Talk:Mitt Romney dog incident/Seat belt sentence

Seat belt sentence
I removed this sentence: "As against that, a dog riding inside the car would be exposed to hazards by virtue of not having a seat belt. " with the edit summary "This sentence doesn't make any sense in itself, and it makes even less sense in context." Someone brought it up on my Talk page so I thought I'd respond here. My feelings aren't terribly deep, I just found this to be a badly-written sentence expressing an incoherent thought. First, I'm not familiar with the phrase "as against that", and took it to be merely someone's clumsy attempt to communicate "in contradiction." A Google search suggests this may be my mistake and that "as against that" is in fact a phrase; I still dislike it. Beyond that point, the sentence still doesn't make sense in context:

''Three scientists who evaluated the event stated that Seamus could have possibly had around ten pounds per square foot of air pressure pressing against his head during the trip. The veterinarian wife of one of the scientists said that she was worried that the air flow could cause fatigue and dehydration of the eyes. As against that, a dog riding inside the car would be exposed to hazards by virtue of not having a seat belt.''

First, the fact that the dog wouldn't have a seat belt inside the car doesn't contradict, or negate, or have anything really to do with, the effects of the air flow/pressure if the dog rides outside the car. Second, the dog obviously wouldn't have a seat belt whether he's in the car or outside the car. The intent of the sentence seems to be to defend putting the dog outside the car by saying, well, if you put him inside the car, there are still hazards, which is also the meaning of that sentence in the cited reference (which I did read before removing the sentence). But it's written as if the lack of seat belt inside the car presents a hazard equal to the air pressure from riding outside the car, so really it's a toss-up which method is safer, which is ridiculous. The article says in an accident he might be equally endangered by either method, but the effects of the air pressure would be felt constantly regardless of whether there's an accident.

If you really must raise the point in the article I would recommend something like: "One scientist pointed out that even inside the car, a dog would still be exposed to hazards in an accident by virtue of not having a seat belt." Theoldsparkle (talk) 15:47, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with your point that the failure to seatbelt a dog is not as serious a hazard as driving with a dog on the roof of a car. Furthermore, there is the legality issue.  In 1983, no law existed that mandated that a dog wear a seatbelt.  On the other hand, driving with a dog on the roof of your car was illegal in 1983. That being said, one of scientists did bring up the seatbelt issue, and if we totally ignore it, it would violate Wikipedia's NPOV policies. I'm fine with your poposed rewrite.Debbie W. 12:37, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * You don't know that it was illegal, the source only says "probably" illegal. I find that dubious since he drove for 12 hours with that dog in a kennel on the roof, and apparently did it many times which puts into question the illegality of the action.  Either that, or not a single highway patrol or local police ever saw him driving with the dog on the roof, which I find all but impossible to believe.  And that not a single person even reported his action to a police authority for putting that poor dogs life in jepordy.  Furthermore, in 1983 there were no seat belt laws for anyone.  I find it ironic that the left is more upset about the dog riding on top of the car than that Romney's kids were riding in the back of the station wagon facing backwards not wearing seatbelts (which incidentally I did as a kid as well and it was the most comfortable seat in the car!)  Those kids were certainly not wearing seatbelts back there since there were no seats.  I doubt anyone in the car was wearing seatbelts with the possible exception of those in the front seats.  Please stop viewing historical events through the prism of today.  Arzel (talk) 14:33, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Romney's actions were definitely illegal in Massachusetts in 1983. You imply that because  Romney drove 12 hours with the dog on the roof, and police didn't stop him, that it must have been legal. In my home state, until the early 1980s, people routinely drove drunk without consequence even though drunk driving was illegal.  Likewise, domestic violence was illegal for a long time but rarely enforced. Being against the law, and being enforced are two totally different matters.
 * You should really temper your responses about something being definately illegal, since you do not know. Driving drunk is not noticable until you do something that would let others know.  Driving with a dog kennel on the roof of your car would be noticble at all times.  Your analogy is misplaced.  Arzel (talk) 19:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Massachusetts has a long history of strict animal cruelty laws. It has been illegal in Massachusetts since the 19th century to carries it [an animal] or causes it to be carried in or upon a vehicle, or otherwise, in an unnecessarily cruel or inhuman manner The present-day statute is similiar but has a little bit more comprehensive definition of cruelty: carries it or causes it to be carried in or upon a vehicle, or otherwise, in an unnecessarily cruel or inhuman manner or in a way and manner which might endanger the animal carried thereon. Debbie W. 12:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If that were the case here, or even the view at the time it is unlikely he would have been able to transport the dog in that manner as he did. I find it highly unlikely that this mode of transportation was viewed as either cruel or inhumane at the time.  By the wording of your source, it would matter little the location of the animal, only the manner in which they were transported in that location.  Arzel (talk) 19:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Neither of your sources fully back up your position. Arzel (talk) 19:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I know this goes back a while, but there are a few statements that should be corrected.


 * "Those kids were certainly not wearing seatbelts back there since there were no seats."


 * The car was a Chevy Caprice Wagon. It was sold with either 2 or 3 rows of seats (the 3rd row was rear-facing). It's quite unlikely that Romney owned the 2-row model. If Tagg was sitting back there for 13-15 hours without a seat to sit on, then Romney was committing not just dog abuse but also child abuse. It would also be exceptionally stupid for someone with a large family to buy the 2-row model when they could obviously afford the 3-row model.


 * Also, you shouldn't say "kids" since there was only one kid riding behind the second row of seats. The Globe article indicates that "Tagg Romney commandeered the way-back of the wagon." The other six occupants (mom, dad, and 4 kids ages 2-12) could easily fit in the first and second rows. The first row was a bench, not buckets.


 * Also, GM cars were equipped with seat belts for all passenger positions starting in 1971 or earlier. So if this car had the 3rd row seat, it had seat belts for (at least) 8 passengers. (Some GM wagons of the era had seat belts for 9, which meant an additional passenger position in the center of the 3rd row.)


 * "I doubt anyone in the car was wearing seatbelts with the possible exception of those in the front seats."


 * We don't know if the belts were worn, but we know that every passenger position was equipped with seat belts.


 * "I find that dubious since he drove for 12 hours with that dog in a kennel on the roof, and apparently did it many times … Either that, or not a single highway patrol or local police ever saw him driving with the dog on the roof, which I find all but impossible to believe. And that not a single person even reported his action to a police authority for putting that poor dogs life in jepordy. … it is unlikely he would have been able to transport the dog in that manner as he did … Driving with a dog kennel on the roof of your car would be noticble at all times"


 * An observer might be able to notice that there's a crate up there, but they wouldn't know what's inside. According to Romney it was "a completely airtight kennel." That means I can't see what it contains. If I saw you drive by with such a thing on your roof, I would assume that you're transporting an empty crate, or that the crate is being used as a container for inanimate objects, such as your luggage. It would not occur to me that you actually put an animal in there.


 * Also, even if I did know there was an animal inside, I would assume you're going a short distance, and therefore be less inclined to speak up and report you to the police. There would be no way for an observer to know that you're on a trip lasting 13-15 hours. Doing it for just a few minutes is also wrong, but not nearly as wrong as doing it all day long.


 * I wish someone would show another example of anyone, ever, transporting a dog this way. I've looked, and can't find any such example. I think that's because normal dog owners have enough sense to never do such a thing. And also have enough sense to know that they should never talk about it or brag about it, if they ever did it. This is true now and it was also true in 1983. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 09:04, 17 April 2012 (UTC)