Hey, there! Log in / Register
At least the dog's not in a stroller
By adamg on Thu, 05/05/2011 - 9:54am
N. forwards this photo, which he took around 5:20 p.m. on Tuesday on the Red Line. "Good time and place for a dog walk," he writes.
Neighborhoods:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Not sure the point of this
What's the point of this photo? The person is sitting down and doesn't seem to be in anyone's way, although Neil's snotty little comment acts like it's a huge deal.
Dogs are allowed on the trains during peak hours at the discretion of train operators but not ever be blocking an exit. I so far see nothing wrong here.
What's wrong is that if it
What's wrong is that if it was taken at 5:20pm, it's a violation of the T's pet policy. Non-service animals aren't allowed on the trains during peak hour. http://www.mbta.com/riding_the_t/pets/
The T should be fining people for this stuff. I know the pet policy and I don't even have pets that go on the T!
But how can the T fine people underground
when the T cops are driving those fancy $20,000 motorcycles around? Put the motorcycles on the subway, I say.
It is not in violation. It
It is not in violation. It is at the discretion of t employees to say you can or can't have your dog or other small animal.
Did any T employees say he could or couldn't? Read what you cite.
According to the T pet
According to the T pet policy, T employees have discretion for allowing non-service dogs during the off-peak hours. The only mention of rush hours is that small domestic animals be in lap-sized carriers and not blocking the exits.
They mean what they say
A key principle in interpreting written rules is to assume that the rule writer meant what he or she said.
The policy says:
The policy writer could have chosen to say:
We must assume that the policy writer's failure to clarify the status of dogs during rush hour was intentional.
Please read what you cite
Could you point out the portion of the policy that prohibits non-service animals from the T during rush hour?
But the dog is not on the
But the dog is not on the train during peak hours...
Exactly!
Looks to me like the guy is sitting in an area that links to an underground corridor between Downtown Crossing and Park St. Not only that, but he's making no attempt to board the train with the dog.
Anyone who was out at that time last night knows that it was raining, well, cats and dogs. My guess is that he just used his T pass to get out of the rain (since he can't go into a cafe or most buildings with the dog).
Swirrly, That's the train
Swirrly,
That's the train platform.
You make a lot of assumptions about this guy.
I make one:
Most people on a subway platform are getting on or off a train.
and yet, here they are on a
and yet, here they are on a subway platform, not getting on or off a train that is right there in front of them.
Two trains on that line
Could have been waiting for the other line
Well-used cut through
Weather sucks? Work downtown? You can get all the way from Chauncy and Summer to Park St. by using either side of the red-line platform to get over to the tunnel to Park St. At rush hour, it works better this way, and many people do use that platform as a path to get UNDER the orange line and not have to deal with the platform there.
But thanks for not knowing the area, and spouting off anyway.
Now he's cutting thru?
First he was just getting out of the rain.
Now he's going down two levels thru one station, then thru a concourse and then to Park street?
Where it's still rush hour, but he's going to pop out and walk thru the Common now?
Give me a break.
There's your hair-brained convoluted reasoning and then there's the 99.99% chance he was waiting for train.
Your inclement weather shortcut works well for people catching the Green line.
And a dog at rush hour would be more inappropriate at Park St then it would be on the red line platform.
And it was warm and drizzly that afternoon, not a freezing downpour.
Your scenario is nonsense.
But feel free to keep sprouting off about it.
Back Up
The point is that a pet can be on a platform at any time. Riding the train at rush is up to the driver. I suppose you missed that, but, hey, seeing that you aren't able to figure out how to pick a screen name and password and log in ...
He might not even be planning to ride a train for all we know, too. It is also possible that a platform was a convenient place for getting out of the rain, given the weather that day. You don't get that, I understand, but mommy's basement is a pretty sheltered place I hear.
Blatant anon-ism
I have a dream.
I dream of the day when posts are judged on their content, not the log-in status of the poster.
Swirly, you were so imaginative while coming up with your precious screen name and convoluted scenarios beyond the obvious reason why someone is on a train platform.
And now you're reduced to harping about my choice (not inability) to create a UH acct.
And then the internet trump card - the mom's basement cliche.
In the short time I've read UH (which is one reason I don't feel a need to create an acct) I've found you to be one of the most frequent and argumentative posters in the forum.
But I'm the troll?
FYI, I haven't lived with my mother in decades. And it was decades ago that the mom's basement insult was either original or funny.
The concourse is one level UP
The concourse is one level UP Swirly. This guy had plenty of places to get out of the rain before he got to the train platform.
Way to mind meld with the guy, though.
If I wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt I'd say maybe he planned to be considerate and wait until rush hour was over to board one of the trains pulling into the station he was in.
But honestly, I haven't seen too many, if in fact ANY, considerate dog owners in my time.
very kind of you to accuse
very kind of you to accuse all dog owners of being assholes while hiding under the shroud of anonymity.
OK "tape"
Your identity is so clear.
On this forum, it is.
Only one poster named 'tape'. You can look at his post history and see where he's coming from. You can figure out how much credibility you feel his posts deserve(*).
In contrast, most anon posters usually get lumped into the vast mob of other anons - many if not most of whom are simply trash talking, cynical trolls with little if anything to contribute to a discussion among adults.
...
(*) yes, this would be easier if adam installed the reputation/ranking system for vbulletin - I suspect the demands on his time/sanity preclude this happening anytime soon. I'd volunteer to help him deploy/manage the addts but I'm not sure whether that would constitute an offer or a threat.
Not much credibilty
For defending people on a train platform and claiming they're not taking a train.
Who's kidding who?
Just defending a dog on the sustem at 5:15 is nonsense in my opinion.
BTW, I'm not anon b/c I'm bomb throwing.
I'm anon b/c I usually don't post here and don't feel like registering.
I followed this thread and don't see anything outrageous or trollish from any anon post.
Sorry, don't like dogs and haven't honestly found that many courteous owners.
Just my opinion.
Tape would rather ride a train with 75 pit bulls
than people. I'm all set with that kind of credibility.
I'd like to see one anon post in thus thread wackier than that.
Come on.
You're giving way too much credit to a login name
In my opinion.
In one post you (rightly) advocate hiding your browsing history.
But I get points off for being anon.
I personally never post anything I wouldn't say in public to someone's face.
Not that I want to argue with anyone, but if asked I'd say the same thing.
I've been a fan of UH for a while and I have to say I haven't seen discernibly more "adult" comments from logged in people over anons.
I've seen a few anon bombs thrown and Ive seen some regulars harp and argue some nonsense.
I like to judge each post on its content.
I personally don't need to track a poster's history to tell if the post itself has any value.
Private vs Public Anonymity
You used the word "hiding" in reference to browser history. There's a whole discussion to be had about why that word may or may not be culturally accurate. But this post will be long enough, so let me just reitterate my thoughts on the disadvatages of anonymity in a public forum.
That's just my point. You are using the word 'personally' when talking about your comments here - but your comments are not personal. You are not representing as an individual here - you are simply part of the legion-voice of "anon". An individual posting anonymously (like yourself) may be a totally trustworthy person, with intelligent things to contribute. But because you are posting anonymously, the credibility of what you say starts off as the composite of all the impressions all the anon posters have ever made - which is definitely below average. I don't even know if you're the same "anon" that made the previous post.
My point wasn't that the anonymous posters make fewer worthwhile posts than the group of registered users (although I think they do, somewhat). It's that there is no way of establishing any sort of expectation that an anon post will be truthful or interesting. As you imply, there are plenty of registered users who can be just as ranty or biased or illogical as the worst anons. But those users are pretty easy to identify, and I (and I suspect most people) can quickly learn to give whatever they write an appropriate amount of skepticism.
With anons, that grain of salt is always going to be king-sized - because you, the rational adult anon - are lumped in not only with the other reasonable anons (well, as reasonable as someone can be who spends hours reading the forum, but can't spare two minutes to register) - but also with the bomb-chucking axe-grinders, the trolls, the basement cynics, and the attention-whores. You're all sharing the same mouth.
Your points are well taken,
Your points are well taken, Jeff.
I guess we have different takes on it. I'm already quite biased for or against quite a few logged-in posters (yourself not included.)
When I see certain screen names I could practically write the post for them, why bother reading it?
(Kind of like a Howie Carr column with a headline, although honestly he's more amusing then many of the horse-floggers here.)
With the anon posts there's none of that baggage- just the post itself.
They can be more revelatory, I've found.
Thanks for your perspective, though.
i assume he's waiting for the ashmont train
that looks like the braintree train
The rule says on the T, not
The rule says on the T, not on trains. I take that to mean T trains, trolley, buses and yes, stations.
The rule does not prohibit dogs during rush hour
The rule does not prohibit dogs during rush hour. Go read it again.
That dog isn't bothering anyone.
Neil should get over himself.
"Snake in a stroller" or "Pets+Strollers+T= WIN"
I think Penelope the snake should be wheeled around in a stroller.
Bonus: If it is folded up, she will not mind, snakes like cramped spaces!
Take pictures!
In front of the T station personnel, naturally.
Cute photo
Aside from the ridiculousness of Neil's intentions, this is a cute interaction photo. Too bad it wasn't zoomed in on the couple and the dog.
Gotcha culcha
iPhone photos of someone apparently breaking a minor rule. This is "citizen journalism/policing"- par for the course these days. A liitle like some kind of dystopian sci-fi movie.
C'mon, people. Subways are not natural
Let's keep dogs where sun shines and rain falls, so we keep down the disinfection requirements, huh?
No one, canine or human, should be where they're liable to crap, pee, or otherwise spew substances that are public health issues. Normal humans can be assumed to be unlikely to do such spewing in public.
Jeez.
Dogs throw garbage on the third rail, too
They also pee in stairways when drunk.
I think
I have seen more human bodily fluids on the T than dogs. I would prefer a dog's poop, pee, & puke over a humans anyday...
Yes and we all know
that there are hundreds of "normal humans" doing all that spewing in North Station and Kenmore stations after any sporting event.
Some people are allergic to
Some people are allergic to or afraid of or otherwise just don't want to be near animals.
I know I don't during my commute and in general.
That's why the T has a sensible policy.
Most of those trains are packed to the gill at that hour. That dog on all fours would take up the floor space where two humans could stand.
What
If you're so allergic that you can't be on the same subway platform as an animal, then you can't go in stores, hospitals (most have pet therapy programs), parks, public sidewalks...
Actually, you can't go anywhere, because service animals are allowed everywhere, and they aren't magically hypoallergenic.
So since you'll be staying inside anyway, and making sure that your VNA provider and Meals on Wheels personnel haven't been in contact with a dog either, this dog doesn't concern you!
Slow your roll Eeka. I never
Slow your roll Eeka. I never said I was allergic to anything.
And the dog on the platform isn't the issue.
The issue is I don't want to be on a crowded train with a NON-SERVICE dog.
I actually don't want to be on a crowded train with with any dog but will happily change cars or move to accommodate someone with needs.
And I don't need a law or T policy to do so.
And let's face it, 99.99 % of people on train platforms get on trains pretty quickly. That's why my comments were concerning crowded trains and not more open platforms.
Some people are also afraid of bring close to dogs and would need even more space than someone allergic.
That gets harder at rush hour. That's why there's a policy.
But thanks for a glimpse into your imaginary world where all people with allergies are shutins.
Good Lord.
OK, so you don't want to be
OK, so you don't want to be on a crowded train with a dog. I don't want to be on a crowded train with people with poor hygiene, shouting middle-schoolers, proselytizing religious types, bald people, fat people, ugly people, people who are excessively short or excessively tall, or people with manifestly poor fashion sense. Unfortunately, the T is public, so you and I both need to put up with what's there.
We shouldn't have to put up
We shouldn't have to put up with non-service animals during rush hour.
We have to put up with the PEOPLE.
They pay their fare and have rights and freedoms.
The only rights and freedoms dogs have, as far as I'm concerned I'd the right to lick themselves and the freedom to eat their own vomit.
Dogs don't have rights
The question of whether or not to allow dogs, (or backpacks, or strollers) on the T has nothing to do with whether the dog or the backpack or the stroller has paid a fare or has any rights, it's all about balancing the interests of the person looking to bring aboard the dog, the backpack, or the stroller against the interests of the other passengers.
There's nothing inherent in the nature of a dog, a backpack, or a stroller that makes it obvious that it should either be allowed or banned; it's all about weighing interests and making reasonable accommodation.
Close but no cigar
There is, in fact, something quite inherent in dogs that does, in fact, lead to most of them being rightly banned at rush hour.
They're fucking dogs.
Get it?
Strollers carry litle humans.
Backpacks carry humans' belongings.
Seeing a pattern here?
No, as a matter of fact, I don't see the pattern.
A stroller is something that someone might want to bring aboard a train for his or her own convenience, comfort, enjoyment, etc, but doing so might inconvenience others.
A backpack is something that someone might want to bring aboard a train for his or her own convenience, comfort, enjoyment, etc, but doing so might inconvenience others.
A dog is something that someone might want to bring aboard a train for his or her own convenience, comfort, enjoyment, etc, but doing so might inconvenience others.
There's nothing inherent about any of them that argues one way or the other.... it's a question of how much convenience, comfort, enjoyment each creates for the person looking to bring it aboard the train versus how much inconvenience, discomfort, displeasure, etc. it creates for others.
Eeka, you've stood up for
Eeka, you've stood up for just about every underdog or underclass on this site.
You stand up for dogs over people who may be uncomfortable around them?
And joke about it?
I'm disappointed. I thought you, of all the posters here, would have some empathy.
So no problem with this dog, huh?
What if it were a pitbull or Rottweiller?
Two pit bulls held by a guy with prison tats?
What's your comfort level?
People's reactions to dogs differ.
You probably know the clinical term for it.
One man's cute collie is one old lady's or young child's snarling German Shepard.
Where is the tolerance and respect for that?
Consensus opinion has to have some sway.
I'm sure there are people who are absolutely terrified of hats. Much as I'm sympathetic to any pain they might suffer, I don't feel that we the public (or the T in particular) owes them any accommodation, and the notion of banning hats on their account would be a ridiculous, unreasonable imposition on the many for the benefit of a few extreme outliers. I may be harsh and dismissive here, but my position is that if hats terrify you, that's your pathology and your problem to deal with, not the hat wearer's, and it would be insane to ban hats from the T to accommodate you.
On the other hand, there are people who are terrified by the presence of an un-muzzled Bengal Tiger. I don't think such a fear is particularly unreasonable or uncommon, and I think it's entirely reasonable to ban tigers from the subway to accommodate those people.
So now question is whether fear of dogs is more like fear of hats or fear of Bengal tigers.
That's where "operator's discretion" comes in. If a passenger complains about the dog that's sleeping patiently at its handler's feet, you tell the passenger to suck it up. On the other hand, if a dog is giving people the evil eye, you eject it. Snarling, growling, baring teeth, and any other overt signs of aggression ought to be pretty obvious grounds for immediate ejection.
1. Hat's don't bite people 2.
1. Hat's don't bite people
2. I get the feeling the only discretion the operator uses is determining if the vehicle is in fact to crowded or not for a dog to ride with the paying customers.
They're not trained nor probably inclined to pass judgement on a dog's potential for viciousness.
Which is another good reason why dogs should be banned during rush hours.
Drivers have absolute discretion
The driver says, "I don't want that dog on this bus/train/trolley" and that's it.
Hats are scary
That's why I keep them out of sight -- on top of my head.
I have compassion
I don't lack compassion for people who are so allergic to dogs that they can't be in a large open space with a dog in it. That really must suck.
I don't, however, think it's the responsibility of dog owners to not ever have their dog in a public place because some hypothetical person might be scared or allergic. And for the record, I'm not particularly crazy about pets I don't know, but I recognize that it isn't unusual to encounter them in North America.
It's not just allergies
It's also phobias and general unease. People who have been bitten by dogs or are just frightened by them don't want to be near them.
That's why the issue is crowded trains where people may end up much closer than they'd ever want to be to a dog.
As has been stated repeatedly.
But keeping presenting it as an allergy sufferer that needs a square-mile dog-free zone.
It certainly makes you seem less hypocritical.
Yeah, I know about phobias
Since it's part of what I deal with in my work. The general public has no obligation to accommodate any phobia that a community member might have. The person who has the phobia can take responsibility in getting treatment and developing coping skills, none of which involve a huge advocacy campaign to ask the general public to refrain from creating any situation in which there might be dogs, loud noises, germs, spiders, heights, or crowded places.
More spin
No need for a huge advocacy campaign or for you to bring things that aren't regulated into the discussion.
There's a policy against dogs on the T at rush hour. For good reason.
Follow the rules and the person with dog issues can make do if he encounters a dog during off-peak hours.
"What if it were a pitbull or
"What if it were a pitbull or Rottweiler?"
I'm sick of people suggesting that a breed of dog is less acceptable than another, especially when they make it clear through their comments that they are woefully uneducated about dogs.
Pit bulls and Rottweilers are two of the friendliest dog breeds that exist. If you had ever met one, you would know that. The specific dogs and incidents that resulted in these breeds' "reputations" were either abused by their owners or trained for bad behavior by their sociopathic owners (and personally, I consider that training to be abuse).
Do you go around suggesting that all Puerto Ricans or Vietnamese people are somehow substandard as humans? Because your ignorant statements are largely analogous to racism, but with a different species.
Personally, I'd rather be on a train car with 74 pit bulls and Rottweilers than 74 humans. The dogs would be much nicer.
I'd pay good money to see that train
And you'd be regretting that ride if the train got stuck and those dogs weren't fed.
You may be right about pits but here's the reality:
Asshole tough guys DO want to own them and raise them. So dangerous pits ARE out there.
I've been chased by one and had to jump into a pickup truck bed to get away.
That was years ago. If it happened now I wouldn't be able to outrun him.
I had another one snap at me and rip my long sleeve.
Again, if I wasn't quick and aware I'd have been bitten. And perhaps locked down on.
You tell me, expert.
So, no, I don't want to be close to dogs on my commute.
THANKS MIKI
.
I was thinking the same thing
;~}
I took the photo. I actually
I took the photo.
I actually thought the dog was cute. That's what caught my eye. And no, neither he nor his owner weren't harming a soul on the platform, me included.
'm a UH fan and I really only took the pic with the intention sending it to Adam. I was onl
I sent it to him under the heading "For The No Boundaries on the T Annals."
To me it was just a quirkly little shot that fell into the Penelope snake/stroller/backpack threads.
I sent it to UHub, not the police. It wasn't vigilante iPhone photo justice.
I didn't think it was a big deal at all, and didn't think my comment was all that snotty( or however else it was negatively perceived.)
Finally the dog was cute and well-behaved and harmless on the platform but I do think the owner was a little inconsiderate for taking him on the RedLine at rush hour, (which I'm almost positive he was.)
And I wouldn't have been happy Fido was next to me on a packed train after a hard day's work.
But I'm not going to argue about it on UH.
Have a nice day.