AAA's survey shows that dog passengers are safety risk

[k9mania]

The study conducted by AAA showed that 80% of the respondents admitted to taking their dog with them in the car. Only 17% of those drivers had the dog in some form of safety restraint. The article in the Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/motoring/the-best-cars-for-driving-with-a-dog-2060427.html)( a blog from the UK) provides more details on the study and a list of the vehicles that AAA highlight as the safest for you and your canine companion.

[Labman]

We have always kept the dog on the floor of the car in the passenger's foot well. It is a relatively safe place with nowhere for the dog to go but into the firewall. Now that we once again have a second dog, I have getting him a restraining harness on my list. We do allow Sampson to ride on the back seat when we take both dogs somewhere. A harness to secure him would allow us to do so safely.

The AAA seems to be oblivious to the problems the proliferation of large, gas guzzling SUVs has caused. That you must have one to safely transport dogs is a gross error. Many of the people that have them still have their dogs loose in it.

[Momto3]

We have always kept the dog on the floor of the car in the passenger's foot well. It is a relatively safe place with nowhere for the dog to go but into the firewall. Now that we once again have a second dog, I have getting him a restraining harness on my list. We do allow Sampson to ride on the back seat when we take both dogs somewhere. A harness to secure him would allow us to do so safely.

The AAA seems to be oblivious to the problems the proliferation of large, gas guzzling SUVs has caused. That you must have one to safely transport dogs is a gross error. Many of the people that have them still have their dogs loose in it.

I beg to differ on the safety of a pooch in the foot well. ANYTHING loose in the vehicle is a potential death missile and that includes those cute little things people insist on hooking to the rearview mirror or the little things sitting in the back window or even that 10 lb sack of taters you just bought at the grocery. Or my 250 pound Mother in the passenger seat with no seat belt cause she refuses to wear one or maybe that case of soup you just bought cause there was a really good price. Maybe that 50 lb sack of dog food. And I do have one of those "gas guzzling" SUVs specifically for transporting my dogs....and mulch and grandkids and groceries and lumber...etc. The few times I take a trip my dogs are all crated which makes my gas guzzler SUV the perfect option. When I take just one to the vet, pooch is restrained with a seatbelt or a crate.

BTW - my "gas guzzler" SUV gets better mileage than my daughter's smaller, sportier car which she uses to cart around her Great Dane without a crate or a seatbelt. Something else to think about when you trash peoples' choices in vehicles is how many miles they put on their vehicles and the driving style. Daughter and I bought our respective vehicles the same time - I just turned 43k on mine where she's got near 150k on hers. I drive sanely while she whips in and out of traffic as if she's on her own professional obstacle course. She scares the living Hades outta me!

Where safety comes in is that with a "gas guzzling SUV" I have the option of keeping the back seats erect providing a cushion between me and the pooches in the "hatch" or I can buy a net separating them from me, there are tie-downs in the back for their crates too. Besides just by it's size an SUV is far safer than my daughter's sporty little darling car in the way it's built.


Sorry - I just get tired of people trashing people with SUVs. I'm probably using waaaaaay less gas than even you since I'm unemployed.

[k9mania]

To the "gas guzzling SUV" issue. I have no problem with people having them if they are ALWAYS having more than one person in them and they don't use that specific car for their errands etc. I totally think that people that get 4x4 just to look cool and never get near winter conditions or off road are really wasting gas and resources. Having said that, if you have ever driven in Los Angeles a good portion of people are driving large SUV without anyone in them. I think a higher gas tax would cure that. I don't want it but the research shows that now that gas is down SUV and truck sales are up. I have a small SUV and it gets 24 freeway. The hybrids get 30. We all need to be more responsible with our resources.

[Labman]

I beg to differ on the safety of a pooch in the foot well. ANYTHING loose in the vehicle is a potential death missile

This it true, I am safer with a sack of taters in the trunk.



Where safety comes in is that with a "gas guzzling SUV" I have the option of keeping the back seats erect providing a cushion between me and the pooches in the "hatch" .

I hope nobody is under the impression that in a accident, the dog or anything else unsecured in the back of an SUV won't come sailing over the seat back.

[Momto3]

This it true, I am safer with a sack of taters in the trunk.



I hope nobody is under the impression that in a accident, the dog or anything else unsecured in the back of an SUV won't come sailing over the seat back.

I use crates love but my seat backs are pretty high so the chance of them floating over the back seats is slim to none.

[Furbilator]

Here we go again...SUV bashing. Well, coming from a country that gets several feet of snow for what feels like 90% of the year, drives over hill and dale to exercise my fair beasty, and had suffered for 16 years with the less than reliable (road conditions) compact Firefly car which got 40 - 50 mpg, all I can say is bash away. SUVs were developed because there was a need, and yes also a want, to transport kids, furkids, cargo and haul or tow in all conditions. I got tired of being stuck in my own driveway, down a city street or in my work parking lot begging for rides from those people who owned SUVs so I traded up. Just because we drive them to work and to all other day to day activities doesn't mean there isn't a real need for the power and reliability of an SUV or other such vehicles. Not everyone can own several types of vehicles depending upon their needs at the moment. I have one vehicle, it is a 6 cylinder SUV that gets average gas mileage and if hybrid SUVs were in any way reasonably priced I would have got one of them. I could buy an awful lot of gas for that extra 20 grand that a hybrid would have cost me. So for those of you who say we need to be better on our environment I say to you, sell your car, walk or ride a bike before you get pissy on my choice of ride, you don't know what my needs are.

More to the original point; if I'm in an accident and am killed by my 'projectile' dog then who gives a darn, not me because I'll be enjoying heaven with my fur-beasty. But chances are I'll survive that accident because my SUV is a tough SOB and would take out that prissy Prius or compact tin can like it is a bump in the road. LOL

[Momto3]

More to the original point; if I'm in an accident and am killed by my 'projectile' dog then who gives a darn, not me because I'll be enjoying heaven with my fur-beasty. But chances are I'll survive that accident because my SUV is a tough SOB and would take out that prissy Prius or compact tin can like it is a bump in the road. LOL

Thanks! Nuttin wrong with SUV's as well as Snart Cars, Different strokes and all.

[Momto3]

To the "gas guzzling SUV" issue. I have no problem with people having them if they are ALWAYS having more than one person in them and they don't use that specific car for their errands etc. I totally think that people that get 4x4 just to look cool and never get near winter conditions or off road are really wasting gas and resources. Having said that, if you have ever driven in Los Angeles a good portion of people are driving large SUV without anyone in them. I think a higher gas tax would cure that. I don't want it but the research shows that now that gas is down SUV and truck sales are up. I have a small SUV and it gets 24 freeway. The hybrids get 30. We all need to be more responsible with our resources.


Sorry love I didn't buy mine to look cool. I do use it for errands and to transport dogs (I am into rescue you know). It doesn't matter how many dogs I have in there on any given day...what matters is my vehicle is available for rescue things and such. SUV's are not the devil's initiative at all.

[k9mania]

I did not say they were evil. If there is a true purpose hauling etc. it is fine. It is the people who just want to look cool who create this discussion. I am only one person but I use it to haul all the dogs and for my business.

[grizzle]

It all comes down to how much your willing to pay for your safety and the safety of your passengers. Death tolls are through the roof because of these little tin cans that get GREAT gas millage. I would rather be alive than save a few bucks. The one's to bash are the manufacturer for not making these large vehicals more fuel efficient. They can and should with no fault to the avg. person for driving them. Cool or not they save lives

[Labman]

Actually small cars have a good safety record. If you really wanted to save lives, you would make the unneeded trucks unaffordable by making them bear their full costs to society.

[Furbilator]

Actually small cars have a good safety record. If you really wanted to save lives, you would make the unneeded trucks unaffordable by making them bear their full costs to society.

Honestly, what are you smoking Labman? There are so many of these hateful people like you who drive around all superior because they are driving a vehicle that gets maybe 5mpg more than mine but do all the things and so many more that makes them MORE environmentatlly unfriendly. What is the real cost on society is people who think there is only one way....their way. Consider that there are people with diverse needs that perhaps you have never considered outside your safe little bubble.

You must live in a large city that doesn't have any contact with agricultural community or less than perfect road conditions because you would understand that in an agricultural community and with harsh weather these trucks and SUVs DO have a purpose. Why are you so heLL bent on making farmers, business people or the many others who need larger more powerful vehicles be penalized further beyond the cost of purchasing (which is understandably more than a little car) and operating their vehicles? Let me see you deliver bales of hay to the middle of a field to feed your cattle in a Smart car. Should I show you a picture of the one and only Smart car in my community in winter? Last year I saw it twice being towed out or pushed out of a very small snow drift.

My old FireFly wasn't much bigger than a Smart car and I know that I didn't feel at all safe on the highways or even on the city streets. When a semi-truck would pass my car the car would rock and in some weather conditions I was hard pressed to keep it on the road it was so light. I know that if I had ever been in an accident with the thing, I was done for. You try being a lone woman on a highway in the middle of winter, heck, even in summer and not feeling safe in your car or you will end up in the ditch because you hit a snow drift. Yes, great gas mileage but I'll trade that for a vehicle that will get me through the many road conditions that arrise daily.

I'm sure there are many people who drive big vehicles not really needing them, however there are just as many, if not more people who drive their cars to the corner store instead of walking, who go through the drive through and idle their car for that one cup of overpriced coffee and who do a lot of stupid other and possibly worse environmentally and socially irresponsible things. Go after them, cite social costs to them, and perhaps look in the mirror and ask yourself "am I doing it right all the time too?". Going after a particular group of people because they chose to own a vehicle that they quite possibly need is just plain ignorant, by all definitions of the word.

Sorry, but coming from an agricultural community I see the implications that attitudes like this have to our already struggling farmers and small business owners. There is no need to further penalize them and whittle away the ever smaller profits under the guise of being 'environmentally friendly'. There are other ways of being socially responsible and environmentally friendly.

[k9mania]

Back to the original point:D I just spoke to a vet who was hit in her van by a car going 120 miles an hour. The dogs were in their seat belts but the impact through one of their collars all the way to the front. If the had not been secured, no matter what the size of the vehicle, she and the dogs would have been killed or seriously injured.

[grizzle]

You got it furbs...and your right k9. We all need to make sure our pets are secure when in our rides just like our kids and ourselves.

Be happy to take you on head to head labman. I drive a dodge 3500 superduty 4x4..:eek:

[ann_hawes]

I can't see where mpg would affect the safety of an unsecured dog in a moving vehicle.

[grizzle]

MPG...NO..size of vehicle...YES..They kind of go hand in hand..:D

[k9mania]

We have two different debates going on here. I agree with both Labman and Furbilator. Dependent on the situation, they both make good points. Many small cars do have good safety records, as do large vehicles. The point is that no matter what vehicle without your dog restrained in some way, they are not truly as safe as can be. During an accident, they will be thrown somewhere.

[Brent]

I drive a Jeep. It's good on gas, is 4 wheel drive and I still look cool.:D

[hcromley]

Im trying to picture me , kyle both kids and Stoli in a smart car or small good milage car...haha that would b interesting. I love my SUV and in the midwest weather you need it or i owuld never get out of my driveway. On the other note my dogs are always secure in the vehicle just like my kids