my dog Oreo is a great driver- she never drives without her seat belt on

You can't legislate common sense. It's a waste of time to create a specific bill over this. If a cop sees a dog riding on a driver's lap and feels it's unsafe, that person can be pulled over anyway for impeded operation/distracted driving or something like that. Are we going to ban makeup application while driving? Radio-listening? There are countless things that can endanger ourselves and others while driving and it's a waste of time to try to make a law out of them all.

I actually cringe when I see dogs loose in a car. I have 2 and both have seatbelts. if not, they would be in my lap, changing gears and god forbid we crash, they face the same danger as humans. Also if we crashed but they were not injured, the seatbelts keep them from running off. I definitely think this is an issue in need of government control.

I assumed it was already a law? That seems like the most distracting thing possible while driving. And add me to the one that belts in my dog. I don't want her getting hurt or distracting me and making me get in an accident.

Dee: You wouldn't say that if you crashed! If she means that much to you, you would crate her or secure her in some way. I have a friend who uses a kennel type crate that locks in place into a holder, much like a carseat for a baby. These dogs are, after all, like children. Please reconsider her freedom for her life, Dee. I implore you

Petsmart sells harnesses for the car for around $8. My dog got used to it after one ride and can sit in the seat next to me safely.

If you are dumb enough to operate a motor vehicle with an animal on your lap, it should be legal to take said animal and beat you to death with it.

If you are a caring and loving dog owner, the dog's 'independence' should be secondary to the dog's safety.
I have 2 little critters and we use seat belt attachments connected to their harnesses in the back seat of the car. They don't mind it all and I know if we stop short or get in an accident, they are not tossed around like rag dolls.
A dog in the lap of the driver of a car is, at the very least, a distraction, and at worst could cause a serious accident.

Well, if restricting cell phone use in the name of safety is fair game then so is restricting the freedoms of dogs.

No one's liberty is safe when the nanny state scolds have control.

Those proposals are not the result of a "nanny state". The excuse that there is no reason for laws like these is similar to a rude preson having his rudeness pointed out and gives a flick of the bird and saying "have a nice day": Cell phones are a real saf ety and nuisance issue. A dog on the lap is a stupid person's concept of "it is a free country and I can do anything I like, even kill you if I don't like your looks". That kind of thought is not "liberty" but it is mental masturbation.

Sorry, Carl, but equating "I can kill you if I don't like your looks" with the issue of dogs in cars is a stupid person's idea of an appropriate analogy.

Please try again.

In a wry note about the proposal from Rhode Island. It is ironic that the state which rivals MA for dumbass drivers is onto something. I suggest that native born drivers in both states should have a lifetime driving ban. The only safe drivers on the road in both places are ones born and raised elsewhere.

You could make a good argument? Really?? How could you possibly defend driving with a dog on your lap? How do you justify being that ignorant? People who drive with pets on their lap have absolutely no respect for other peoples safety on the road.
Pay attention and be fully aware of your surrounding when operating a 2000 pound hunk of metal down the roadway. Peoples lives depend on you competency behind the wheel!
It's difficult to respect the opinions of people who think driving distracted is OK..

BTW, that's a nice looking dog in the photo. Love yellow labs.

I'd like to see someone try to drive with one those dogs on his lap!

I told you not to call me stupid. What's is with you? My analogy is correct as it is equally stupid behavior to do either thing. In my estimation, a person stupid enough to allow a dog on his lap in a car as he is driving is a lot closer to killing someone with a car or gun than a person who doesn't do that insane act. Insanity is a matter of degree and so is the act. You clearly do not know what an analogy is, nor did you apparently, read the article, It is not about a "dog in a car". I note that you rarely address any item on this site, you merely use ad hominem attacks. Don't bother to engage with me until you learn manners and logic!

Sorry, there is no moral equivalence between someone who has a dog on his lap and someone who shoots someone because they don't like how they look. None.

To continue to insist that there is leaves you open to criticism. Perhaps not stupid (for someone who dislikes the label, you sure throw it around a lot -- which, of course, was my point), but certainly foolish.

You are so confused by the terms that you bandy about. In this one, you get a teeny weeny bit closer to a reasoned response in that you quote me to some degree. A moral equivalence is not the point of an analogy. You are good at pointing out sources of reference. But, you seem not to take that advice yourself. Look up the first meaning of an analogy. It expressly denies what you just wrote!
I am always open to clear and reasoned criticsm. I am not open to a pretense of such, dilletantism. If I have used the word "stupid" it is because it applies to a general practice or behavior. If you feel touched by such, then I have succeeded. "Foolish", ad hominem is your fav, is not a real nice word when aimed at someone in a forum like this. "Unread" in some cases as yours? Perhaps!