given point. Seems to me to be just another convenient way to drive revenue up.
RF, thanks for the laughs, funniest blog here ever! As for Arnie, I’ll take him anyday over our c-word Governor here in Arizona.
http://www.ktar.com/index.php?nid=6&sid=964595
eye for cars :
I guess freedom isn’t really so free, is it?
And common sense is nowhere near as widespread as its name would suggest.
OK now for a tiny bit of levity to cheer everyone up.
When I left the Air Force in 1980, I managed to snag a poorly paid job, and my boss didn’t make much either. She drove an old 1969 ex-Post Office Rural Delivery AMC Ambassador. You have to also realize that this car had a very tall instrument panel (padded dash) and it was all but impossible to see the steering wheel from other cars.
Right hand drive. No rear seat. 4 door sedan.
OK so she was describing how she put her Afghan hound in the LEFT FRONT SEAT and friends jumped in the back seat on cushions, then how she was driving around the area wondering why people were practically driving into ditches?!
Can you imagine other drivers – when they bothered to look at all – looking over and the husband saying to the wife “Martha, did you see that? My GOD that was the ugliest long-nosed woman driver I ever saw in my life – and there were three midgets in the back seat!”
Robert,
He can only concentrate on 1 BILL at a time. Give the steroid brain a break. lol
Of course it’s stupid, but must we make a law to cover every stupidity?
How about a law against picking your nose while driving? A law against mowing the lawn while wearing shower clogs? A law against unfolding a roadmap in a way that obscures part of the windshield? Against driving a pickup with a snowplow mounted (because it destroys the vehicle’s already modest handling and braking qualities)? Against carrying more toiletries than will fit in a one-quart bag onto an airliner?
Oh, wait…
The stats will start to pile up; as we all know, some drivers are marginally able to pilot their machines to begin with – throw a cell phone in the mix, and they’re over their “legal distraction limit”.
I’m sorry, I’ve seen enough screwy driving that I would attribute to someone intoxicated; except that these incidents happened in the middle of the day, and the drivers (overwhelmingly women) were holding a cellphone tightly to their ear(s).
gibbleth
“Anti-cellphone lawas are a pet peeve of mine. There has never been any credible evidence that cellphones in any way increase the likelihood of an accident.”
Research has shown cellphone use has a strong effect on the ability of the driver to process information. Look at http://www.psych.utah.edu/AppliedCognitionLab/ for some work in this area. In short, the increase in risk due to talking on a cellphone is about equal to that caused by being drunk.
Cellphone use leads to attentional (sic) blindness — you literally do not _see_ critical parts of the driving environment. This is a matter of how human brains work, not personal choice or discipline.
Ant-cellphone laws are needed everywhere — the sooner the better.
This is a purely political move, and nothing more. Were Arnie to sign such a bill, it would outrage all of the mental giants that like to tool around with Fluffy on their laps, regardless of how unsafe it might actually be, and they’ll absolutely never forget and never vote for Arnie.
OTOH, vetoing such a bill, while an irritant to those who advocate such a law, would eventually be forgotten and overshadowed by substantially more pressing issues. Few people are not going to vote for Arnie if he vetos such a bill, but a whole lot of them won’t if he signs it.
So, Arnie simply chose the course which will likely cost him the least amount of votes in the next election. I doubt he really has an opinion on the topic one way or the other.
This isn’t the first time Arnie has chosen a route for reasons that have nothing to do with the actual danger involved of a domestic pet. Domestic ferrets have long been legal to have as a pet in the vast majority of the rest of the USA, yet California state leadership has stubbornly refused to legalize them since they were first categorized as wild animals in 1933. The reason has nothing to do with the environmental damage they might cause (the evidence is overwhelming that the threat is non-existant).
The reason is that California would lose federal aid money if they ever allowed ferrets to be categorized as domestic and legal to own as pets. Therefore, just as he has done with refusing to sign a bill banning pets to sit on driver’s laps, Arnie has consistantly opposed and vetoed any domestic ferret legalization efforts for reasons that have nothing to do with the actual problem.
I support laws against cellphone use because on virtually a daily basis I see dangerous behavior. My state has a law against using a hand-held cellphone while driving, but a goodly number of folks ignore it. Enforcement is pretty casual.
As for dogs, I suspect that Arnold was pandering to the pink-haired crowd. Goats? Dunno.
California is a strange state.
Stephan Wilkinson :
Of course it’s stupid, but must we make a law to cover every stupidity?
Yes. Dangerous driving. Driving while distracted. Driving without due care and attention. Something along those lines.
On the other hand, with pre-airbag vehicles, a nice fat, fluffy poodle in the driver’s lap could be seen as an added safety feature in the event of collision.
Robert, a one-size-fits-all law would be fine, covering everything from driving with one hand at six o’clock to texting while driving, but the piecemeal lawmaking is as silly as the plethora of re-active laws that the TSA tries to enforce.
Sorry Robert, but I couldn’t find any stories about a dog being crushed by an airbag. I did, however, find this:
Teen blames pet gerbil for 3-car accident
Here’s another one:
Car hits cop; puppy blamed
Not signing the law doesn’t mean he’s for lap dogs on driver’s laps, it means that he would rather spend the limited resources elsewhere. There are certainly more important pieces of legislation to deal with. In better times he most likely would’ve signed the bill. As it is every bill comes with it’s own “bill” as it were. And CA can’t pay the check right now.
Years ago one of my friends had a drive-on-the-left English car here in the USA. He put a large stuffed toy dog and a fake steering wheel in the left seat and drove around that way (pretending to be the passenger himself). Now THAT was definitely distracting to other drivers!
I’m with several other posters that state that small lap animals are probably much less distracting than cell phones and texting.
I’d also mention that owners who kill themselves when the airbag fires are only making the species stronger and aren’t endangering other drivers (at least with respect to airbags).
As for the dogs’ safety: they might die sooner then if by natural causes, but at least they will have more fun until then.
dolo54
That’s not the case with this bill, AB 2233. The legislative analyses indicated that it would result in minor positive revenues for the state and local governments.
Arnie hasn’t released any substantive veto messages this year, so we can only guess his reasons. However, I’ll hazard the following:
1. He still has his girlie panties in a bunch over the budget impasse and is simply retaliating against all legislators. (Don’t get me started.)
2. Everyone has been affected by drivers with cell phones. Dogs? Not many of us. To sign this bill might encourage other bills to restrict behavior while driving. So a slippery slope (fallacy).
I don’t agree with his veto, I’m just speculating. I voted for Arnold but now I can’t wait for him to leave.
Ahnold recently signed legislation that bans texting while driving – law takes effect in January 09.
People get into accidents all the time due to not paying attention, navis, cell phones (even though it’s now against the law), emotional states, etc. If your furry friend takes a piss or crap on you or in the car somewhere, if he goes ape because you have a blowout, loud noise, etc. you have yet another distraction to deal with.
Spare me (and the rest of us) the bleeding heart crap about a dog not being a distraction. If you put me, my wife or my kid at risk because of your ignorance, it’s only a matter of time before you hurt or kill someone as a result of your stupidity. Let’s call this what it is.
My father actually did rear-end another car because of his dog climbing into his lap. Got a ticket for “driving while obstructed, too”
That said, it was a one hundred and fifty pound Newfoundland, and he climbed into the front seat because he was feeling poorly (intestinal torsion, as it turns out) and was on the way to the vet.
“Anti-cellphone lawas are a pet peeve of mine. There has never been any credible evidence that cellphones in any way increase the likelihood of an accident…1) Despite the huge increase in cellphone usage, there has not been a similar increase in accidents.”
Are you serious, or is this sarcasm?
The fact that accident frequency hasn’t increased with cell phone usage is meaningless. There are so many confounding variables that making a direct correlation like that is impossible. Practically everyone who has a car can cite anecdotal evidence of cell phone-induced stupidity while driving, and controlled experiments support it.
In my house we call them “doggie air bags” —
but that’s better, than when I see a parent holding their little kid in either the front or back seat.
/p
PerfectZero: The fact that accident frequency hasn’t increased with cell phone usage is meaningless.
Unless you prefer laws that address actual threats to safety.
Generally, informed people do.
PerfectZero: There are so many confounding variables that making a direct correlation like that is impossible.
Translation into normal English: I can’t prove that a cell phone ban would reduce accidents, so I’ll wish this fact away with mumbo-jumbo, and continue to spook the gullible and the “do it for the children” crowd.
PerfectZero: Practically everyone who has a car can cite anecdotal evidence of cell phone-induced stupidity while driving, and controlled experiments support it.
Except that those who understand how to make effective traffic-safety laws demand proof, not anecdotal evidence, that cell phones are actually increasing the accident rate, and are smart enough to know the difference.
The bans are rarely that effective in things like this. How about we use public information campaigns and show films of how stupid distracted drivers look.
My personal favorite is the inability of people to simply put the phone down when they get into a bad spot. I saw a guy fumble a U turn, then muddle through a sad Y turn, all while trying to talk on the phone. If he had put the phone down for a few seconds, he could likely have figure out where he was going, and gotten on the way very easily. Instead, a dozen of us watched him act like a complete ass being unable to turn a compact in a three lane road.
The government doesn’t need to solve everything as much as we think we need it. If someone has a wreck because their dog started to bite their testicles, then let the owner pay for it as they will.
I as a dog owner prefer for my pet to be in a dog seat. I sits up high, and their leash attaches to the seat keeping them from jumping out. It works great and they enjoy the view. But don’t let the Governator and all find out about this or they’ll make us by law all have dog restraint seats installed. LOL
“Translation into normal English: I can’t prove that a cell phone ban would reduce accidents, so I’ll wish this fact away with mumbo-jumbo, and continue to spook the gullible and the “do it for the children” crowd.”
Yeah, accuse me of “mumbo-jumbo” to undermine my argument, and then fail to provide any kind of counterexample. My point is that its impossible to determine the effect of cell phones alone using an overall measure like accident rate. On the other hand, actual studies in controlled environments indicate that it is actually a significant distraction. What kind of proof do you expect to get exactly?
PZ,
I believe that the evidence of the studies showing distraction is less persuasive than the actual results. In fact, the studies often damn themselves because after you hear about them, you can’t imagine why the accident rate hasn’t doubled. Yet it hasn’t.
I was raised to be a skeptic. To look at the facts, consider things people said, and then make my own decision about what and who to believe. Over and over I keep finding that there is a direct link between reward and activity over time. What this means is that while you can’t usually buy a particular result, the overall trend is towards results that lead to more security and success. IOW, it would be hard to get most good researchers to lie about a study for a check, but the results will usually be such that they do not endanger their ability to get more funding for research in general.
In fact, the results will overwhelmingly support the general scientific and/or popular consensus as the researcher perceives it to be. Challenging results will be accompanied by lots of hemming and hawing in the text in order to soften likely repercussions. By far, the most useful research these days is done in obscure or esoteric fields where no one would seem to care about the results. These studies find the most useful stuff now, because the rest is mostly bunk.
The really interesting thing is the psychology involved that allows most everyone to live with cognitive dissonance on cell phones in the car. Most people would say it’s dangerous on a survey, yet most people still do it. We all believe that we can do it, and other people can’t.