Travel with a Dog

For seat mountings where seats have belts attached, I think the rule is that it has to hold something like ten times the weight of the seat plus some 6.5kn. I may be misremembering, but a good rule of thumb is ten times the weight of the passenger and seat combined.
So a 10kg dog needs a mounting and straps that will restrain 100kg WITHOUT STRETCHING.
Whoever inventer elastic seatbelts for dogs must be as stupid as the person who invented insulated covers to stop gas bottles freezing!

For some official stuff, see https://assets.publishing.service.g...9/changes-to-seatbelt-installations-guide.pdf
 
nabsim said:
Who would try to restrain a dog by its collar in a vehicle. Try reading all the thread. As happens all too often here it looks like a blanket approach again. A lot of us have small (light) dogs and do not need to restrain 1500kg force. Jog on and don’t bother replying to me I can get trolled okay on Facebook thanks.
Click to expand...
I'm not saying your thread - read the advert you posted then you can make whatever comments you want....................................

  • Pets Black Car Seat Belt Lead
  • Keeps your pet secure while on the move
  • Easily clips onto your pets harness/collar
  • Adjustable length from 42-70 cm
  • 2.5 cm wide for chew resistance
  • High quality 2 mm thick nylon
  • Check suitable with your car dealer before fitting
 
The main reason that animals should be restrained is so that, in the event of an accident, they cannot escape into the road and cause problems to other traffic.
Reg wears a harness which is attached by a short lead to the back of my seat at the bottom. There he can lay on his bed and also reach his water bowl.
 
Caz said:
The main reason that animals should be restrained is so that, in the event of an accident, they cannot escape into the road and cause problems to other traffic.
Reg wears a harness which is attached by a short lead to the back of my seat at the bottom. There he can lay on his bed and also reach his water bowl.
Click to expand...

I think that whilst there are several reasons they should be restrained the main one is to prevent them becoming a projectile that is potentially lethal to their owner in the event of a collision.

 
All the people assert that "the main reason for..." on the basis of mere supposition.

I know why I would restrain a dog. It's for none of the reasons given.

I don't know why the law is as it is or what the reasons for it are. I do know what the wording of the law is, and what the wording of the law isn't.

If the "main reason" was for a specific reason as asserted, the law would have at least been drafted to ensure that this case was covered.
 
Our two sleep in the front between driver and passenger seats so projectile risk doesn’t apply unless van starts to somersault.
Our dogs are small and light anyway and I would be more concerned about unbelted passengers on our side facing seats.

Just to add I have had occasion to carry out a few emergency stops when vehicles have pulled out on me in the van. In all instances the dogs moved a few inches to touch the bulkhead. I am happy they are safe where they go in event of a shunt. They stay away from pedals and all controls so I am happy with that. I can connect their harnesses to seat base as well keeping them in the area between the seats.
If I had a Rottweiler sleeping on a seat behind me I would do differently
 
Last edited:
Not disagreeing, Nabsim (my approach is similar), but the point of a seat belt is not for emergency stops: it's for the vehicle hitting immovable objects at speed. The forces involved are orders of magnitude higher.
 
in h said:
Not disagreeing, Nabsim (my approach is similar), but the point of a seat belt is not for emergency stops: it's for the vehicle hitting immovable objects at speed. The forces involved are orders of magnitude higher.
Click to expand...
Yes, we were always told that coming to a sudden stop at 30mph and above resulted in death, may have been to do with the brain turning in the skull I can’t remember. This was in relation to coming off a bike and hitting a wall, lamppost etc not inside a vehicle.
Don’t know if that is fact or fiction but seen it proven a lot of times but also seen folks walk away after coming off at 100mph Plus and just sliding.
I don’t think I would like to be in my van if it hit a big concrete block head on at 30mph. Mine van is a 2007 build and I am fairly sure they wouldn’t have been crash tested back then. There are an awful lot of high level cupboards in my van plus fridge and microwave. Good job I believe in fate I guess 😂😂
 
You'd be surprised. I used to work at a garage before the era of seatbelts. Some crashed cars weren't all that badly damaged, but the occupants had been killed.
Fast forward to recent years and people emerge relatively unscathed from mangled wrecks.
Motorhomes have been crash-tested for decades now. They offer lot better protection then you'd think.
Of course progressive collapse makes the wreck look a real mess, but it absorbs the energy and protects the occupants.
Unless some moron fits a bull bar, that is!
 
I wasn’t doubting seatbelts, I was referring to everything in the motorhome tearing lose and coming forward. It’s amazing to see something stop dead which luckily is very rare
 
nabsim said:
It’s amazing to see something stop dead which luckily is very rare
Click to expand...
Yes, but that's what crumple zones, safety cages, airbag and seat belts are there for. The vast majority of vehicles are scrapped at end of life without these things being used, thank goodness.
 
Here’s an example of a motorhome crash test.


They certainly don’t seem to give great protection Link

Bailey did quite a bit of crash testing and adjusting accordingly when they first built motorhomes. Link

The first of several videos showing how things were improved by Bailey‘s crash tests.

 
Vehicles are designed to progressively collapse. In general, the worse the vehicle looks afterwards, the better passengers are protected.
Remember the total wreck that Princess Diana died in? The one occupant who had the sense to wear a seatbelt survived that crash.
Chances are the other two might have survived if they'd fastened their belt.
 
in h said:
Vehicles are designed to progressively collapse. In general, the worse the vehicle looks afterwards, the better passengers are protected.
Remember the total wreck that Princess Diana died in? The one occupant who had the sense to wear a seatbelt survived that crash.
Chances are the other two might have survived if they'd fastened their belt.
Click to expand...
Interesting in that you are promoting seatbelts for human occupants.
But not (or similar) for dogs ?
As Spock might say "Illogical Captain"
 
No, entirely logical. I'm saying that seatbelts are for protecting passengers in serious accidents.

Ones where the belt would not protect a dog. Ones which are extremely unlikely to happen.

My dog (and the dog I had before him) lived his entire life unbelted and was never in any sort of accident.

If we had had a serious crash, he would have been thrown against the dash. Probably not a good thing, but no worse than having his neck broken by a collar and harness.

It is a matter of making a judgement. The law is specifically vague about what is and what is not required, for good reason.

Seat belts are designed and tested so that they restrain humans without causing serious damage. Dog harnesses are not.
 
I bought a short seat belt on eBay and fitted it to the base of both passenger and drivers seat. When needed the seat belt can be connected through the dog's harness and the dog stay comfortably between the front seats so out of the footwell area for both driver and passenger.
The seat bases are metal and more than strong enough for the adult seat belt fixings so will be no problem for the dog's.
 
Prompted by the Highway Code advice I've just bought an RAC harness to seat belt connector which we'll plug into a rear passenger socket and extend with a strong lead.
It looks reasonably strong but it does have a swivel connector which is probably the weakest element.
Our dog is 40 kg and if we were to have a serious crash I doubt whether it would hold particularly if there was slack in system (almost inevitable as we went be restraining him firmly in one place)
However it should prevent him choosing to move into the cab or slide between the seats under heavy braking.
To be Frank my main reason for purchase is to be able to demonstrate to plod/flics that we've taken precautions.
 
in h said:
Vehicles are designed to progressively collapse. In general, the worse the vehicle looks afterwards, the better passengers are protected.
Remember the total wreck that Princess Diana died in? The one occupant who had the sense to wear a seatbelt survived that crash.
Chances are the other two might have survived if they'd fastened their belt.
Click to expand...
My recollection is that the most serious injuries suffered by that occupant (the security man) were the result of impact by one of the unrestrained rear-seat occupants, so a good chance that, if all four occupants had fastened their seat belts, all passengers might have survived with relatively minor injuries and that the driver also might have survived.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who viewed this discussion (Total:0)

Back
Top