My email that I'm distributing to all of the major area news

On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 13:07:30 -0600, "Monique Y. Mudama"
wrote:

On 2005-06-18, Brandy**Alexandre penned:

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.


You are right about motorcycle helmets but if you don't wear seatbelts
it can endanger other motorists the secondary reason for wearing
seatbelts is to keep you behind the wheel so you don't get thrown
sideways onto the seat for instance and have no control of your
car......the one accident I did have this was exactly the case without
the seatbelt I would have been laying on the seat it was a side
impact. So be a free spirit with your helmet but not your seatbelt.

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!"

On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 19:24:15 GMT, "Brandy**Alexandre"
wrote:



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.



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!"

On 18 Jun 2005 12:33:22 -0700, "biggerbadderbarry"
wrote:



Cheryl wrote:

I will be researching how to make this law. I hope you can help.


--
Cheryl

"The clever cat eats cheese and breathes down rat holes with
baited breath." - W.C. Fields

A law like this could save lives.

Hey wasn't that you that just wrote that impassioned piece saying
goodbye to us.......it brought tears to my eyes and yet here you are
again........geez all my grieving was for nothing.....??

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!"

Cheryl wrote:
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.

This latter, I think, is already a law (in NYS). Don't quote me on it,
I just *think* it is. But I haven't Googled it.

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.

Oh, dear... arghhh. If the window had been rolled up far enough to
prevent the dog from jumping out, that would've been a major step in
the right direction. IOW, plain ol' common sense.

Although not the same cause of death, a friend's dog was killed when:
to avoid an accident, her husband had to jam on the brakes. The dog
was riding in the van, between the seats - in the center. When the
brakes were slammed on - which was a necessary move - the poor dog shot
forward & slammed into the dashboard - & was killed. If he'd been
harnessed in, it would've been a different scenario. (I'm thinking here
that a harness would've been necessary, to distribute the force of
impact more evenly - Vs. a collar/short leash sort of combo, since
otherwise he still likely would've been injured big-time - or killed,
because of the force involved. The accident just happpened to occur
across the street from their vet's office, but in this case prompt
medical attention wasn't enough. The humans, who were both wearing
their seatbelts, were fine. Physically; emotionally was another thing.

Cathy



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.


--
Cheryl

"The clever cat eats cheese and breathes down rat holes with
baited breath." - W.C. Fields

Nomen Nescio ] writes:
From: Diane

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

"Monique Y. Mudama" writes:

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.

Absolutely. Animals live in a "human world" and humans need to be
responsible and take care of them. But have you seen the way humans
take care of each other, especially the sick and the elderly? I'm not
at all confident that humans as a whole are willing to be responsible
and kind to anything.
Unfortunately, people see dogs in trucks (in beds and inside with
windows down) all the time, especially around here (Kansas). Thanks to
the low population density and luck, I have never heard of a dog being
hurt or killed when jumping from a moving vehicle. The common wisdom is
that dogs "know better" than to move from a vehicle, which is obviously
not true.
However, legislation should be used sparingly, in my opinion. Laws
shouldn't be passed every time something horrible happens. What would
be most effective is educating people about pets being in vehicles.
There's still people who think leaving a pet in a hot car is no big
deal. Hell, some people apparently think human babies are OK in hot
cars. Education is the key here.

Stacia

Nomen Nescio wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

From: Brad

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.

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!!!!!

On 2005-06-20, Glitter Ninja penned:

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.


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.

--
monique, who spoils Oscar unmercifully

pictures: http://www.bounceswoosh.org/rpca

"Monique Y. Mudama" wrote in message
...
On 2005-06-20, Glitter Ninja penned:

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.


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.

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.

--
monique, who spoils Oscar unmercifully

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.

"Glitter Ninja" wrote in message
...
Nomen Nescio ] writes:
From: Diane

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

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.