Do seatbelts really make dogs safer?
Doggie seat belts may not always be life savers.
A test of four brands of harnesses by the recently formed Center for Pet Safety found none afforded much protection, NBC News reports.
Restraints for traveling dogs in cars have become increasingly popular, and lawmakers in New Jersey are considering a bill mandating them.
But in simulated accidents, the four brands tested didn’t perform well.
“It was just astounding what we saw,” said Lindsey Wolko, who founded the non-profit Center for Pet Safety in 2011 after getting into a car accident while traveling with her dog. The harness failed and her dog Maggie suffered spinal injuries.
The tests applied the same federal motor vehicle safety standards for testing child seats. Using a 55 pound stuffed test dog, Wolko and her team simulated a 30-mile-per-hour collision. You can find video of all four tests here.
In one case the harness allowed too much slack, and the dog crashed into the back of the front seat. In two others, the harnesses snapped, sending the dogs flying through the air. And in a fourth, the harness slid up to the dog’s neck on impact.
“I don’t think that there’s any doubt that those dogs would have been seriously injured, if not fatally injured,” Wolko said.
The manufacturers are not being identified by the center. “Our primary concern is NOT to attack individual manufacturers for selling well-intentioned products. If we share brands at this early stage in our work, we shift the focus away from what is truly needed: measurable, safe standards that manufacturers can follow for the benefit of consumers,” the center says on its website.
Unlike with human restraints, those made for dogs are not tested or regulated by the government and there are no existing safety standards in place.
The American Pet Products Association, in response to Wolko’s findings, released a statement saying, “.. there are an increasing number of reported accidents where a pet distracting the driver is being cited as the cause. A pet restraint that merely limits a pets access and distraction to the driver and limits its motion in the event of an accident is still an improvement over no restraint.”
Posted by jwoestendiek October 17th, 2012 under Muttsblog, videos.
Tags: animals, assembly, cars, center for pet safety, dog, dogs, harnesses, law, legislature, lindsey wolko, mandatory, new jersey, pets, research, restraints, safety, seat belts, seatbelts, study, travel
Comments
Comment from Michelle
Time October 17, 2012 at 9:16 am
I have been in contact with the Center for Pet Safety since before they made their press release. There are a few important points you should know regarding the tests of the four harnesses… 1) only four brands were tested so this doesn’t cover even half of the brands out there; 2) The testing completed by this institution stated that the brands tested could have since been redesigned. I know for a fact that Kurgo Tru-Fit has since redesigned theirs. 3) Pet Buckle has confirmed that theirs is not one of the ones used in this study. They have completed tests of their own, including crash testing.
The way I see it, something is better than nothing. I believe that if a dog was hurt in an accident while wearing a harness, they would have been hurt worse if they hadn’t been wearing one at all.
My advice, before making a judgment on all dog seat belts based on a sample of only four, ask the manufacturer you are considering purchasing your dog seat belt from for their testing information.
Comment from KateH
Time October 18, 2012 at 1:36 pm
I watched all 4 tests, and I’m really concerned about how far away from the ‘back’ seat the ‘front’ seat back is positioned. The space is huge. It doesn’t seem at all like any car other than a limousine. The farther a body in motion travels, the more forceful an impact can be. I think that in almost all real cars, unless the dog is positioned in the gap between the front seats, the dog would be hitting the back of the front seat with less ‘travel time’ than shown in these tests.
It is quite likely that these restraints still wouldn’t prevent injury in a crash, but I have serious doubts that, in real cars, the injuries would be as bad as these tests claim to show.
Comment from Lauren
Time March 31, 2013 at 3:57 am
I use a doggy seatbelt in my car not to protect my dog, but to protect myself and my passengers. Human seatbelts restrain us to a seat and keep our bodies in a neutral position to prevent twisting injuries. At this time there’s no way to comfortably restrain a dog so that his body can’t twist in the harness during a bad crash.
Also, I choose to give my lanky mutt enough slack to stand up, which also gives him enough room to strike the roof of a car or the back of the seats with his head. If he’s in the wrong position during an accident, the harness itself could jerk him in such a way as to cause injury (though probably not worse injury than he would receive from crashing into something else).
In a low speed crash the harness might save my dog, but I frankly I got it to keep him from becoming a 50lb projectile that could severely injure me and my passengers. Most people have no idea how physically violent a serious car crash is and so overestimate what this product can do. They also under estimate how much damage their dog’s hard skull could do to theirs and don’t consider the importance of restraining a dog for their own safety.
Comment from selkie
Time October 17, 2012 at 7:45 am
wow. love the response of the harness manufacturers. “umm, yeah, our harnesses don’t save their pets, but hey, they stop them from jumping on you”.