 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsGeneral TopicsCat AnecdotesHealth and BehaviorRescue CatKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Cat Forum / Health and Behavior / June 2005My email that I'm distributing to all of the major area news
Please feel free to C&P if you feel strongly about this. ----------------------- I would like to see a law created that requires pet owners to secure their pets in harnesses or carriers when being transported, and not see dogs in particular allowed to have free access to the interior of cars, or the back of pickup trucks. Today I witnessed on the Capital Beltway, a dog jump out of the window of the car it was in during Friday evening rush hour. The dog was killed when it hopped the jersey wall between the inner and outer loop near Georgia Ave. The dog's owner had to abandon his vehicle that was in the center right lane on the inner loop to try to capture his dog, only to watch his dog get killed on the outer loop. The driver who killed the dog must be feeling really bad now. It wasn't their fault. This could have caused a major traffic accident. From the drivers in the far left and left center lane who had to slam on the brakes to miss the dog, to those who had to brake to miss the dog owner who frantically ran after his dog across two lanes of traffic, to the drivers on the outer loop who tried to brake in time to miss the running dog. Dogs and any other domestic pets need to be secured in vehicles, and it needs to be law. I cringe when I see dogs in the back of pickup trucks. This must be made illegal. Dogs and cats can't be allowed to have free access inside cars when the driver needs to devote full attention to driving. I will be researching how to make this law. I hope you can help.  SignatureCheryl "The clever cat eats cheese and breathes down rat holes with baited breath." - W.C. Fields Cheryl <jlhshadow@hotmail.com> wrote in rec.pets.cats.health+behav: > Please feel free to C&P if you feel strongly about this. > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > I will be researching how to make this law. I hope you can help. Cheryl, while I understand the concern, and I really feel horrible that even you had to witness such a thing, I am against the rampant legislation of our lives. While things may be for the greater good, if people want to kill themselves by not wearing seatbelts or motorcycle helmets, that is their choice with the understanding that if they are permanently disabled rather than killed, they will not be eligible for public funds. Granted, the dog didn't have a choice, but the better approach would be to move toward declaring domestic pets as sentient beings rather than property, and affording it certain considerations as such. This is obviously a matter that would be put to public vote, and I would vote against. I care about my pet and my actions prove it out. Those who don't care won't secure their pet and in a way, should the pet be swiftly killed, it's probably better off. SignatureBrandy Alexandre® http://www.swydm.com/?refer=BrandyAlx Well, would you? > Cheryl, while I understand the concern, and I really feel horrible > that even you had to witness such a thing, I am against the rampant [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > if they are permanently disabled rather than killed, they will not > be eligible for public funds. No, their fellow private insureds will have to pay for them instead. And where does this "understanding" come from if not from regulations? If legislation is required to protect the rest of us from the stupid (or to protect their pets from them), I'm for it. They're too stupid to regulate themselves, clearly. SignatureWeb site: http://www.slywy.com/ Message board: http://www.slywy.com/phpBB2/ Journal: http://slywy.diaryland.com/ > > Cheryl, while I understand the concern, and I really feel horrible > > that even you had to witness such a thing, I am against the rampant [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > to protect their pets from them), I'm for it. They're too stupid to > regulate themselves, clearly. Since Brandy was in the porn biz and was heavily regulated, she is naturally against legislating things. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- From: Diane <delenn@nospamatmindspring.com> >If legislation is required to protect the rest of us from the stupid (or >to protect their pets from them), I'm for it. They're too stupid to >regulate themselves, clearly. "Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters." -Daniel Webster- > "Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of > authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made > to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions." I'm quite sure ol' Daniel was thinking of bigger things than seatbelts. (I could name some, but I don't want to get political here.) SignatureWeb site: http://www.slywy.com/ Message board: http://www.slywy.com/phpBB2/ Journal: http://slywy.diaryland.com/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- From: Diane <delenn@nospamatmindspring.com> >I'm quite sure ol' Daniel was thinking of bigger things than seatbelts. >(I could name some, but I don't want to get political here.) "Demands should be presented in installments." Adolf Hitler > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > "Demands should be presented in installments." > Adolf Hitler Now that's just silly. Mandating helmets or seat belts (at the risk of a fine, so really it's your choice as to whether you want to risk a fine or not) is hardly on the slippery slope to fascism. ROFL. Thanks. :) SignatureWeb site: http://www.slywy.com/ Message board: http://www.slywy.com/phpBB2/ Journal: http://slywy.diaryland.com/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- From: Diane <delenn@nospamatmindspring.com> >Now that's just silly. Mandating helmets or seat belts (at the risk of a >fine, so really it's your choice as to whether you want to risk a fine >or not) is hardly on the slippery slope to fascism. ROFL. Thanks. :) "There will be, in the next generation or so, a pharmacological method of making people love their servitude, and producing dictatorship without tears, so to speak, producing a kind of painless concentration camp for entire societies, so that people will in fact have their liberties taken away from them, but will rather enjoy it, because they will be distracted from any desire to rebel by propaganda or brainwashing, or brainwashing enhanced by pharmacological methods. And this seems to be the final revolution." - Aldous Huxley's lecture to The California Medical School in San Francisco 1961 > "There will be, in the next generation or so, a pharmacological method of > making people love their servitude, and producing dictatorship without [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > - Aldous Huxley's lecture to The California Medical School in > San Francisco 1961 LOL! Do you quote things like this when you're stopped for speeding? ;) SignatureWeb site: http://www.slywy.com/ Message board: http://www.slywy.com/phpBB2/ Journal: http://slywy.diaryland.com/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- From: Diane <delenn@nospamatmindspring.com> >LOL! Do you quote things like this when you're stopped for speeding? ;) No, I quote things like this: "All power is inherent in the people...and it is their right and duty to be at all times armed" --- Thomas Jefferson---- Which may explain why the last time I got stopped, 3 other State Police cruisers rushed to the location and all the "Highway Nazis" had their guns drawn. :) >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >=dn4q >-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- So you can copy and paste am I supposed to be impressed......I also have a pretty good bet that if officers approached you with guns drawn they would have had sufficient reason to bring you in. Quit living vicariously through the internet..... Brad LIFE'S JOURNEY IS NOT TO ARRIVE AT THE GRAVE SAFELY IN A WELL-PRESERVED BODY, BUT RATHER TO SKID IN SIDEWAYS, TOTALLY WORN OUT, SHOUTING... " HOLY @#$%... WHAT A RIDE!" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- From: Brad <bjdbradnospam@gmail.com> >So you can copy and paste am I supposed to be impressed......I also >have a pretty good bet that if officers approached you with guns drawn >they would have had sufficient reason to bring you in. Quit living >vicariously through the internet..... > >Brad Woa, Brad. I ain't Barry or Philip. :) Lighten up, some. I think general opinion of this group would put me in the catagory of one of the "Good Guys". Maybe a little obnoxious at times, but certainly NOT to be grouped with the a.sholes that appear here from time to time. >So you can copy and paste am I supposed to be impressed No, but you can be impressed with the fact that I'm basically a nice guy that is willing to stand up for the liberty that the Founding Fathers based the creation of this nation on. >I also >have a pretty good bet that if officers approached you with guns drawn >they would have had sufficient reason to bring you in You lose. Here's the not very abbreviated story. Massachusetts: RT 91 outside of West Springfield 1988. I'm doing about 80 mph on an empty highway at 3 am. 55 mph speed limit. And, yea, I'd had a drink or two. State cop's hidden in a U-turn (you know, those "for official use only" things on the highway). So he pulls out behind me, lights go on. Now this is a dark section of road and 1/8 of a mile further there are streetlights so I drive a little further to the well lighted area for my safety...and his(after all, it's 3am on a Saturday night). So I pull over, turn on my interior lights, shut off the engine, and roll down the window. He walks up to the window and screams at me "Why the f.ck didn't you stop when I turned on my lights". And I said that "It's better lit and safer here". "You pull over when I turn my Fuckin' lights on", he said. "Sorry" I said calmly, "I thought this was the safest thing to do". "How many firearms you got in the car"? he yelled again. Not "Do you have any firearms in the car". "OH sh.t", I thought ,this is going to be fun. So I told him. Still fairly calm but I was becoming rather irritated with this guy. "I'm licensed in the State of Massachusetts to carry concealed weapons for all lawful purposes and I have a pistol on my left side in a shoulder holster. How shall we handle this?". Now keep in mind that in this State one in not required to tell the cops that they are carrying a gun unless asked and the whole time I've had both hands on the steering wheel in plain sight. The next thing I know, I've got a 9mm in my face and this guy's screaming a bunch of cop things on his radio. All I'm seeing is his gun but I'm hearing things like "I need backup, NOW!........Code (something).......ARMED SUSPECT" "DON'T YOU FUCKIN' MOVE". "Calm down", I said. "I've got my license in my wallet" "DON'T FUCKIN' MOVE" Now I'm getting pissed off. "Hey pal, I'm carrying this legally". "SHUT THE f.ck UP" So about 5 minutes go by and 3 other cruisers come screaching up and three more cops jump out, guns drawn, and surround the car. Now I've got 4 9mm's pointing at me. Now cop#1 tells the others, "He's got a gun and refused to stop when I tried to pull him over". Ooohhhhh Shhhiiiiittttttt. This just keeps getting better. So another cop comes up to the window. "Where's the gun?" "I'm lawfully carrying a pistol on my left side in a shoulder holster". Cop#2 puts the gun to my head and says" Don't move" and reaches under my jacket to take the gun. I didn't argue, So he takes the gun and asks"Do you have any other weapons" "No.........And be careful with that gun, It's worth more that all 4 of your piece of sh.t Beretta's, combined". Cop#2 opens the door. "Get out of the car". I get out of the car.........very slowly. They start to pat me down and when they get to my crotch area, I said "You really ought to kiss me first" Dumb thing to say since I was immediately slammed against my car. The search was completed and they walked me over to a cruiser. Then the interrogation. A brief synopsis: "Let's see some ID." I handed them my DL and CC permit. "I told Barney Fife, here that I was legal to carry" "Why are you carrying a gun?" "Same reason you are!" "Ever heard of the second amendment" "Wait right here, Sir". (First time I heard "Sir") All 4 of them walked about 50ft away and had a 5 min. conversation. "Sir, I need you to walk a straight line..heel to toe" Did it no problem. Then the touch the nose thing.......Then the follow the pen thing. Then the say the alphabet thing (Which I followed up by saying it again backward) They walked off and talked some more. Then, for the first time, I noticed that a dozen cars were stopped in the rest area watching this drama unfold. (The rest area was the source of the streetlights). Allright, witnesses. Now I'm feeling a little braver. " Hey, a.sholes! I want to go home and get some sleep and I'm sure you're anxious to get back to the station and gas a few Jews so can I get my gun and go home, now." "Stand there and shut up" 5 minutes later cop#3 comes over "Why didn't you stop for the officer"? "I did stop, I just drove a few hundred yards to where there were lights........f.ck, Rambo, over there, would have pissed his pants if this happened in the dark." "Why didn't you tell the officer that you were carrying a gun" "I did when he asked" He walks back for more conversation. By now, this is really starting to get funny. Four cruisers..... lights flashing......4 cops in a huddle........20 cars in the rest area with maybe 50 spectators. "SO what's next.......you guys gonna take 27 8x10 color glossy pictures with the circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one explaining what each one was" Cop#1 walks over to me and hands me a ticket for "speeding in excess of 100 mph". Gives me back my license and permit. Another cop has my gun, unloads it, hands it to me, and tells me that they don't want me carrying it, anymore. "yea, right, GO f.ck YOURSELF, Adolf. They get in their cruisers and drive off. I'm standing there by the side of the road with my gun in one hand, the magazine and bullets in the other, with cars going by, and not a cop in sight. It was .........surreal. Went back to the car, loaded the gun, chambered a round, stuck it back in the holster, and drove home thinking about what to do about the whole sutuation. Results: While I carried a gun occasionally, before. Now it's like the American Express card......I never leave home without it. Complained to the division head of the State Police.. he was courteous but said he was not even going to investigate it because, as I described it, "They did nothing wrong". The chief of police in my hometown called me the next day laughing his a.s off (I've known him for years). "I hear you had a little excitement, last night. I just got a call from Massachusetts Finest telling me that they wanted your permit pulled. I told them I'd just go over to your house and shoot you, instead." I fought the ticket in court. After hearing my story, the magistrate dismissed the case and told cop#1 that he "didn't need to see another case like this in his court again". GOD BLESS AMERIKA! >Quit living >vicariously through the internet..... Hey, Ask me about the time a detective threatened to pistol whip me when I was 16 yo and dared to ask him why I couldn't be walking down the street at 4 am. :) And by the way, I still REALLY like your sig. > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Woa, Brad. I ain't Barry or Philip. :) Philip can speak for himself, but you need to take your frigid rear end down the road It's men like me who keep the country safe. Your disgust me Bad Computer! Bad Computer! Sorry NOMAN, it's my PC I can't stop it... I set it up to auto-respond to frigid, shallow women Iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii it's out of control!!!!! > No, but you can be impressed with the fact that I'm basically > a nice guy that is willing to stand up for the liberty that the > Founding Fathers based the creation of this nation on. Or your interpretation of it. Others' interpretations are quite a bit different. SignatureWeb site: http://www.slywy.com/ Message board: http://www.slywy.com/phpBB2/ Journal: http://slywy.diaryland.com/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- From: Diane <delenn@nospamatmindspring.com> >Or your interpretation of it. Others' interpretations are quite a bit >different. No "interpretation" required. The Founding Fathers spelled things out quite clearly in the Bill Of RIGHTS and other writings. Keep in mind that it's not the "Bill of Suggestions". Just look at the way the "Patriot Act" is trampling the Constitution. We've become a nation of fools being led by a govermnent run by a group of idiots and liars. And the sad thing is that most of the public is too scared, or lazy , or stupid to speak up. This was never intended to be a socialist country, but that's what it's become. Just try to go one day without commiting a crime. I'm a criminal, you're a criminal, everyone's a criminal. I'm willing to bet that you live a good, honest, decent, life. But I'm also willing to bet that you do 1 or 2 things a day that you could be arrested or fined for. When a government turns good, decent, honest, people into criminals through the endless creation of useless and immoral laws, there's a Big problem. Let's address the "dangers of good intentions" from the posted quote from Daniel Webster. Now, lets say there's a law that REQUIRES that all pets be in a cage that is secured to a car when traveling. What are the consequences? The first one that I can think of is that "Fido" stays chained in the yard instead of going for a walk in the park because it's too much of a hassle to load a cage in the car, secure it, and then get "Fido" into it. And if you're willing to go through the hassle, you're not going to fit a cage for "Cujo" in your compact car, so you better get a gas guzzling SUV. And even if you don't normally take your dog for a drive, is it worth all that trouble to take him 5 miles down the road, to the vet, for his annual physical. And, after all, do we really want to deny "Fido" the true canine ecstasy of sticking his head out the window in the breeze. Nope, a law like that would be a hassle and expense for the owner, and misery for the poor dog. Dogs won't get a walk in the park, they'll be miserable traveling in a cage, and may get less health care. Or an owner is a criminal for disregarding the law. And all so the dog can be a little safer in the car? Safety is not the end all of existence. There's quality of life at issue here. Bad idea....bad law. And this is EXACTLY the thing that Daniel Webster was talking about with "the dangers of good intentions" Here's another short example: About 10 years ago many States decided that it was safer for kids to wear helmets and knee pads when riding bicycles. At the time almost every kid had a bike and yes, a few got hurt. Now there is a law that requires helmets. And I never see kids on bicycles anymore. Just by coincidence, childhood obesity has risen dramatically in the past 10 years to "epidemic" (a good word to use if you want enact laws to fight childhood obesity) levels. And let's not ignore the "wimp factor" that is so pervasive in the younger generation. When I was a kid, we had other names for head and knee protection....they were called bruises and scabs. Safety, while it sounds like a good idea, is a danger in and of itself, when applied to the legal system. And as I tell people who, upon hearing that I own a plane, say "aren't those things dangerous?"..... "Not if you're reasonably careful, but hell, in 100 years you and I will both be in the same place. And I'll have a shitload of fun getting there......... How about you?" > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > [quoted text clipped - 69 lines] > you and I will both be in the same place. And I'll have > a shitload of fun getting there......... How about you?" omg, you can HAVE the last word. You win! > And as I tell people who, upon hearing that I own > a plane, say "aren't those things dangerous?"..... > "Not if you're reasonably careful, but hell, in 100 years > you and I will both be in the same place. And I'll have > a shitload of fun getting there......... How about you?" If I have to choose between safe and free, I'll choose free every time! f.ck the Patriot act - an act our forefathers definitely would not have thought to be patriotic! Hugs, CatNipped > If I have to choose between safe and free, I'll choose free every time! > f.ck the Patriot act - an act our forefathers definitely would not have [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > CatNipped Hear Hear! It's got it's root in fear. Like "The Boss" said, "Fears a powerful thing Bob" (...) > or stupid to speak up. This was never intended to be a > socialist country, but that's what it's become. Hm, never heard anyone call the current US administration 'socialist' before... (...) > Let's address the "dangers of good intentions" from > the posted quote from Daniel Webster. Now, lets say [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > because it's too much of a hassle to load a cage in the > car, secure it, and then get "Fido" into it. In fact, I also am against 'cage' legislation, were it to be proposed. However, your arguments are pretty wobbly, being based on pandering to the idiot minority, i.e., because there exist those who wouldn't be arsed to fit a cage, we should not form the law. Truly it's a stupid approach to the law, if our main aim is just to make life easy for - in this case - poor pet owners. Hey! Some people can't be arsed to keep their vehicles in good repair, so let's remove any roadworthyness tests! Some people drive at ridiculous speeds in inappropriate places - so let's remove all speed limits! > And if you're > willing to go through the hassle, you're not going to > fit a cage for "Cujo" in your compact car, Why not? > so you better get a gas guzzling SUV. With such a stretch, you'd better watch you don't put your back out. Plus, it's hardly the case that SUVs are rare as things currently stand... > And even if you don't normally > take your dog for a drive, is it worth all that trouble to [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > won't get a walk in the park, they'll be miserable > traveling in a cage, and may get less health care. If the dog owner is crappy enough to deny his dog walks and healthcare because he can't be arsed to fit a cage, well, we're back to designing laws to make things easy for idiots. > Or an owner is a criminal for disregarding the law. > And all so the dog can be a little safer in the car? And people outside the car. (...) > About 10 years ago many States decided that it was > safer for kids to wear helmets and knee pads when [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > "epidemic" (a good word to use if you want enact > laws to fight childhood obesity) levels. Ridiculously simplistic, ignoring any changes in traffic density altering behaviour, changes in children's desire to ride bikes (rather than surf the web / have online sex), dietary changes, changes in definitions of obesity, perhaps an increase in the risk of bike theft, etc. S. > (...) >> or stupid to speak up. This was never intended to be a >> socialist country, but that's what it's become. > > Hm, never heard anyone call the current US administration 'socialist' > before... snip > S. Socialism has been creeping in to the US fabric for several generations, starting I'd say with The New Deal. > No "interpretation" required. The Founding Fathers spelled > things out quite clearly in the Bill Of RIGHTS and other > writings. I suggest reading some of the other stuff they wrote. It will help you put some things in perspective. I'm pretty confident that they wouldn't have a problem with seatbelt laws. :) SignatureWeb site: http://www.slywy.com/ Message board: http://www.slywy.com/phpBB2/ Journal: http://slywy.diaryland.com/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- From: Diane <delenn@nospamatmindspring.com> >I suggest reading some of the other stuff they wrote. It will help you >put some things in perspective. > >I'm pretty confident that they wouldn't have a problem with seatbelt >laws. :) Sure. What do you suggest that I read? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- From: "Steve G" <news@stevethepsycho.co.uk> >Hm, never heard anyone call the current US administration 'socialist' >before... Hey, most people would refer to the US as a Democracy. The funny thing is that the US is not a Democracy, has never been a Democracy, and the Founding Fathers never intended for the US to be a Democracy. Yet I'll bet that most people in the US could NOT tell you what form of government the US is supposed to be run by. >In fact, I also am against 'cage' legislation, were it to be proposed. >However, your arguments are pretty wobbly, being based on pandering to >the idiot minority, i.e., because there exist those who wouldn't be >arsed to fit a cage, we should not form the law. You miss the point. It's not about "idiot minority". Let's say you've got 40 minutes of free time to take your dog for a walk in the park that's a 10 minute drive from your house. So you get in the car, drive to the park, do a 20 minute walk, and drive home. Now there's a cage law: You dig out the cage, install it in the car, get the dog in the cage (10 minutes), drive to the park(10 minutes), you both look at the park and you think"would have been a nice day for a walk" (0 min), drive back home (10 min), let the dog out of the cage, uninstall the cage, and store it again (10 min). Which one makes for a more enjoyable 40 minutes? >Some people >can't be arsed to keep their vehicles in good repair, so let's remove >any roadworthyness tests! With all the shitboxes that are rolling on the roads of this country, I really don't think inspections make much of a difference. >Some people drive at ridiculous speeds in >inappropriate places - so let's remove all speed limits! "ridiculous speeds" are all driver dependent. Some people are dangerous at any speed, others are safe at 150 mph. A more reasonable approach is minimum standards of competence beyond those now in effect. >> And if you're >> willing to go through the hassle, you're not going to >> fit a cage for "Cujo" in your compact car, > >Why not? Too big, too boxy, no way to secure it, tough to get the dog in after it's installed.....pick one. >> About 10 years ago many States decided that it was >> safer for kids to wear helmets and knee pads when [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >definitions of obesity, perhaps an increase in the risk of bike theft, >etc. Ah, but Steve, life is simple. Complication is the tool of idiots and losers and is most often used to explain one's own failure. Am I saying that forcing kids to dress up like gladiators to ride a bike is the cause of childhood obesity? No! I'm saying that the attitudes that have forced kids to dress up like gladiators is the cause. Give almost any kid the option of getting dressed up in a ton of protective gear to ride his bike, or sit at home and play video games and see what the choice is. I certainly wouldn't have gone off on my bike if I was required to be covered in plastic and foam rubber. >Hey, most people would refer to the US as a Democracy. >The funny thing is that the US is not a Democracy, has never [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >you what form of government the US is supposed to >be run by. I was taught in high school that it is actually a Republic. >>In fact, I also am against 'cage' legislation, were it to be proposed. >>However, your arguments are pretty wobbly, being based on pandering to >>the idiot minority, i.e., because there exist those who wouldn't be >>arsed to fit a cage, we should not form the law. I would have a hard time supporting a cage law, but I do think that the windows should not be open far enough to allow an animal to escape. At the very least, keep them contained within the vehicle so that they cannot escape into traffic. Signature-- Meghan & the Zoo Crew Equine and Pet Photography http://www.zoocrewphoto.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- From: friesian@zoocrewphoto.com (Meghan Noecker) >I was taught in high school that it is actually a Republic. Hey, At least one person managed to stay awake in History class. :) You are, of course, correct. But if you asked 10 Americans that question, I would be surprised if 2 would know the correct answer. >I would have a hard time supporting a cage law, but I do think that >the windows should not be open far enough to allow an animal to >escape. At the very least, keep them contained within the vehicle so >that they cannot escape into traffic. Finally......A voice of common sense appears in this thread. >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >that question, I would be surprised if 2 would know the >correct answer. Yes, I cringe when Jay Leno does the Jay walking thing and asks questions. And ithas gotten worse. My nephew just graduated, and he doesn't know near as much as what I remember from 15+ years ago. >>I would have a hard time supporting a cage law, but I do think that >>the windows should not be open far enough to allow an animal to >>escape. At the very least, keep them contained within the vehicle so >>that they cannot escape into traffic. > >Finally......A voice of common sense appears in this thread. Thanks. I just think we shouldn't go too far. Yet, we should protect them from obvious danger. A dog can jump out any day, for any reason. So, it is much more likely than an accident. And a dog jumping out can cause an accident. It's strange. Because we wouldn't dare do this with a cat. Who would drive around with a loose cat in the car AND leave the windows open? Yet, people do it all the time with dogs. And then get surprised when something happens. Signature-- Meghan & the Zoo Crew Equine and Pet Photography http://www.zoocrewphoto.com (...) > Hey, most people would refer to the US as a Democracy. > The funny thing is that the US is not a Democracy, has never > been a Democracy, and the Founding Fathers never > intended for the US to be a Democracy. 'Republic' and 'Democracy' are not mutually exclusive; it is perfectly consistent to have a republican democracy. (...) > Now there's a cage law: > You dig out the cage, install it in the car, get the dog in the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > min). > Which one makes for a more enjoyable 40 minutes? The one without the straw men, of course! And now you've changed your argument over the one you used earlier. Plus, you assume that the cage is not already in the car, you assume that the cage takes 10 min to fit (why should it take any time to fit? Cat carriers basically take no time to fit into the car), you assume the owner has no ability to plan ahead, and so on. (...) > >Some people drive at ridiculous speeds in > >inappropriate places - so let's remove all speed limits! [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > at 150 mph. A more reasonable approach is minimum > standards of competence beyond those now in effect. Well, not exactly. 'Ridiculous speeds' are a function of driver competence and the environment in which they are driving. For example, no driver can safety steam past a school at kicking out time, at 150mph, whereas some drivers could relatively safely hit 150 in other situations. Alas, ensuring better 'competence' is something that's unlikely to be practical, I expect. > >Why not? > > Too big, too boxy, no way to secure it, tough to get > the dog in after it's installed.....pick one. We're talking about a (big) cat carrier, basically. This is not rocket science. (...) > Complication is the tool of idiots and losers and is > most often used to explain one's own failure. > Am I saying that forcing kids to dress up like gladiators > to ride a bike is the cause of childhood obesity? No! > I'm saying that the attitudes that have forced kids to > dress up like gladiators is the cause. Bah, yes! Kids these days, soft as lard! Why, in my day we 'ad to go to school crawling over broken glass. After school we would play in t' local minefield. And we were lucky! > Give almost any kid the option of getting dressed up > in a ton of protective gear to ride his bike, or sit at > home and play video games and see what the choice is. > I certainly wouldn't have gone off on my bike if I was > required to be covered in plastic and foam rubber. 'covered in plastic and foam rubber' sounds like a sexual fetish, rather than the description of a pretty inoffensive piece of headgear. Plus, I doubt simply removing the need for protective gear would suddenly turn kids away from video games into small but Remarkable Tough troopers, capable of sustaining bricks to the head with a grin and a jaunty wave. (And incidentally, I am against compulsory protective gear for cyclists, just as I would be against car cage laws - I just think your reasoning is ... suspect. Well, either that or you're from Yorkshire. Which is pretty similar, I suppose). Steve. > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > obnoxious at times, but certainly NOT to be grouped > with the a.sholes that appear here from time to time. Brad ith vewy thenthitive. :) >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > >Brad ith vewy thenthitive. :) Smooch Brad LIFE'S JOURNEY IS NOT TO ARRIVE AT THE GRAVE SAFELY IN A WELL-PRESERVED BODY, BUT RATHER TO SKID IN SIDEWAYS, TOTALLY WORN OUT, SHOUTING... " HOLY @#$%... WHAT A RIDE!" >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >obnoxious at times, but certainly NOT to be grouped >with the a.sholes that appear here from time to time. OK maybe I jumped the gun (pun intended) but still as I read that initial post and also some things in this post in my eyes have a bit of an anti American flavor and I am not talking about the usually good natured ribbing to our friends across the pond. Just things like spelling America with a K. I will apologize and just let it go by saying that your humor is not my style as I took it as anti Anti American by mistake. As you may know from a couple of my past posts that I am a bit of a "Mom.....The American Flag and Apple Pie kinda guy" And a poet and I didn't know it......sigh.....sorry that was weak. Having said that I am extremely happy that even though there is a large and growing group of people against the war they are not attacking the troops this time like they did in Vietnam, that was a very hard thing to take. This time I am seeing lots and lots of posters and such saying "We Support our Troops" which can easily be done even if people are against the war. Pretty interesting event you went through to say the least. Brad LIFE'S JOURNEY IS NOT TO ARRIVE AT THE GRAVE SAFELY IN A WELL-PRESERVED BODY, BUT RATHER TO SKID IN SIDEWAYS, TOTALLY WORN OUT, SHOUTING... " HOLY @#$%... WHAT A RIDE!" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- From: Brad <bjdbradnospam@gmail.com> >OK maybe I jumped the gun (pun intended) but still as I read that >initial post and also some things in this post in my eyes have a bit >of an anti American flavor Oh NO!!! I'm about as far from anti American as you can get. I love my Country. I think Congress is a bunch of self serving, useless, a.sholes. I think Government is steering this country down the road to ruin. And I think our President has the IQ of a garden slug. But, Thank God, I live in a country where I can say that without spending a decade in a "re-education" camp or prison. > I will apologize and just let it go by >saying that your humor is not my style No problem. A few decades of doing "comedy" a couple times a year during open mic night at area comedy clubs has taught me that there are a LOT of people the feel that my humor is not their style. :) >I am extremely happy that even though there is a >large and growing group of people against the war they are not >attacking the troops this time like they did in Vietnam, that was a >very hard thing to take. Were you over there? I pulled a real low draft number, and got sh.t faced drunk the day Nixon announced the total withdrawal, to celebrate. I would have wound up walking rice paddys with an M-16 the following year. >This time I am seeing lots and lots of >posters and such saying "We Support our Troops" which can easily be >done even if people are against the war. I really feel for those folks. Post 9-11 they must have been thinking "ALLRIGHT!!! I gonna go hunt down that a.shole, scumbag, goat-humpin', Bin Laden." Then they get dumped in the middle of Iraq 'cause Baby Bush wants to impress daddy and they have to play policeman while dodging suicide bombers. >Pretty interesting event you went through to say the least. Well, what can one expect in Massachusetts? Sometimes it's hard to believe that WE started the American Revolution when the British marched to disarm us. > Oh NO!!! I'm about as far from anti American as you can get. I love > my Country. I think Congress is a bunch of self serving, useless, > a.sholes. We all voted them in. >Were you over there? >I pulled a real low draft number, and got sh.t faced drunk the >day Nixon announced the total withdrawal, to celebrate. >I would have wound up walking rice paddys with an M-16 >the following year. Yes I was I stayed out of the rice paddies except for getting shot down a couple of times.....I was a door gunner/crew chief on a Huey assault helicopter I was all gung ho and volunteered my brother older by two years went as a door gunner and I was so proud of him that I wanted to follow in his footsteps......it was an interesting to say the least time in my life......to keep my sanity I never proclaimed that I was fighting for anything other than to hopefully help end the war...... When I got home I did the hippy thing for a few years another great time in my life which maybe was more dangerous to my health than getting my butt shot at in Vietnam.......lol... Do you still do any standup that must be a really difficult thing to do......even if I had the material I don't think I could ever try it...... Brad LIFE'S JOURNEY IS NOT TO ARRIVE AT THE GRAVE SAFELY IN A WELL-PRESERVED BODY, BUT RATHER TO SKID IN SIDEWAYS, TOTALLY WORN OUT, SHOUTING... " HOLY @#$%... WHAT A RIDE!" > Now that's just silly. Mandating helmets or seat belts (at the risk > of a fine, so really it's your choice as to whether you want to risk > a fine or not) is hardly on the slippery slope to fascism. ROFL. > Thanks. :) I didn't see the posts to which you're responding, but some of us do question the appropriateness of this kind of legislation. I haven't made up my mind yet, but I do have my doubts. If it didn't bring in the question of all of us indirectly paying for those people's choices, it would be obvious to me that these things shouldn't be legislated. Signaturemonique, who spoils Oscar unmercifully pictures: http://www.bounceswoosh.org/rpca >From: Diane <delenn@nospamatmindspring.com> >>If legislation is required to protect the rest of us from the stupid (or >>to protect their pets from them), I'm for it. They're too stupid to >>regulate themselves, clearly. >"Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of >authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made >to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are >men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. >They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters." > -Daniel Webster- This is true. We can't have laws about everything that could possibly harm/kill someone, it's just not humanly possible. Those who say that someone's irresponsible driving costs *them* money in insurance don't ever take into account that insurance covers *everyone's* stupidity, including their own. It's not just stupid people who drive while talking on cell phones, sometimes responsible people miss a yield sign and cause an accident, too. Insurance covers both kinds of stupidity. Stacia > This is true. We can't have laws about everything that could > possibly harm/kill someone, it's just not humanly possible. Those [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > responsible people miss a yield sign and cause an accident, too. > Insurance covers both kinds of stupidity. That's true ... IMO driving while tired or emotionally upset can be just as dangerous as driving while drunk, but there's no law against it that I know of. Sure, there are legal limits to how long you can drive without stopping (I think?), but they don't stop you from getting in your car on two hours of sleep. Seems like all of our drunk/cell phone/etc driving laws could be replaced with a "driving irresponsibly" law. Unfortunately, that would be harder to prove in court. One thing's for sure, and especially since I started riding a motorcycle ... if I'm driving or riding near a person with a cellphone attached to their head, I am extremely cautious and try to get the heck out of Dodge. Signaturemonique, who spoils Oscar unmercifully pictures: http://www.bounceswoosh.org/rpca >> This is true. We can't have laws about everything that could >> possibly harm/kill someone, it's just not humanly possible. Those [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > drive without stopping (I think?), but they don't stop you from > getting in your car on two hours of sleep. If an officer/trooper notices you weaving about the lane or sees your head jerk back up, he has cause to pull you over in many states besides California. You can be booked for driving in an unsafe manner and taken into custody right then. Fatigue is every bit as dangerous as drunken driving. > Seems like all of our drunk/cell phone/etc driving laws could be > replaced with a "driving irresponsibly" law. Unfortunately, that > would be harder to prove in court. Driving Distracted is a new set of laws that California is in the process (as are some other repressive states) of enacting. Covers cell phone distractions but is not limited to cell phones. > One thing's for sure, and especially since I started riding a > motorcycle ... if I'm driving or riding near a person with a cellphone > attached to their head, I am extremely cautious and try to get the > heck out of Dodge. Mistakenly, many people think it is safer to be a short distance in front of such a driver when it is acutally safer to be following that driver. But of course, if the distracted driver rear ends you, then you get to collect damages. >>From: Diane <delenn@nospamatmindspring.com> > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Stacia You speak of insurance as some kind of "they." In fact, insurance is US. We subsidize each other's misfortune. I am confident there are perilous activities engaged in by other people that you do not approve of and if put to a vote, would not subsidize those persons losses. > If legislation is required to protect the rest of us from the > stupid (or to protect their pets from them), I'm for it. They're > too stupid to regulate themselves, clearly. Diane, after reading some of the replies to my OP about the dog, I have reconsidered the "stupid" part and have ammended it to "uninformed". I also know many people who let their dogs have freedom in a car, but also love their dog dearly and would do anything for them. No one realizes that a dog is going to jump out. They need to know it can if it wants to. SignatureCheryl "The clever cat eats cheese and breathes down rat holes with baited breath." - W.C. Fields > Cheryl, while I understand the concern, and I really feel > horrible that even you had to witness such a thing, I am against [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > with the understanding that if they are permanently disabled > rather than killed, they will not be eligible for public funds. I agree about the seatbelt laws and that's a completely different thing. If a person wants to risk his own life by not wearing a seatbelt, not wearing one isn't going to endanger the lives of those who drive around him. But a dog jumping out of a car, driver stopping and jumping out, other drivers swerving to miss and causing accidents, others having to witness the death, etc, is completely different. IMO. > Granted, the dog didn't have a choice, but the better approach > would be to move toward declaring domestic pets as sentient > beings rather than property, and affording it certain > considerations as such. Can you ellaborate on this for me? I'm all for finding any means that might stop what happened yesterday from happening again. Yes, I realize I've gone 42 years without seeing that before, and its probably not that common, but I was and still am freaked out. I can't get the images out of my head. SignatureCheryl "The clever cat eats cheese and breathes down rat holes with baited breath." - W.C. Fields > Cheryl, while I understand the concern, and I really feel horrible > that even you had to witness such a thing, I am against the rampant [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > if they are permanently disabled rather than killed, they will not > be eligible for public funds. I question this analogy. I don't think animals in cars are like adults in cars; they're more like kids. In my ideal world, adults wouldn't be required to wear seatbelts (by law, that is; no one's riding in my car without a seatbelt, as I had to clarify for my mother the other day!), but they would be held responsible for buckling up minors and having babies in car seats. By the same token, because animals can't fend for themselves, perhaps we as a society have the responsibility to care for them. Your other point (which I've unfortunately snipped and am too lazy to retrieve) was that perhaps animals killed in this way are better off than living with their neglectful owners. I have to question this. For one thing, getting hit by a car or dragged by leash at vehicular speeds along the road ... these are not humane deaths. For another, I don't believe that all owners in these situations are bad owners. Many haven't thought through the consequences. Many have seen their parents do the same things with their childhood pets, without incident. My aunt has an elderly giant schnauzer. He rides in the back of her station wagon without restraint. She's ordering a custom-built set of steps so that he can get into the car more easily. She feeds him mixtures of human foods the breeder recommended; he's never eaten dog food a day in his life. This is not a neglectful owner whose dog would be better off as roadkill than as her pet! He's better cared for than many children. Now, as to whether crating an animal in a moving vehicle should be legislated ... I don't know. I kept Oscar in a carrier while driving cross-country, simply because a friend of mine lost his cat at a noisy gas station. I couldn't imagine taking that risk. But the crate itself was probably not securely enough fastened to stay put in the event of a collision. On the other hand, my childhood dog travelled everywhere with us -- from quick trips to Wendy's in the convertible to a day on the road to the beach in our station wagon. He was never crated. In the convertible, my dad kept his short leash around the shifter (it was an automatic), which made the leash short enough to keep him in the car. In the station wagon, we let him roam the car, typically in the back seat or in the rear (depending on what other stuff we had in the car). Puma was never comfortable sitting in the car; he was clearly most comfortable standing up, which was how he could balance best. Cheryl's point about having a dog flying through the car is a good one, though. In an accident, not only would the dog not be restrained (I'm not sure how much a crate, guard wall, or doggie seatbelt would help prevent injury to the animal in this situation), but it could potentially injure others in the car. I can just imagine a flying dog, legs (and hence claws) scrabbling for hold on any surface encountered. So, er ... I don't think it's inappropriate to legislate for the safety of animals in cars, as they can't belt themselves in. But I don't know where I stand on what sorts of legislation might be appropriate. Dogs and cats are so varied in temperament and size/body structure (not to mention all of the other types of pets) that it seems hard to come up with legislation that would be appropriate for all of them. Signaturemonique, who spoils Oscar unmercifully pictures: http://www.bounceswoosh.org/rpca Monique Y. Mudama <spam@bounceswoosh.org> wrote in rec.pets.cats.health+behav: > So, er ... I don't think it's inappropriate to legislate for the > safety of animals in cars, as they can't belt themselves in. But [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > pets) that it seems hard to come up with legislation that would be > appropriate for all of them. It is a tough issue, I admit. I guess I'm thinking of my most recent adventure driving out and back to CA with Kami. She whined and cried and bitched whenever she was in the carrier. It would have been extraordinarily stressful for her to be required to stay in there 10+ hours a day for two days. She didn't have free run of the car, but she relaxed and rode quite contentedly in her plush teepee in the passenger seat. And sometime in her covered litterbox, which is just gross, but she was happy. Now, if there was such legislation, I would probably bear fines and keep my cat happy and myself sane, but I'd much rather keep as much government out of my life as possible. Blame it on my liberal and unregulated former employment, but each time we say "oh, okay, I'll give up a minor freedom for the greater good," they will take another, and another, and another... We've already seen it post 9/11, but it's okay... it's for the greater good. But what if you were on the other end of suspicion, scrutiny, and near discrimination. No thanks. Not for me, not for my cat. SignatureBrandy Alexandre® http://www.swydm.com/?refer=BrandyAlx Well, would you? >It is a tough issue, I admit. I guess I'm thinking of my most recent >adventure driving out and back to CA with Kami. She whined and cried [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >seat. And sometime in her covered litterbox, which is just gross, but >she was happy. but how do you keep control of her when she is out......what stops her from jumping on your shoulders and scaring you or jumping down by the pedals.....I agree its a tough situation and I take my cat on short trips with me if I am not stopping anywhere for to long but he does get down by the pedals if all of your attention is on watching kitty it cant also be on watching the road..... Brad LIFE'S JOURNEY IS NOT TO ARRIVE AT THE GRAVE SAFELY IN A WELL-PRESERVED BODY, BUT RATHER TO SKID IN SIDEWAYS, TOTALLY WORN OUT, SHOUTING... " HOLY @#$%... WHAT A RIDE!" Brad <bjdbradnospam@gmail.com> wrote in rec.pets.cats.health+behav: > >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Brad I know it was a risk. I know how well I drive and that I won't collide with something, but I have no control over other motorists. As for her, she's old and doesn't try to wander much. The couple of times she did try, because of her arthritis she was unsteady and decided on her own it was best to stay put. When she wanted something she sat up and meowed and I SAFETY pulled over to the side of the road to see what she wanted. It was usually a drink of water. Just like kids. ;) SignatureBrandy Alexandre® http://www.swydm.com/?refer=BrandyAlx Well, would you? >I know it was a risk. I know how well I drive and that I won't collide >with something, but I have no control over other motorists. As for [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >meowed and I SAFETY pulled over to the side of the road to see what she >wanted. It was usually a drink of water. Just like kids. ;) Gotcha....... very few of us have halo's......at least not as nice as mine is....... If you don't mind Brandy I will use this opportunity to spout just a bit about the Patriot Act, its not in response to anything you said. I don't know what and I usually don't like spouting off to much unless I have a better idea but we do need something like the Patriot Act if we are pretty sure that someone is doing something covert we have to have the ability to to hold this person until he has been checked out, having said that I know the act is going far beyond that but we need something. I know this is not good reasoning or even a good excuse but whenever I am about to maybe criticize the Patriot Act I envision the pictures of people jumping from 50 stories to the concrete sidewalk and the Public Servants running into the melee instead of running out like the rest of the people. As I said we need something , if we had caught these guys with maps with the twin towers and the Pentagon hilited on it we would have not been able to bring them in beyond possibly minimal questioning but the event would have still happened in all probablility. Sorry for bringing up bad memories. Brad LIFE'S JOURNEY IS NOT TO ARRIVE AT THE GRAVE SAFELY IN A WELL-PRESERVED BODY, BUT RATHER TO SKID IN SIDEWAYS, TOTALLY WORN OUT, SHOUTING... " HOLY @#$%... WHAT A RIDE!" <Shorten Brads take on it> > Sorry for bringing up bad memories. > > Brad In the old days the people in charge just did what they wanted. For example, Thomas Jefferson shot a man on the whitehouse lawn for treason. Not trail no jury, asta lavista I'm going to stop, I know this ain't the place to go on about it. >Monique Y. Mudama <spam@bounceswoosh.org> wrote in >rec.pets.cats.health+behav: [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] >end of suspicion, scrutiny, and near discrimination. No thanks. Not >for me, not for my cat. Hmmm. Very interesting. In fact, though, much of the gov't regulation around autos has accomplished good things. Requiring manufacturers to install seatbelts is an example. Litter laws are another. In the case of seatbelts, the laws requiring them are only one aspect of a gov't effort that also includes research and design support as well as a public-awareness campaign. It's not enough to simply outlaw the problem -- the gov't has to figure out what the solution ought to be and support its implementation. That is how gov't gets so expensive and "bloated." But it is bloated with people addressing issues the public does actually care about! Who doesn't think it is better to have seatbelts and clean roadways? Maybe it is the same way with pet restraints. I would like to have a way to secure my dog in the car. She would never cause a problem, but she would get thrown around in an accident. Charlie Charlie Wilkes <charlie_wilkes@users.easynews.com> wrote in rec.pets.cats.health+behav: > In fact, though, much of the gov't regulation around autos has > accomplished good things. Requiring manufacturers to install > seatbelts is an example. Litter laws are another. I agree seatbelts are a good idea, but the idea of having your car explode into airbags all around you as a government requirement rather than an option is over the top. It's the same with ABS brakes. Pardon me, but I know how to drive. I me "drive" not just operate the vehicle. And there are many times where locking ones brakes provide a better escape from collision and injury than the slow pumping down, and I know just how hard to hit my brake to slow swiftly versus locking them. So, I do NOT want a car with ABS, but I don't think I'm going to be allowed to have one unless I want to buy something really old. SignatureBrandy Alexandre® http://www.swydm.com/?refer=BrandyAlx Well, would you? snip > It's the same with ABS brakes. Pardon > me, but I know how to drive. I me "drive" not just operate the > vehicle. And there are many times where locking ones brakes provide a > better escape from collision and injury than the slow pumping down, ... snip > Brandy Alexandre® Give me an example or two. Philip <1chip-state1@earthlink.net> wrote in rec.pets.cats.health+behav: > "Brandy Alexandre" <brandyalx@kittylittercomcast.net> wrote in > message [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Give me an example or two. Escaping the law and those cool J-turns. ;) SignatureBrandy Alexandre® http://www.swydm.com/?refer=BrandyAlx Well, would you? Brandy Alexandre wrote: > Philip <1chip-state1@earthlink.net> wrote in > rec.pets.cats.health+behav: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Escaping the law and those cool J-turns. ;) That's what I thought. I've never seen anyone do that kind of thing using a front wheel drive car though. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- From: <brandyalx@kittylittercomcast.net> >> Give me an example or two. > >Escaping the law and those cool J-turns. ;) Damn!........We just GOTTA do a road trip together, sometime. :) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- From: <brandyalx@kittylittercomcast.net> >I agree seatbelts are a good idea, but the idea of having your car >explode into airbags all around you as a government requirement rather >than an option is over the top. Actually, there have been studies that have indicated that the safer a car is in a crash, the more dangerously people will drive it, I think that the roads would be a LOT safer if all cars had a shotgun mounted in the dash that fired a round of buckshot into the driver at impact. :) I've worn seatbelts since long before there were "seatbelt laws". but it had nothing to do with crash safety. It's simply to keep my a.s firmly planted in the seat no matter what the car was doing. > It's the same with ABS brakes. Pardon >me, but I know how to drive. You've just poked a nerve with me. I HATE those damned ABS systems. There's not a car on the road that, in the hands of someone who knows how to drive, cannot be stopped quicker without ABS than with. People need to learn a few simple evasive maneuvers. I couldn't count the number of times I've seen someone slam on their brakes and plow into the car ahead of them when, if they'd just kept their foot off the brake, they could have done a little jog to the left or right and missed the car entirely. > So, I do NOT want a car with ABS, but I don't think I'm going to >be allowed to have one unless I want to buy something really old. Nope, lawyers are going to see to that. > >than an option is over the top. > > Actually, there have been studies that have indicated that > the safer a car is in a crash, the more dangerously people > will drive it, There's lots of hearsay about this (risk compensation), but I'm not so sure there are many (any?) decent studies out there. > > It's the same with ABS brakes. Pardon > >me, but I know how to drive. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > of someone who knows how to drive, cannot be stopped > quicker without ABS than with. I don't know a great deal about cars, but in the case of motorbikes, the above is empirically untrue. Bike magazine (UK) did a test of this a few years back. A highly skilled racer (IIRC) could not consistently outbrake ABS, although ISTR this was not true of all systems tested. Also, Formula 1 car racing bans ABS because it's too effective, and removes most of the skill from braking. I imagine there have been similar tests in car mags? My most recent bikes both had ABS. I never needed it, but I was happy that it was there, especially given that it had basically no effect on braking until you exceeded your own skill limits. (...) > > So, I do NOT want a car with ABS, but I don't think I'm going to > >be allowed to have one unless I want to buy something really old. > > Nope, lawyers are going to see to that. ABS is not a legal requirement in the US, is it? Steve. > ABS is not a legal requirement in the US, is it? > > Steve. ABS is not a requirment here in the US. Now, many insurance underwriters do give a premium discount for having ABS on the car, though it is not a significant discount. I their eyes, it is better to live in a rural area than to have ABS. Signature- Philip <SNIP> >ABS is not a legal requirement in the US, is it? > >Steve. No, not yet anyways. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- From: "Steve G" <news@stevethepsycho.co.uk> >I don't know a great deal about cars, but in the case of motorbikes, >the above is empirically untrue. Bike magazine (UK) did a test of this [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >removes most of the skill from braking. I imagine there have been >similar tests in car mags? I can see where it might be superior on bikes since the CG is so far to the rear and once the thing gets a little cocked with the centerline, you've got to let up on the brakes or swap ends. I used to drive a Porsche 911 that liked to swing it's a.s around under braking (again, rear CG) that might have benefitted from ABS in the hands of a novice driver. But I'd bet even that would stop quicker without the system if handled properly. The one area that ABS can help with is reaction time in that you can just stomp on the brakes instead of spending 1/4 - 1/2 second feeling out the proper pressure. But the pulsating brake pressure MUST diminish the braking effectiveness as compared to the smooth application to the limits of traction. And that's the conclusion reached in everything I've ever read on the subject. Most of the bike riding I've done has been dirt bikes (Bultaco, Ossa, CZ) and I can't imagine NOT being able to lock up the wheels on a soft surface. >ABS is not a legal requirement in the US, is it? Not yet, but it will be. Nomen Nescio <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in rec.pets.cats.health+behav: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > Not yet, but it will be. Yep, we need a road trip. ;) The thing is, if you know what you're doing and you know your vehicle, you can stop quickly without locking, and you automatically know when to pump rather than slam. I don't want ABS second guessing my intention or circumstances. I am a DRIVER. I may own a 1991 Honda Civic, but my ability to properly brake... or not... has avoided many more accidents than not knowing would have actually caused. SignatureBrandy Alexandre® http://www.swydm.com/?refer=BrandyAlx Well, would you? Brandy Alexandre wrote: (...) > The thing is, if you know what you're doing and you know your vehicle, > you can stop quickly without locking, and you automatically know when > to pump rather than slam. Well, not really - certainly not unless you practice emergency braking. If you don't do this, you won't have the muscle memory wired in, and in extremis you simply do not have the time to consciously think about how to modulate your braking. > I don't want ABS second guessing my > intention or circumstances. Problem is, you cannot modulate the brake pressure as quickly as an ABS system can. Plus, as I've stated, in the case of bikes, even a skilled rider (read 'racer') basically cannot consistently 'beat' ABS. Additionally, the ABS isn't 'second guessing' anything - if your wheel is at the point of locking, it will release pressure. It's not predictive. > I am a DRIVER. I may own a 1991 Honda > Civic, but my ability to properly brake... or not... has avoided many > more accidents than not knowing would have actually caused. Yeah, but that's something independent of ABS. S. >Nomen Nescio <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in >rec.pets.cats.health+behav: [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] >Civic, but my ability to properly brake... or not... has avoided many >more accidents than not knowing would have actually caused. How many situations have you been in that required emergency braking? I can count perhaps two or three. Maybe if you were a better driver you would not need such tremendous braking skill. I think that the only real problem with ABS is that many of us learned without it and would still automatically pump the brakes. It has definitely been shown that pumping brakes with ABS is a bad thing. But since the whole thread has devolved into a discussion of what the US government should force us to do, I think the system works pretty well in this regard. I have no problem with seat belt laws, and I think it has been shown that air bags save lives. We agree that we should have speed limits although we may argue over what they should be. It's a balance. As for the original dog/window thread, all I can say is that I have seen countless dogs loose in cars and have almost never heard of one leaving the car. So, a law that restricts them to a cage seems overkill to solve the one in a million problem. Do loose dogs in a car interfere with the driver's ability to control the car? Apparently not to the extent that requiring a dog restraint system would be needed. I once once driving Nico to the vet. He was going crazy in the carrier and ripping his paws to the point of bleeding. I let him out and let him climb around the car. He thanked me by having diarrhea in my lap. Not a pretty sight. dgk <sonicechoes-spamless@hot-nospamp-mail.com> wrote in rec.pets.cats.health+behav: > How many situations have you been in that required emergency braking? > I can count perhaps two or three. Maybe if you were a better driver > you would not need such tremendous braki More than I care to count, actually, since there are so many morons on their cell phones intermittantly braking for no reason and not paying attention. I remember one time during a first rain in SoCal that I came over a mound and found that traffic had stopped. I might have naturally hit the brakes, as did the car behind me and I heard the slide, and I don't think slamming OR pumping would have allowed me to avoid hitting the car in front of me. But a quick turn to the right shoulder (thank goodness I was in the right lane) took past it entirely while the car behind me plowed right into it. Sometimes staying out of trouble has nothing to do with brakes, come to think of it. SignatureBrandy Alexandre® http://www.swydm.com/?refer=BrandyAlx Well, would you? (...) > I can see where it might be superior on bikes since the CG is > so far to the rear and once the thing gets a little cocked with > the centerline, you've got to let up on the brakes or swap ends. The CoG is usually pretty much central on bikes. Couple of differences wrt braking in cars though: First, under heavy braking the rear will lift, and so become very liable to lock. Then again, under heavy braking there's no need to use the rear. However, the main problem is that a front wheel lock will nearly always lead to the rider losing the front end completely - unless they've explicitly trained themself to ease of the brakes at the first sign of a front wheel lock. Not so in a car, of course. Before I had ABS brakes, I used to practice lock-release at low speeds, and that muscle memory came in useful the only time I ever did lock the front - I stayed sticky side down. > I used to drive a Porsche 911 that liked to swing it's a.s around > under braking (again, rear CG) that might have benefitted from [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > traction. And that's the conclusion reached in everything I've > ever read on the subject. We're assuming different approaches to braking. You're assuming that the person in the ABS vehicle will just stamp on the brakes and let the ABS do all the work. I'm assuming that the person will brake as they would without ABS, the only difference being that the ABS will save 'em if they overdo it. In this way it basically gives the user the confidence to use the brakes to their full. Alas, I cannot recall if the Bike test used your method or mine. More on braking advantages of bikes with ABS here: http://www.bmf.co.uk/briefing/ABS-motorcycles.html Still not clear what the braking approach was in the article, though it doesn't sound like people just grabbed the anchors and hoped for the best. > Most of the bike riding I've done has been dirt bikes (Bultaco, > Ossa, CZ) and I can't imagine NOT being able to lock up > the wheels on a soft surface. Yes. E.g., BMW R1150GS ABS can be deactivated for when it's used offroad. Actually, what I'd like is front wheel ABS only - don't really see the point of rear wheel ABS, except for some pretty unusual circumstances. Not convinced about the BMW power brake system though. > >ABS is not a legal requirement in the US, is it? > > Not yet, but it will be. Hmmm. Cat content: All my cats have aftermarket ABS, but it doesn't seem to work very well. Steve. Brandy Alexandre wrote: So, I do NOT want a car with ABS, but I don't think I'm going to > be allowed to have one unless I want to buy something really old. Get a 69 Camaro biggerbadderbarry <bigbadbarry@adelphia.net> wrote in rec.pets.cats.health+behav: > Brandy Alexandre wrote: > So, I do NOT want a car with ABS, but I don't think I'm going to >> be allowed to have one unless I want to buy something really old. > > Get a 69 Camaro 65 Mustang is more my style. SignatureBrandy Alexandre® http://www.swydm.com/?refer=BrandyAlx Well, would you? >Brandy Alexandre wrote: > So, I do NOT want a car with ABS, but I don't think I'm going to >> be allowed to have one unless I want to buy something really old. > >Get a 69 Camaro I had a '69 Roadrunner 383 when I was 19. That was a good era for cars. The Camaro's and Firebirds of that era not only looked great, but they could boogie through the curves too. |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message