You must log in or register to comment.

chain_me_up t1_j5v2m8s wrote

Technically speaking it is super unsafe to have them in the front of the car or in your lap. They sell crash-test harnesses that you can buckle into your backseat that have a bit of spring so the dog can still move a bit, but cannot climb into the front. If anything, your pet on your lap could be just as distracting as texting and driving or unsafe if your animal obstructs your view or ability to drive. I really wish more people would invest in safer harnesses and just keep their pets in the back seat.


lantonas t1_j5xaqu8 wrote

Lifetime memories are having your corgi between your face and the deployed airbag.


Chappy_Sinclair_ t1_j5v0140 wrote

If you don't want to click through to the the douchey 'something something or Die' headline in the article:

>(NH legislators are) considering a bill that would make it illegal for someone to drive with “an animal of any size on their person.”


averageduder t1_j5w5y17 wrote

oh. Well that's different than what the headline says. Yea pets shouldn't be allowed on laps. Seems like a no-brainer.


lantonas t1_j5xasiw wrote

But should a mouse be allowed in your chest pocket?


ComprehensiveFool t1_j5uzz7t wrote

Well people do say their pets are like children and we don’t allow children to be on a driver’s lap either.


vexingsilence t1_j5v1qn3 wrote

Just like the hands free phone issue, I feel like this is already covered under the existing reckless driving law. I understand passing specific laws to rule out any ambiguity, but what is the legislature going to do, theorize about every possible reckless act and pass legislation for each and every one of them?


265:79 Reckless Driving; Minimum Penalty. – Whoever upon any way drives a vehicle recklessly, or causes a vehicle to be driven recklessly, as defined in RSA 626:2, II(c), or so that the lives or safety of the public shall be endangered, or upon a bet, wager, or race, or who drives a vehicle for the purpose of making a record, or who drives a vehicle at a speed of 100 miles per hour or greater, and thereby violates any of the provisions of this title or any rules adopted by the director, shall be, notwithstanding the provisions of title LXII, guilty of a violation and fined not less than $500 plus penalty assessment for the first offense and $750 plus penalty assessment for the second offense nor more than $1,000 plus penalty assessment and his or her license or operating privilege shall be revoked for a period of 60 days for the first offense and from 60 days to one year for the second offense.

626 IIc:

(c) "Recklessly." A person acts recklessly with respect to a material element of an offense when he is aware of and consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that, considering the circumstances known to him, its disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the conduct that a law-abiding person would observe in the situation. A person who creates such a risk but is unaware thereof solely by reason of having voluntarily engaged in intoxication or hypnosis also acts recklessly with respect thereto.


bitspace t1_j5va271 wrote

Lots of people I think would deny that driving with Fluffy in their lap is reckless.


AssistantPretty5947 t1_j5uzj0q wrote

Rhodes, a Republican from Winchester, drafted the bill after watching a young girl nearly get struck by a car driven by a man holding two small dogs with one arm and petting them with the other. When her rage subsided, she decided to take action. “I had a golden opportunity to make a positive change, so I did it,” she said. “I thought it was a no brainer.”

Say what?


Tornado_Wind_of_Love t1_j5v770l wrote

Sounds like she doesn't have a brain

Makes sense.

As someone else pointed out, it's already covered in existing laws.


BelichicksBurner t1_j5vghat wrote

Trust me, if it's not a specific law its not covered. The post with the reckless driving thing is a stretch at best. Good luck arguing that in a courtroom. Even if the judge accepts it (which I'm not so sure they would) unless you have it on film the person could say just about whatever they want in terms of where the pet was at the time. Also for some of these kinds of people it's a "service animal" and a lot of people think that means they can do whatever they want with them. I'm no Republican...but this is a reasonable law.


[deleted] t1_j5vhj8g wrote



Azr431 t1_j5wb6eo wrote

You really think republicans are about less control?? Hahaha


[deleted] t1_j5y03ow wrote



otiswrath t1_j6bloll wrote

Horse shit.

Who do you think keeps holding up marijuana legalization. Hint: it isn't the Democrats.

Who keeps advocating for banning books they don't like? Hint: it isn't the Democrats.

Who keeps trying to push their god into every political decision because they think it is what is the best for other people? Hint: it isn't the Democrats.

The Democratic party isn't perfect by any means and I have plenty of gripes with them too but don't drink the Kool aid of "Republican means freedom".

They want the freedom to do what they want not freedom for others to make their own decisions.


BelichicksBurner t1_j5vhsg8 wrote

Pretty sure it I read that it came from one didn't it?


[deleted] t1_j5vikef wrote



BelichicksBurner t1_j5vj8z5 wrote

It's not covered by previous laws. One person posted that and they're incorrect. Also side note: there's no such thing as libertarians. Just Republicans who try to convince kids they're cool. Cops also get a TON of money from Dems and GOP here, so idk what you mean. Seatbealt law was bipartisan because it was fucking stupid not to have one in place to begin with.


vexingsilence t1_j5vzi1l wrote

Unless you can show us a court case where the charge was rejected, I stand by it being reckless driving. All the cop has to say is that he observed the driver being distracted by the animal. A judge isn't going to care about where you say the animal was at the time. They'll take the cop's word over yours. As for service animals, they're well trained, they wouldn't be sitting in the owner's lap or doing anything to distract them.


KrissaKray t1_j5verl3 wrote

Why tf would you drive with a dog on your lap? That’s incredibly unsafe… but also why would we need a law telling us not to do that?


ThePencilRain t1_j61d8nh wrote

Because if there isn't a law saying it *specifically*, people will think they can outsmart the existing laws and next thing you know there are arguments about admiralty court and other bullshit about how "I'm not driving, I'm travelling."


BelichicksBurner t1_j5vf83v wrote

I feel like its pretty common sense. anyone here trying to make the case as to why you should be allowed to have a pet physically ON YOU while you're driving?


1carus_x t1_j60f22n wrote

Some people in these comments apparently 🥴


smartest_kobold t1_j5v07fm wrote

>If I am driving my ill dog (or cat, or other pet) to the vet for medical attention or to be euthanized, you can bet your bottom dollar that I will have (and have had) that animal in my lap for that possibly final trip with them,

I'll give you my cold dead dog when you pry it from my cold dead hands.


akmjolnir t1_j5ypd0x wrote

If you've seen the x-rays of people who've been in car accidents with their feet up on the dashboard when the airbags deploy, you'll have a good idea of what it'd look like to have your cat small annoying dog force-fed into your abdominal cavity.

People that let their stupid fur-babies run around freely on the inside of their moving vehicles earn all the results they set in motion.


Azr431 t1_j5wbtp8 wrote

You can’t drive with a phone in your hand. Having a fucking dog in your lap can be arguably worse. You right wingers wanna huff paint or do stupid shit that doesn’t affect anyone else? Be my guest. Driving is a privilege and it comes with due care responsibilities so you don’t ruin other people’s days. This is a completely reasonable proposal


comefromawayfan2022 t1_j5wfksi wrote

No it's not safe to be driving around with your dog or cat in your lap(I say cat also because I do know people who drive with their cats loose in the vehicle when they take their cats places) but I honestly thought this was already covered under the distracted driving law


cafeRacr t1_j5xr35k wrote

I've never understood why it's legal to have one or more dogs jumping all over you lap while you're driving. Throw a cellphone into the mix and it's only a matter of time until some one gets clipped. These types of people need to be passengers, not drivers.


grammarGuy69 t1_j5zzkfv wrote

That's a clickbaitey headline if I've ever seen one. Yeah, don't drive with a pet on your lap. They can still come in the car and chill in the passenger's seat. The vast majority of us aren't moronic enough to drive with a pet on our lap so by all means pass this law.


Raa03842 t1_j5wb4az wrote

I agree. Every time I put my Pom on my lap in the front seat she makes me move to the passenger side so so can drive all by herself. Unfortunately her feet won’t reach the pedals


ShortUSA t1_j5xgrxu wrote

Until you're Pom gets a driver's license you shouldn't let it drive. That's just not right.


Raa03842 t1_j5ytwc9 wrote

Good point. I don’t think she knows where the DMV so I don’t think she’s getting it any time soon.


checdc t1_j5wgair wrote

Thinking this is unsafe is one thing. Making it a law seems like an over reach into personal freedom.


Ok_Low_1287 t1_j5vz0b9 wrote

I've eaten dog. Does that make me ineligible to comment on this subject?


TechPriestPratt t1_j5w5ql8 wrote

Dumb to drive with a dog on your lap but this should not be any sort of law. This just gives cops more leeway to pull over and harass people. If you are swerving all over the road due to a dog in your lap then they can already pull you over.