Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Question of the day

Posted in:

Illinois

One Illinois legislator wants to ban animals behind the wheel.

“You see an animal in the windshield or running all over the car,” said state Sen. Martin Sandoval, D-Cicero. “This will protect the animal and the driver.”

Sandoval filed an amendment to a distracted driving bill that prohibits people from driving while an animal sits in their lap.
“This is more to protect the safety of animals, like dogs, in the car,” Sandoval said.

Sandoval said he got the idea for the amendment after talking to animal rights groups who are concerned about the safety of animals on the road.

The amendment didn’t survive a Senate committee.

* The Question: Should Illinois forbid automobile drivers from having animals in their laps while operating a vehicle? Take the poll and then explain your answer in comments, please.

Online Surveys & Market Research

posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Apr 25, 12 @ 11:25 am

Comments

I answered yes because I believe it is a distraction - and we need to be concerned with who could be hurt by the distracted as well. Cannot possibly cost money to add this distraction - right? And to be perfectly honest - my dog has distracted me (not that I would let her on my lap while driving)

Comment by collar observer Wednesday, Apr 25, 12 @ 11:32 am
This is the biggest no brainer you ever asked.

How does someone answer “no”??

Comment by Anon Wednesday, Apr 25, 12 @ 11:37 am
Having driven in Springfield for several years now, I can honestly say that my dog could quite literally drive better than most.

I don’t see this as a huge issue.

Comment by How Ironic Wednesday, Apr 25, 12 @ 11:40 am
While pets do distract the driver when they have free run of a vehicle, at some future date the officer on the side of the road will have to look into each vehicle as it drives by to determine if the driver is: wearing a seat belt, texting, talking on the phone, eating, traveling with a pet, properly restraining children in the back seat, wearing pants, etc. Too bad common sense is so rare these days and we have to make laws to stop people from driving with an animal in their lap.

Comment by Stooges Wednesday, Apr 25, 12 @ 11:44 am
We mandate where kids sit, we mandate seat belt usage, we mandate what speed you drive, we mandate where you can use a cell phone but we allow a dog that can make a sudden movement at the drop of a hat to be on a lap when you drive?

Comment by OurMagician Wednesday, Apr 25, 12 @ 11:45 am
Anon 11:37, How does someone answer “no”?? Easily. Do you drink a Coke while driving? Eat a candy bar, fix your eyelashes, fiddle with your cell phone, check your teeth for spinach???? Well maybe if you do, we should have a law against it. Bunk I tell yea! Bunk!

Comment by In absentia Wednesday, Apr 25, 12 @ 11:47 am
Yes, and we also need the “No Bright Shiny Objects Law” and the “No Short Skirts On Women Near Roadways Law.” I find those things very distracting, so we must have specific laws in place to safe people like me. Senator, we need your help! Please sponsor these very reasonable bills!

Comment by Skeeter Wednesday, Apr 25, 12 @ 11:48 am
Driving with a pet in your lap is silly and dangerous. Instead of nanny-state bans, why don’t we just expect drivers to ‘drive’ more responsibly? Banning texting, eating, cell phones, and pets is only the symptom.

I argue the negligent and reckless driving laws should be tailored to allow local police and courts the appropriate tools punish the actual unsafe driving while leaving safe drivers alone…

Comment by Allen Skillicorn Wednesday, Apr 25, 12 @ 11:50 am
I once had German Shepherd/Malmute mix who thought he was Alpha and as such, would try to push me out of the driver’s seat. At times, the 90 pound dog would wedge between my back and the driver’s seat. It didn’t help that I was driving a tiny Renault at the time.

I’m pretty sure that if a police officer saw that, he would find laws already on the books to issue a citation. I suspect he would not say “Hey, that’s clearly unsafe, but darn, I have no authority to do anything at all.”

Comment by Skeeter Wednesday, Apr 25, 12 @ 11:51 am
No more distracted driver laws. The general laws on the books regarding driving while distracted already covered cell phones, eating, reading the paper, etc. This is all unecessary legislation intended to fool citizens into believing the legislature is doing something instead of tending to the really critical issues. And judging from the violations I see every day walking from Union Station to Wabash in Chicago, no one is enforcing the laws already on the books. I could balance the state budget in one month with the cell phone while driving violations I see.

Comment by Cook County Commoner Wednesday, Apr 25, 12 @ 11:57 am
Years ago, an acquaintance glued some rubber tile to the top of the gas tank of his motor bike. Which was where his beagle rode. That was the happiest dog you ever saw. He (the beagle) would run over to the bike and jump into position well before the driver. And they went everywhere on that bike, acquaintance driving, beagle perched in his special place.

Would this be prohibited?

Comment by Ivory-billed Woodpecker Wednesday, Apr 25, 12 @ 11:59 am
OMG!! So this is the major issue they are working on? Why is it when real issues are facing the members we see a flurry of fluff bills being sponsered by legislators. Maybe we should outlaw blue cars being driven on days that start with a T. Or the wearing of red dresses when the temperature is below 50 degrees. You know, those terrible things that keep us all awake at nights.

Is it because they are sitting there twiddling their thumbs waiting for the leaders to tell them what to vote for and when? And this is the best they can do on their own?

The real issue here is that the folks occupying the chairs in the legislature believe that they are so superiorly intelligent that they have to mandate how the rest of us live just so we will survive.

How about a bill to cut the drivers for the leaders so they have to drive themselves and conduct their business like the rest of us. Then maybe they will understand how the real world works and we will save money in the process.

Or is the insurance lobby pushing these bills? If you think I am wearing a tin foil hat look at the response to the question the head wildlife guy made when he was asked if the Illinois deer herd was at the proper level. Did he say, we haven’t taken a census yet or made a count and until we do we won’t know? No his response was, We will have to look at the number of deer/car crashes that are reported.
So we are managing the deer herd to appease the insurance companies?

Comment by Irish Wednesday, Apr 25, 12 @ 12:01 pm
===So this is the major issue they are working on? ===

You really must be a major drama queen.

It’s one amendment, in one committee and it was rejected after a brief debate.

Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Apr 25, 12 @ 12:06 pm
My cat Toonces does a wonderful job behind the wheel.

Comment by John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt Wednesday, Apr 25, 12 @ 12:09 pm
No. Brian on Family Guy is a very good driver.

Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Apr 25, 12 @ 12:11 pm
It’s a great idea by Sandoval. You can’t put a child in your lap. Pet lovers make me nuts. All common sense goes out the window when it comes to Fido. It’s great that you and your dog love each other……please don’t smash your car into me because of it though.

Comment by Bing Cosby Wednesday, Apr 25, 12 @ 12:25 pm
They should tax it instead. Make it illegal to transport an animal without a yearly permit from the secretary of state’s office. To get the permit you must show the animals have had their shots. This would also stop unlicensed animal breeders who wouldn’t be able to take their illegal animals to the vet because they wouldn’t have the license. Makes sense to me because I’m a legislator.

Comment by Legislator Wednesday, Apr 25, 12 @ 12:29 pm
@Irish, I have to agree with you, they need to stop messing around with this nonsense stuff and get on to the important issues. Not letting your dog run lose while you are driving is a “common sense” thing, you can’t “legislate” common sense, you either have it, or you don’t. There will always be those who drive distracted for whatever reason.

Comment by Huggybunny Wednesday, Apr 25, 12 @ 12:39 pm
This is Sandoval’s best idea in years, but that’s a low bar.

Comment by ChicagoR Wednesday, Apr 25, 12 @ 12:39 pm
If a person does not have the common sense to realize you don’t do this they should have their drivers license revoke and forfeit their pet.

Comment by Dan Shields, Springfield, IL Wednesday, Apr 25, 12 @ 12:40 pm
Unfortunately, the distracted driving laws are so loose that drivers still get away with it. The current law prohibits texting, but not searching the internet, inputting GPS coordinates, or dialing, to list a few. The problem, they all require focusing both sight and a significant amount of cognitive functioning away from driving, an already complex physio-cognitive activity.

Keeping pets out of the driver’s seat seems like common sense. Operating the vehicle should be priority number one, but clearly the message is not getting across.

To the excessive regulation comment. Driving is inherently dangerous. Motorized vehicles are one-ton steel projectiles, and a false move or inappropriate correction has devastating consequences. Of course, drivers do not realize it because they are isolated from danger within the vehicle, and are comforted by the sheer numbers of other vehicles. Protecting the safety of the general public is a necessary function of government. Even the Cato Institute recognizes that.

Roads are a communal good, in order to protect structural integrity of the road for other users (hitting a lightpole or sign), and other users (both on the road and near the road, the government has a compelling interest to regulate in this case.

Comment by NIref Wednesday, Apr 25, 12 @ 12:41 pm
My wife does this and it drives me crazy. It needs to be prohibited.

Comment by Foxfire Wednesday, Apr 25, 12 @ 12:53 pm
I agree that it is a small issue during a time when Illinois has big challenges. However, I’ve seen a lot of people drive around with Fido on their lap. As Bing said, “All common sense goes out the window…” and because of it, I may go through my window and die.
Pets should be contained in a carrier if transported inside the car. This is a simple addition to a list of “distracted driving don’t do its” and it would be a deterrent to those who currently don’t use common sense. It’s too bad we have to even consider legislation for this, but honestly, have you visited and looked around Walmart lately?

Comment by Both Sides Now Wednesday, Apr 25, 12 @ 12:55 pm
==How does someone answer “no”?? ==

They can’t see the keyboard because they have a dog in their lap…

I agree with the idea that the distracted driver law needs to be beefed up. If we have better language covering behavior, we won’t need laws for each and every idiotic thing.

Comment by Pot calling kettle Wednesday, Apr 25, 12 @ 12:55 pm
I would never let an animal sit in the front seat on either side–what happens to that dog if the airbag deploys? Isn’t that why we make children sit in the back?

Comment by Cheryl44 Wednesday, Apr 25, 12 @ 1:00 pm
I voted no only because, if there’s legislation, it should be to bar dogs from riding loose in the front seat area of a car. I refer (from experience) to the propensity of dogs to wander into the driver’s side foot well (in search of intriguing odors, or whatever. Try fending the dog off while driving down the expressway. This tends to interfere with the driver’s operation of the brake/accelerator/clutch, thereby presenting a major safety hazard. These days, any dog I am traveling with is confined to a crate. Harnesses designed to restrain dogs in cars would be ok, too, I suppose.

Comment by Liz Wednesday, Apr 25, 12 @ 1:01 pm
I don’t think dogs should be in driver’s laps, but I can’t see why a law specifically addressing this needs to be created.

Comment by Wensicia Wednesday, Apr 25, 12 @ 1:04 pm
No brainer? Of course it is - plain old-fashioned common sense tells you that this sort of thing should be prohibited. But I guess some people probably think it should be OK to drive with blinders on if they want to.

Comment by OldSmoky2 Wednesday, Apr 25, 12 @ 1:12 pm
Agree with skeeter, there are enough laws on the books already to address this issue just like all the other distractions we face when driving.

Comment by Kevin Highland Wednesday, Apr 25, 12 @ 1:12 pm
Decades ago, when cars were designed differently, a woman confessed to the police that her small dog ran across the floor of the car from the passenger’s to the driver’s side while she was driving, which caused a collision with another car that went into a spin and was then hit by two or three others. Luckily, someone was looking out for the families in the all of the cars and no one died or was seriously injured.

Obviously cars are no longer designed that way, but anyone with a small dog in the car, should realize that there’s always a possibility that if there’s enough room between your lap and the car, a small animal can still get into that floor area and make you hesitate–or confuse you long enough–to miss hitting the brakes when you need to. Common sense.

Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Apr 25, 12 @ 1:20 pm
I suppose legislation to control the behavior of stupid people/drivers is okay, the problem I have is that they are enacted by people who are even more stupid. I really would like this nonsense to just stop!

Comment by A Citizen Wednesday, Apr 25, 12 @ 1:20 pm
I voted yes, because a live animal can make a sudden movement that unavoidably distracts the driver. I see this as far worse than talking on a cell phone or grabbing a (non-alcoholic) drink while driving. Texting while driving, though, is still more hazardous than the lap dog.

Comment by cover Wednesday, Apr 25, 12 @ 1:32 pm
I agree, to a certain degree, with A Citizen. (And full disclosure, my family who were in the first car hit, could have been hurt that day.)

If the stats begin to show that accidents are increasingly being caused by something like this, put a question or a warning in the driver’s test, “Rules of the Road” manual–or better yet, the extremely dull “Driver’s Ed” test you have to take take to get supervision for speeding, etc. to let people know that that’s one of the things that should not be done. And if they fail, certain key questions, make them sit there and retake the test–including having to listen to the narrative again–until they get those questions right.

Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Apr 25, 12 @ 1:33 pm
I said no, since I don’t have a lap anymore. Gotta hit the gym…

Comment by PublicServant Wednesday, Apr 25, 12 @ 1:34 pm
Better yet, if they repeatedly get the question wrong, display something in their test results clearly telling them that they should not *variable* while driving, and then make them watch a video again.

With today’s technology, I can’t see why at least with on-line testing, the testing can be delivered to specifically meet the of the person taking the test to reinforce their “weaknesses” v. making them listen over and over again to whatever someone decided was the issue of the day.

Marketers do it successfully all the time to pitch their products (look at the hulu interactive ads that are out there). Why not use the same technology and methodologies to help reinforce learning that’s tailored to the needs of the audience?

Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Apr 25, 12 @ 1:42 pm
No. Fix the current law to say “distracted driving” and eliminate ALL of the various causes since there is no way that a comprehensive list of distractions can ever be created and maintained. Then leave the whole issue to the discretion of law enforcement and the courts.

Comment by Cincinnatus Wednesday, Apr 25, 12 @ 1:44 pm
Yes. You don’t want to be in a vehicle with an injured animal after an accident.

Comment by Excessively Rabid Wednesday, Apr 25, 12 @ 1:45 pm
Sorry… “I can’t see why at least with on-line testing, the testing CAN’T be delivered….”

Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Apr 25, 12 @ 1:45 pm
And I’m sure that this will probably “tee off” alot of people currently working in government–and politicians who hire alot of those people.

If you can’t come up with creative ideas to resolve public issues aside from passing legislation that can’t even be enforced properly to resolve today’s issues, maybe you should stop hiring your “buddies” and look for talented resources to help. I’m sure there are plenty of experienced, talented, unemployed workers from the private sector out there who can help you.

Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Apr 25, 12 @ 1:53 pm
I said no, because I think this is just common sense. I routinely drive to Iowa with my 2 dogs. Each is in a crate for its own protection. Though I’ve often wondered if I would be crushed by that large crate flying up and crushing me in the event of a high speed rear collision.

I think a better way is to create an umbrella law that outlaws distracted and/or haphazard driving and have it enforced by officers noticing cars going too fast/slow, cars weaving, shoulder bumping, etc. This way it will cover sleepiness, texting, internet searching, radio fiddling, GPS twiddling, eating, drinking, child and/or dog grabbing…

Comment by cermak_rd Wednesday, Apr 25, 12 @ 2:00 pm
I have to confess that I’m suddenly feeling uncomfortable about my 1:53 comment. I’m envisioning all the pols’ “communications” staff, consultants, and volunteers suddenly sitting down to apply the “concept” to campaigns.

I’m guessing we’ll see the results of their talent in trying to dupe the public once again into voting for their “bosses,” LONG before anything even similar to that is put to use to actually help their constituents.

Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Apr 25, 12 @ 2:46 pm
I wont allow any pet in my house or in my cars! So simple:If you have a pet in your car it should be in a crate! Definitely not on top with Seamus!

Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Apr 25, 12 @ 2:48 pm
The biggest issue I’ve encountered when my dog gets behind the wheel is after she’s had too much to drink. Her driving doesn’t get better when she’s been drinking.

Comment by conservatively liberal Wednesday, Apr 25, 12 @ 2:52 pm
37.5% voted “no”?!? I’ve seen people driving with TWO small-ish dogs on their laps. It’s a safety issue for the driver, pure and simple. You can’t tell me with 100% certainty that a dog will not do anything sudden to interfere with a driver’s ability to see or adjust properly while driving. Absolute no-brainer. And I’m a huge dog person myself.

Comment by BigDoggie Wednesday, Apr 25, 12 @ 3:03 pm
it’s dangerous for the animal if you get into an accident. you would not put a baby in your lap, same thing with a small animal.

Comment by amalia Wednesday, Apr 25, 12 @ 3:12 pm
I responded “Non”. Common sense should not require a law.

I’m waiting for the law that requires the use of Toliet Paper when one empties their bowels.

I’m sure that the police can ticket a person for several violations if the dog is in there lap.

-Distracted Driving.
-Windshield Obstruction.

We just don’t need a law that specific for idiots.
Maybe a law requiring the transportation of animals be done a certian way. Then I would vote yes. This is a lazy legislator trying to ban something that common sense should govern.

Comment by Jade_rabbit Wednesday, Apr 25, 12 @ 3:15 pm
Anyone here from Southern Illinois remember Mr. Presley with his white Chevy Impala and the everpresent white cat?

Comment by John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt Wednesday, Apr 25, 12 @ 3:24 pm
- Stooges - Wednesday, Apr 25, 12 @ 11:44 am:

“Too bad common sense is so rare these days and we have to make laws to stop people from driving with an animal in their lap.”
______________________________________________

I don’t think common sense is rare. I think we have too many people and political hacks that see one person doing something stupid; they assume the whole of society is that stupid. This is where the biggest problem with our legislators rests. Our laws should be rules for everyone, not rules for the few with no common sense.

If each law-maker asked the simple question: “Does this law impact everyone positively?” We would get much more done in our state house. Unfortunately, the law makers we have tend to be driven by special interest. We have laws for Minorities, disabled, low-income, small business owners, etc…. Everyone is broken off from being an Illinoisan and reclassified into some (dis)advantaged group. Today it is people with pets; tomorrow it will be people that drive tractors with the windows open.

Comment by Jade_rabbit Wednesday, Apr 25, 12 @ 3:24 pm
–it’s dangerous for the animal if you get into an accident. you would not put a baby in your lap,–

The Greatest Generation sure did back in the day. Heck, the old man might be tipping a beer and smoking a cigarette at the same time, too.

Change can be progress, you know.

Some might find this law extreme, but I can recall the seat-belt law being considered extreme is some circles. Same with open-container and DUI laws, child-car seat laws, etc.

Yet car crash deaths have been on a steady decline because of these “nanny-state” laws.

In fact, overdoses from legal, prescription drugs now outnumber auto deaths.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/sep/17/local/la-me-drugs-epidemic-20110918

Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Apr 25, 12 @ 3:25 pm
YES! But a new law is not needed. I believe that current law gives police the authority to give a ticket to a driver with a dog on their lap. Isn’t that reckless driving?

In Illinois, someone who uses or drives a vehicle “with a willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property” is guilty of reckless driving (625 ILCS 11-503.) Misdemeanor in most cases, felony when someone is hurt or killed.

A dog in a driver’s lap meets this definition in my book.

Comment by anon sequitor Wednesday, Apr 25, 12 @ 3:27 pm
Mitt Romney had no comment.

Comment by God's Country Wednesday, Apr 25, 12 @ 3:31 pm
Another suggestive headline…first Miss American eyes Johnson’s seat, now we have animals in your lap while you drive. It’s true what they sing in Avenue Q–”The Internet’s For Porn”!

Comment by D.P. Gumby Wednesday, Apr 25, 12 @ 3:39 pm
No. There are too many laws on the books that don’t have a direct impact on safety. So many it seems like the basic laws such as lane usage and right-of-way,have been all but forgotten.

Comment by Honestly Wednesday, Apr 25, 12 @ 3:51 pm
I voted yes. Grab a car seat (http://www.petco.com/product/112973/Kurgo-Skybox-Blue-Collapsible-Pet-Booster-Car-Seat.aspx) and strap that Great Dane in for the ride to Yellowstine.

Comment by I Love My Pooch Wednesday, Apr 25, 12 @ 6:41 pm
No dogs, cats, snakes, kids, phones, texting in the driver seat. Beer, burgers, and fries are personal choices. Ron White has a bit about a ‘driver’s surprise’ that drifts to the probably should not do category.

Comment by zatoichi Wednesday, Apr 25, 12 @ 6:41 pm
Brian from Family Guy got drunk one night, drove, and yes killed another………dog. He freaked out and when the family found out, they laughed at him. IT’s a freaking dog — they said!

Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Apr 25, 12 @ 8:10 pm
–This is why nothing gets done in Springfield!!!! How about actualy doing something about, say the budget or better yet fix the pension mess these clowns created!!!!!!–

Clearly, what we need in Springfield are more exclamation points.

Here they are:

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Now, I’m going to attempt to chew gum and walk at the same time.

Then, if I’m not exhausted, I’ll rub my belly and pat my head, too. At the same time!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Apr 25, 12 @ 11:02 pm
No, word. It’s Springfield. Not enough.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Now to help DC, Rich is going to have buy (or lease) another server.

Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Apr 25, 12 @ 11:18 pm
I voted no. When and where does the erosion of our freedom of choice end? Besides, is this really a problem? Did I miss the headlines where pets in vehicles are a significant problem? I drive down the road and see people doing all kinds of things while driving, but rarely see pets. I would think eating/drinking, smoking, and putting on makeup/shaving would be much more of a problem than pets. I am glad this died in committee. This is almost as stupid as the so-called “Drano” law.

Comment by KurtInSpringfield Thursday, Apr 26, 12 @ 8:03 am