Driving with dogs in front seat

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Its stupid.

As are most dog owners.

[Anonymous]

I see it's open season to criticize ANYTHING that dog-owners do. They care too much, or too little, but they cannot win.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I see it's open season to criticize ANYTHING that dog-owners do. They care too much, or too little, but they cannot win.

If we could ban dog ownership, we could collect all the money spent on dogs to provide healthcare for the needy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I sometimes drive with my dog in the front seat but he is restrained (harness w/ attachment to seatbelt buckle). It isn’t as safe as the back due to the hard dashboard rather than the soft seat back, but yeah, sometimes I do it.

I also ate soft cheese while pregnant and swim alone sometimes. I live in the edge that way.

It's dangerous because of the airbag, not the hard dash. Same reason you don't put little kids in the front.

But I also avoid the cargo area because that's a crumple zone. And real seat belt options (as opposed to just harnesses) are few - Kurgo has one - so there's no perfect solution even though the rear passenger bench is the safest spot.

I think a medium sized dog is quite a bit tougher than a child. I blame evolution.

I think you are not well informed about the force with which airbags deploy. And a dog with a crushed face or ribcage is generally going to be put down, not operated on like a human.

[Anonymous]

Not safe. Ours is in a sleepypod.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see it's open season to criticize ANYTHING that dog-owners do. They care too much, or too little, but they cannot win.

If we could ban dog ownership, we could collect all the money spent on dogs to provide healthcare for the needy.

We can already afford to provide healthcare for the needy, but we choose not to spend tax money on that. There's no way that private "money spent on dogs" would somehow be collected and spent on healthcare.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see it's open season to criticize ANYTHING that dog-owners do. They care too much, or too little, but they cannot win.

If we could ban dog ownership, we could collect all the money spent on dogs to provide healthcare for the needy.

We can already afford to provide healthcare for the needy, but we choose not to spend tax money on that. There's no way that private "money spent on dogs" would somehow be collected and spent on healthcare.

And even if it could be done, who would prioritize money spent on dogs before money spent on things like cigarettes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see it's open season to criticize ANYTHING that dog-owners do. They care too much, or too little, but they cannot win.

If we could ban dog ownership, we could collect all the money spent on dogs to provide healthcare for the needy.

We can already afford to provide healthcare for the needy, but we choose not to spend tax money on that. There's no way that private "money spent on dogs" would somehow be collected and spent on healthcare.

And even if it could be done, who would prioritize money spent on dogs before money spent on things like cigarettes?

Cigarettes, like alcohol, are necessary to fund the government. We should prioritize spending on cigarettes to improve public services.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see it's open season to criticize ANYTHING that dog-owners do. They care too much, or too little, but they cannot win.

If we could ban dog ownership, we could collect all the money spent on dogs to provide healthcare for the needy.

We can already afford to provide healthcare for the needy, but we choose not to spend tax money on that. There's no way that private "money spent on dogs" would somehow be collected and spent on healthcare.

And even if it could be done, who would prioritize money spent on dogs before money spent on things like cigarettes?

Cigarettes, like alcohol, are necessary to fund the government. We should prioritize spending on cigarettes to improve public services.

Lol, smokers got scapegoated into funneling more money to the federal government, meanwhile, billionaires (and tobacco executives) get tax cuts. We don’t need to use taxes on cigarettes and alcohol to fund the government. We choose to.

[Anonymous]

I've seen videos of people driving around with cats on their laps too. Incredibly bad choice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It confounds me when I see so many people driving cars with a dog in the front passenger seat (or even on the driver’s lap!). We don’t let our children sit in the front passenger seat without a seatbelt because we know that any accident, even small, could seriously injure or kill an unrestrained passenger. I assume most people dearly love their dogs so why are many so relaxed about dogs in the front seat?

Maybe MYOB?

Bingo!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see it's open season to criticize ANYTHING that dog-owners do. They care too much, or too little, but they cannot win.

If we could ban dog ownership, we could collect all the money spent on dogs to provide healthcare for the needy.

What world do you live in…?

[Anonymous]

My dog is always in the front seat tethered in their doggy car seat. I hadn't thought about the air bag crushing her

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Its stupid.

As are most dog owners.

As you are too!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Its stupid.

As are most dog owners.

And you, apparently.