Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

complete_hick t1_j9okla2 wrote

Dogs traveling in motor vehicles.... would need to be secured in a size-appropriate crate and in a harness or pet seat belt, and be under supervision from someone other than the driver, the bill says.

So single people can't take their dog to the vet?

310

qwertyuiiop145 t1_j9r53iw wrote

The reporter read it wrong, the dog only needs supervision by a non-driver if they aren’t in a harness or crate

67

youmemba t1_j9pl0du wrote

>Dogs traveling in motor vehicles.... would need to be secured in a size-appropriate crate and in a harness #or# pet seat belt, and be under supervision from someone other than the driver, the bill says.

Sounds like the supervision is only needed if using pet seat belt rather than size appropriate crate+harness

24

zembriski t1_j9q3mks wrote

I disagree. The wording breaks down to A or B, and C. That comma indicates that it's one of the first two clauses AND the third clause. Of course, that's the problem with using this kind of language and not having it broken into sections so that it's clear what's meant.

Realistically, this is going to be used to selectively enforce yet another BS law that disproportionately affects the lower socioeconomic strata. Look like you might be <insert whatever exploitable demographic officer dickhead picks today>, "I'm sorry ma'am, your pet isn't be appropriately supervised by anyone other than the driver."

33

FaithCantBeTakenAway t1_j9ronfy wrote

Ummmmm - you buy something to put your dog in. 🤦‍♀️

1

LazyPuffin t1_j9sw7y7 wrote

If the penalty for a crime is a fine, then the law only applies to the poor. So do laws like this that force people to buy things. Don't be such an entitled twat 🤦‍♀️

4

FaithCantBeTakenAway t1_j9ujia8 wrote

Hi Twat! You can call around to find a donated dog carrier bc I got one from the SPCA 2 years ago for my neighbor’s Jack Russell. Oh wait - the blood left your brain way back when. It’s ok……I won’t judge you for being a TWAT - just like you stated to me.

Poor little baby…..it’s ok…..😂

0

roostersnuffed t1_j9o3cs0 wrote

It says the dog would have to be under the supervision of someone that isnt driving? So both my wife and I would have to take off work to go to the vet?

93

qwertyuiiop145 t1_j9r52im wrote

The reporter read it wrong, the dog only needs supervision by a non-driver if they aren’t in a harness or crate

25

Jakeytanky t1_j9rl6ja wrote

and whos the non driver?

−10

qwertyuiiop145 t1_j9rnf1g wrote

If you have a passenger, you don’t need to have your dog in a crate or harness because the passenger can prevent the dog from crawling onto the driver’s lap and causing an accident

10

Jakeytanky t1_j9ro3jf wrote

doesnt change the fact it now takes 2 people to take a dog to the vet

−16

qwertyuiiop145 t1_j9rp0dz wrote

No, if you put it in a harness or crate you do not need another person with you.

15

pokeybill t1_j9osqxu wrote

Keeping dogs inside the vehicle is the right move, but requiring another person there makes no sense if the dog is harnessed/belted or kennelled.

89

Axetris t1_j9p8be6 wrote

My thoughts too. Dogs hanging their head out the window is actually dangerous especially with an impulsive dog who could jump without thinking. A harness attached to a dog seatbelt in the back seat is the way to go. Keeps the dogs stable and safe and there’s definitely no need for someone else to be sitting there watching it in that case. I’d be for the law if this is all it was. In Arizona where a lot of people still have the primitive “it’s just a dog” philosophy and leads to a lot of dead dogs on the side of the highway.

32

Fredrickstein t1_j9q0fhm wrote

I never thought it was that dangerous until my German shepherd jumped out of the window while turning through an intersection. I think he did it 'accidentally' like he stumbled towards it on the turn and jumped over as a reflex.

Fortunately it was not a busy intersection and it was a slow turn. He landed on his feet and just froze, looking around very confused. I pretty quickly stopped in the bike lane and opened a door and he very quickly jumped back in the car.

15

improper84 t1_j9rjbw2 wrote

That’s why I never roll the window down all the way. Just enough for the dog to fit their head through.

6

Infinite_Flatworm_44 t1_j9q3qmm wrote

I agree however the harnesses can’t be attached around the neck or collar because it can choke the dog in accidents. I drive for a living and every day I see a couple of people with their dogs hanging out the window just one squirrel away from jumping out into traffic.

7

barkbarkkrabkrab t1_j9qv269 wrote

Im pretty sure NJ passed a similar law a while back, i don't really think it's enforced tho. Along with dogs out the window, I cringe when people drive with dogs in their lap, dog gets spooked and suddenly your hands are off the wheel or the dog is on the gas pedal.

5

qwertyuiiop145 t1_j9r56we wrote

The reporter read it wrong, the dog only needs supervision by a non-driver if they aren’t in a harness or crate

2

rohnoitsrutroh t1_j9oi5gk wrote

Tallahassee: tackling the big issues!

42

MarsRT t1_j9pph3e wrote

like the homos! (/s)

oh wait

6

xVoidDragonx t1_j9ofipd wrote

Red State small government ya say?

39

--___- t1_j9ppdyt wrote

#This moronic bill was proposed by the Democrats in Florida.

(I’m a democrat)

  • Do we really want to give Florida police another reason to do traffic stops?
  • Nobody who is single is going to find another person to travel with them and their dog. To the vet, to the park, to grandma’s etc.
  • How many animals are actually harmed now? I do cringe when seeing animals in the back of pickup trucks with zero restraints.
  • Could the Democrats focus on things like the FL education bullshit and women’s healthcare? Because this is a bill is as ridiculous as some of the Republican policies.
26

qwertyuiiop145 t1_j9r58h0 wrote

The reporter read it wrong, the dog only needs supervision by a non-driver if they aren’t in a harness or crate

6

zembriski t1_j9q43c7 wrote

>Could the Democrats focus on things like the FL education bullshit and women’s healthcare? Because this is a bill is as ridiculous as some of the Republican policies.

No, in the same way that Republicans can't focus on campaign finance reform and limiting congressional investments and salaries. Doesn't matter if it matches the principles of the platform, it's not the showy shit that makes headlines and gets them re-elected.

NEITHER side is the good side. Sure one side is objectively more (openly, at least) evil, but don't for a second think that either side is a good choice.

edit, just to point out that, I fully understand no Republicans are pushing for those things I mentioned. But both sides pretty happily fought against that kind of reform because it didn't suit their agendas at the time.

3

CouchWizard t1_j9qxjlq wrote

Bullshit both siderism usually allows the shittier side to win. Both are not the same, especially in florida. That said, this proposed bill has insanity sprinkled with sane ideas to give it credence. Dems always take the gold in handicapping themselves

0

zembriski t1_j9rlqxk wrote

>both siderism

No, this isn't BOTH siderism (is that a word, if so I'm using the shit out of it!). It's NEITHER siderism. Don't set the house on fire just to get rid of the termites, and don't bulldoze the house to put out the fire... We have to fight smarter and realize that it's indeed a case of US vs THEM, it's just that the us and them aren't red and blue; WE are the people living in fear and subjugation while THEY are playing us against each other so they can keep playing out their hunger games bullshit from the comfortable seats of power.

0

CouchWizard t1_j9s56ww wrote

Saying neither side is choosing to reject both parties in a first past the post system. That doesn't work when the only way to change the system is to participate in it, though, because you won't be able to get a majority on your third party before an established party wins

1

improper84 t1_j9rjk3y wrote

Florida has a Republican governor, so any reasonable proposal would get vetoed anyway, right?

2

FaithCantBeTakenAway t1_j9scc92 wrote

The K9 is secured in a back cage in the back - RESEARCH AND READ THE ENTIRE BILL. For Christs sakes there are some f’ing morons on this sub. If you cannot comprehend this potential bill - and you care so little about your dog’s safety - you DON’T DESERVE A DOG.

0

FaithCantBeTakenAway t1_j9sct3f wrote

This one is laughable: “No one that is single is going to go find someone to ride with them.” When your dog flies out into traffic or slams into a windshield ………… let’s hear you moan and groan then.

0

Efficient-Maize-4797 t1_j9rudcq wrote

Why is a bill protecting animals moronic? You don't have to have a non driver with you, it was reported incorrectly. First sensible bill I've seen come up from Florida

−2

Zakery92 t1_j9ovgon wrote

You didn’t read that it was filed by the state minority leader did you?

−5

OrneryBrahmin t1_j9pgbog wrote

Why y’all downvote Zakery? Jesus.

4

Zakery92 t1_j9pgige wrote

Because Reddit is a deep blue echo chamber and you’re not supposed to step out of line.

−4

JiMbORS t1_j9p5sie wrote

As veterinarian… wait, as a guy who read what a veterinarian said when this was posted yesterday - there are some very good arguments for this (all good dog safety concerns)

18

OngoGabl0g1an t1_j9pkebj wrote

Does that mean it should be a law, though?

−3

AirbagOff t1_j9pl5qv wrote

In the same State (Florida) where motorcyclists don’t have to wear helmets because of their “fReEdUmS”?

8

Eecka t1_j9r2ki1 wrote

Nothing would have to be a law if you could count on people not being idiots.

6

Hungry_Treacle3376 t1_j9rd3ki wrote

In my opinion yes, because the animals can't make the decision for themselves. If it was for people then I'd probably say let them be responsible for themselves.

4

anengineerandacat t1_j9pq5qg wrote

>A new bill has been proposed in Florida that would enact a series of animal protections and guidelines, such as banning cat declawing, animal testing for cosmetics and dogs hanging their heads out of windows.

The bill overall is filled with a lot of good... and I generally understand the concern for not having the dogs in these places in a vehicle (in the event of an accident you can 100% guarantee the dog isn't going to make it if they are in these positions).

I feel like it's just a "bit" of overreach.

I also haven't read the bill entirely but do these restrictions also apply to cats? Because having a cat in your lap, or a window cat bed isn't exactly "uncommon" for some cat owners while driving to and from the vet or long trips.

17

SpooktasticFam t1_j9re6c9 wrote

I agree with you. I regularly take my chihuahuas places, and have little "child seats" for them that live in the back of my car.

However, I also own a greyhound, and I have been trying for YEARS to find a harness/seat belt that would work for her. I have called/emailed multiple companies that make these products tell me that it's not feasible or possible to make a seat belt for a greyhound (or any sighthounds, really) because of how they're built (no chest to speak of, just legs). We also don't own a car to fit a crate big enough for her.

I don't think I'm alone in this predicament as well.

I mean, I definitely get the sentiment, and I do think we as a society should move towards safer dog-transport practices, but I also think this is an overreach.

I'm always willing to hear other counter-arguments though

6

RedoftheEvilDead t1_j9s77ws wrote

I agee. I have a thing that attaches to my dogs harness and the seatbelt and keeps them secured in case of a crash. It still gives them enough movement to look out the window though. A crate and/or supervisor seems wholly unnecessary.

2

qwertyuiiop145 t1_j9r4wha wrote

I found the actual text of the bill concerning restraining/supervising a dog in the car which everyone is freaking out over:

  1. A dog being transported in a motor vehicle on a public roadway must be: (a) Secured in a crate that is an appropriate size for the dog; (b) Restrained safely with a harness or pet seat belt, other than a neck restraint, designed for use in a motor vehicle; or (c) Under the physical control of a person other than the operator of the motor vehicle.

So you only need a non-driver to supervise the dog if it’s not in a harness or crate

17

Desdemona1231 t1_j9pgg8l wrote

If California did it, many people would post differently.

I think it’s a reasonable idea. I worry about what happens to dogs in an accident.

11

koavf OP t1_j9pgmtf wrote

I grandma had wheels, she would be a bicycle.

−4

Desdemona1231 t1_j9pgqmo wrote

Ageist.

I guess you don’t care about dog safety.

−2

zembriski t1_j9q4s0v wrote

You didn't read the thing, did you? The headline isn't enough to understand what's ridiculous about this. It would require a passenger at all times to supervise the dog; but it only requires that based on a grammatical interpretation of it. In short, it's another law that lets cops cherry pick when, why, and whom they choose to harass.

−5

Desdemona1231 t1_j9q50qy wrote

I read it. That’s unrealistic. I said the IDEA was reasonable.

I guess you didn’t read that part, did you? 😂

2

zembriski t1_j9q5kdh wrote

I mean, PART of the idea is reasonable. I'm just pointing out that the idea taken in its entirety is absurd, and give the choice between assuming you're an absurdist and that you didn't read the article, I guessed the latter. Didn't consider that it was just an imprecise comment, but I'm aware that I'm usually too literal. I have a hard time with interpreting intent when it seems in conflict with the logical implications of words; I've been told it's a problem, and I'm trying to work on it. Sorry.

−2

Perioscope t1_j9o3p46 wrote

THINK of the [fur]CHILDREN

8

Beginning_Win1447 t1_j9o3qr5 wrote

Karens are running the state of Florida.

I don't live far enough away from them.

&#x200B;

My friends in Florida, you have my sympathy.

8

true-skeptic t1_j9r52t3 wrote

That’s actually not a bad law. I had a dog jump out of a passenger side window from a passing vehicle on a county highway. It came sound the back of its owners car and right underneath my SUV. Caused over $5000 damage to my vehicle, and the dog likely died a painful death. I was devastated.

8

[deleted] t1_j9rs2dn wrote

[removed]

1

AutoModerator t1_j9rs2f7 wrote

Sorry, but your account is too new to post. Your account needs to be either 2 weeks old or have at least 250 combined link and comment karma. Don't modmail us about this, just wait it out or get more karma.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

−1

QuestionableAI t1_j9pgjd3 wrote

Legislators really getting to the important stuff.../

6

AUWarEagle82 t1_j9ppwkn wrote

>Florida Senate Bill 932, filed by state Minority Democratic Leader Lauren Book, says that dogs would not be allowed to stick any part of their bodies out of the window, ride in the driver's lap or ride on motorcycles.

Ah, we see who is intent on tackling our nation's most troubling issues!

4

Phenomenon101 t1_j9pbdin wrote

Something tells me the dumbass Florida PD would love enforcing though.

2

LegendaryRed t1_j9pmstl wrote

Coming from the state of "smaller government" 🙄

2

Sputnik9999 t1_j9rgpqi wrote

Welcome to small government... Florida style.

2

ThreeNC t1_j9rvodo wrote

Florida is getting less and less fun

2

OldBob10 t1_j9s508m wrote

Republicans doing a great job getting government out of peoples lives. 🙄

2

B-in-Va t1_j9opz8h wrote

What is up with not being able to sell rabbits in March or April?

1

Thaliavoir t1_j9oukc7 wrote

My guess is it's to cut down on people impulse-buying cute bunnies for their kids for Easter, without considering how they are going to take care of the bunnies after Easter is over.

25

phred_666 t1_j9ouk5w wrote

My guess is that is near Easter. Some misguided individuals think its cute to give live rabbits to kids on Easter (the whole Easter Bunny deal). What happens is they get tired of taking care of it so they just release them into the wild (or they don’t take proper care of them and they die).

13

showmeyourtatas_ t1_j9rgf6v wrote

This makes sense as read. A dog hanging out of the window can be a distraction to the owner and other drivers looking at the cute dog, or the reactions they get, instead of the road

1

Fallacy_Spotted t1_j9rkeiz wrote

Here we go again creating problems to address non-problems. How about spending some time on homelessness, ecological collapse, healthcare reform, or tax inequality instead?

1

FaithCantBeTakenAway t1_j9roht0 wrote

I pray this passes. My vet said a number of dogs have had debris/objects hit them in the face/eyes & not only are they blind in that eye- surgery is necessary. Also dogs should NEVER be in your lap when you are driving. Along w/law enforcement keeping an updated list of animal abusers. 🐾❤️🐾

1

HarlequinMadness t1_j9s6xmn wrote

While we all love to see the happiness of a dog hanging out the window . . . Wind in his face . . . It really isn’t safe. He could end up with some flying debris in his eye(s), get so excited he jumps out, or face even worse consequences in the case of an accident.

1

Appropriate-Duty-171 t1_j9sbrrh wrote

We shouldn't even need a bill for this, people should know better but clearly, they don't & I've had half a heart attack seeing dogs look like they're going to fall out never mind have their heads out. I never let my window down too far just enough so my dog could smell upwards to catch a breeze, lol.

1

benwrightsmith t1_j9sg657 wrote

This is not going to sit well with mayor of Idyllwild, California

1

DumpyBloom t1_j9sgdeg wrote

The dogs will face up to a 500 dollar fine and/or 30 days in jail.

1

realdonaldtrumpsucks t1_j9si10s wrote

That one is dumb.

The other provisions in the bill make good sense, no declawing, animal abuser database,.

But my dog loves a 35mph windy car ride. And I’d take the fine

1

chatFIEND-SF t1_j9skey0 wrote

here's another fake problem to be fixed by republicans rather than real-world problems

1

Drexisadog t1_j9slzqk wrote

Well that is bad for the dogs health so this law is less silly than you think

1

FriendofCats1234 t1_j9sqyml wrote

A dog with its head hanging out the window is dangerous, like it is dangerous to let kids stick their heads or arms out the window.

Sideswipes from another car or from driving near fixed roadside objects can (and do) knock those body parts right clean off.

Making a close turn next to a street lamp can give a human or animal head a fatal injury.

Sharing a narrow road with a car going in the opposite direction can injure or kill a passenger (animal or human) who has part of the body out the window.

Keep all parts of the body inside the car, and safely secure all riders to their seats.

1

Hefty_Ad_5999 t1_j9t20zo wrote

The foremost problem Florida is facing today

1

Crooked_Cock t1_j9vfifp wrote

The most reasonable law florida has proposed in years

1

gemfountain t1_j9ojeg1 wrote

Let's keep people from from enjoying life, and their little dog too! Da da daa tada da..da ta da ta da..(wheeling away)

0

LeviathanGank t1_j9pliku wrote

dealing with the imporant issues.. about time those time waster did something about dogs having fun, its just not christian.

0

realise2056 t1_j9q1kkd wrote

Finally fixing the real problems!

0

Inconceivable-2020 t1_j9q37nk wrote

I knew before reading the Article that it was proposed by a Democrat. Sadly, that almost certainly means it is DOA no matter how good the intent.

0

BenevolentNihilist1 t1_j9qnqwz wrote

The Free State of Florida... Which has the most laws... Bans the most books... Restricts the most lifestyles based on partisan religious values... Thinks human trafficking is funny and a gotcha tactic to "own the libs"...

...

0

Wolfman01a t1_j9qom5g wrote

Silly government. Dogs care nothing for your laws.

0

HauntedButtCheeks t1_j9qp0xg wrote

Florida will literally protect dogs better than they protect women fml

0

FrannieP23 t1_j9qwd41 wrote

Floriduh. Land of the free.

0

bfrag3k t1_j9qztve wrote

Dogs are too regulating. They want people to have less of them.

0

DocofNonhumans t1_j9redbf wrote

This works for small dogs and cats. I have a Great Pyrenees; this is next to impossible.

0

EnochChicago t1_j9rhu7y wrote

Now DuhSantis is coming for your dogs? Big intrusive, nanny state government knows no limits! Next thing you know they will be banning history and gays…oh wait…

0

Acceptable_Wall4085 t1_j9p7qqt wrote

The penalty would be carried out by ISIS. we know how they like heads.

−1

Nkechinyerembi t1_j9q1s17 wrote

Idgaf who posted this moronic bill, they need to remove their head from their ass.

−1

problyasweetpotato t1_j9qi7lr wrote

So the K-9 unit would need 2 people instead of just the one handler? Are they gonna move the kennel from the back into the cab so that the second guy can supervise? Surely you can’t look at the dog if it’s In the cage in the boot…

−1

PhuckBigMoney t1_j9qie6x wrote

BS law. Dogs love this. Just another take the fun out of life rule.

−1

PineappleMelonTree t1_j9qtote wrote

Oi m8 you got a loicence to hang ya head out that window. Ur nicked m8

−1