Should Pets Be Required to Wear a Seat Belt?

by SodaHead Living Posted 2012/06/11 19:39:13

Related Topics: Pets, Seat, belt, Car, Pet, Dogs, jail, Animals, Cars, American, Driving, News, Dog, New Jersey

747 votes
Read all 654 opinions
Lightning Report View Results and Demographics + View Demographics

Loading Demographics... Click an icon to see demographic results Display unknown and private
	Yes	278 votes	37%
	No	469 votes	63%

Hmm ... we've never really thought about this one before. Should owners have to buckle up their pets in the car, or face a hefty fine? In New Jersey, penalties for driving with an unrestrained pet range from $250 to $1,000 and as much as six months in jail, NorthJersey.com reports.

"That’s for each offense," Col. Frank Rizzo, police superintendent for the New Jersey Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, told reporters. "So, if you have more than one animal loose in your car, just do the math…"

The New Jersey statute defines unrestrained pets in cars as animal cruelty. Some pet owners use small cages, but most buy seats and harnesses that attach directly to existing seat belts, NorthJersey.com reports. However, a 2010 survey conducted by the American Automobile Association showed that 20 percent of those polled allow their dogs to sit on their laps while they drive. And nearly one-third of the respondents admitted that unrestrained pets are distracting.

“Some people tell us they like to let their pets hang their heads out the window to take in the fresh air," Rizzo said, "but dogs and cats become projectiles in a crash." Do you think people should be forced to buckle up their pets?

+33

Add a comment above

glass_butterfly ~YSU~ 2012/06/11 21:28:33 (edited)

Yes

+19
I tie my dog up in the passenger seat or the back seat cause she'll try and jump in my lap (this is no purse dog, this is a 65-70lbs adult black lab, who still thinks she's a puppy) She could obstruct my view! Very dangerous. And for the safety of the dog too, if in a car accident I'd hate to think of my poor girl to fly out the window and getting hurt worst!
>> See Replies

More polls by SodaHead Living

Grandpa to Michelle 2012/06/13 13:15:39

Even with a helmet you can be in a wheel chair or a vegatable who can't feed them self >> It is and always should be the drivers choice not some clown in goverment >> What ever happen to FREEDOM OF CHOICE >. Next they may want to be who you can marry ,or when to can go the the bathroom >>>

reply
Michelle to Grandpa 2012/06/13 19:03:49

I'm just pointing out that it's stupid not to. Motorcycles are dangerous as it is. If you don't think the government should protect idiots from themselves... well, I'm all for more recipients of Darwin awards.

But, seriously? I abhor people who decide to protest laws because of "freedom of choice". Are you running around complaining about the fact you need to have fire alarms in your house? Are you protesting that it's against the law to jaywalk? These laws are there for the same reason. It's just that motorcyclists not wearing helmets are in more danger of dying than jaywalkers or people without fire alarms.

(And, for the record, many states DO get on you for who you can marry. There's much more unjust laws people should be protesting, not ones that could save your life and you'd have to be stupid to disobey anyways.)

reply
Grandpa to Michelle 2012/06/13 20:58:08

Freedom of choice is one freedom I will not give up >> Just like voteing for some fool to pass these laws to control the pepole but they are excempt

reply
Michelle to Grandpa 2012/06/13 23:58:09

Maybe you would convince me if you actually tried to rebuke my arguments instead of repeatedly saying "Freedom of choice!" That does not prove that you have a valid point. People are much too paranoid about laws "restricting" them. "The government won't let me endanger my life recklessly and stupidly by making it a law to wear safety equipment when driving a vehicle which has the highest fatality in crashes" is just a ridiculous complaint.

reply
TKramar to Michelle 2012/06/16 18:39:49

I don't have fire alarms in this house.

reply
El Prez 2012/06/12 18:36:41

No

+3
Except when dogs are in the back of a pickup. They need a harness, inside a car most can cope and another law with fines is not needed.

reply
Jo to El Prez 2012/06/12 19:55:10

I dont know why you say that---its no different that what would happen to a person inside of a car without a seat belt.

reply
El Prez to Jo 2012/06/12 22:21:07

+1
I don't mean you shouldn't buckle them in, it just shouldn't be a law. Do whatever you feel is the best safty for your pet. I know a cat who loves to ride, holds on to the top of the seat Or even the drivers shoulder and would go nuts in a harness. She seems to be able to hold on under all circumstances. Also physicas in in their favor, lighter, less mass, less likely to be hurt. They also have that great reaction to gravity and get their feet under them fast. It's all up to the owner. Don't want it don't do it, if you do then do what you think is right. No laws are needed.

reply
Grandpa to Jo 2012/06/13 13:21:00

FREEDOM of choice >> Just like you would not want the goverment telling you when or where you can sleep with a person of your choice >>> We don't need a NANNY tell us how to live OUR LIVES

reply
Jo to Grandpa 2012/06/13 15:30:12

you do know dont you that when you psychos get on this "dont tell me what to do!" crap that you sound like bratty, petulant children?

reply
Grandpa to Jo 2012/06/13 20:59:58

As do you with the crap you are posting >>.If you need someone to tell you what to do just goes to show you women aren't smarter after all

reply
Jo to Grandpa 2012/06/13 22:24:12

LOL! I dont need somebody to tell me what do, I'm just smart enough to know that just because there are laws doesnt mean I'm being "told what to do"---again with the petulant, bratty child thing, which if you werent one? It wouldnt bother you so much, sweetheart.

reply
EB 2012/06/12 18:33:18

No

No, but a loving owner should buckle up their pets.

reply
katchan 2012/06/12 18:26:45

Yes

+1
Absolutely. In an accident a pet that's loose in a vehicle is going to be thrown - just the way you or your child would. If people claim to love their pets "like family", they should treat them like family and do their best to make them safe. Use a pet safety harness designed for vehicular travel, or keep the pet in a secured, appropriately-sized crate/carrier.

reply
Michelle to katchan 2012/06/12 20:43:00

Pets shouldn't be treated like people because the pet doesn't understand the world like a person. They don't see it as being protected for their own safety. They see it as being harnessed and want a way out. To the animal, the cruelty is being tied up, not the danger it could be in if it's not. As much as my animal is a member of my family, I, at least, acknowledge that if does not process the world in the same way as humans.

reply
katchan to Michelle 2012/06/13 21:51:11

When you take a pet into your life you take responsibility for that pet's safety and life. A pet who is properly trained will not panic at restraint. It's only those who are given free rein and not trained that are upset by restraint. They don't understand it, but they accept it if they're well-trained and properly socialised.

reply
daveygater 2012/06/12 18:22:43

No

+2
such laws would be HUGE over-regulation !!

reply
Kronan_1 to daveygater 2012/06/12 18:40:57 (edited)

should never have allowed these liberals to mandate child saftey seats. After that then it's seatbelt for everyone. Seatbelts are only a small part of the total control the government wants to have on us. Small victories disguised as measure to keep us safe and slowly they creep into your bedroom and tell you how many kids you are allowed or which sex the child to be born can be. Far fetched I know but, think about it.

reply
angie45 2012/06/12 18:16:51

No

+2
no..only up to the owners, if they want to or not

reply
Jo to angie45 2012/06/12 19:56:08

+1
yeah, it should also be up to the owners whether or not to safely restrain thier child.

reply
Michelle to Jo 2012/06/12 20:43:35

A child is not the same thing as a pet. People do not own their children. :S

reply
Jo to Michelle 2012/06/12 20:44:34

lol! the question of ownership has no bearing on the situation:)

reply
Michelle to Jo 2012/06/12 20:54:56

That was just picking on your wording because it bothered me. You said the OWNER should chose whether or not to safely restrain their CHILD.

reply
Jo to Michelle 2012/06/12 21:38:02 (edited)

I was using sarcasm in response to someone else's response.

reply
TKramar to Jo 2012/06/14 10:35:18

indeed, it should.

reply
John T. 2012/06/12 17:59:43

Yes

+2
They do make pet restraints designed for the comfort of your pet. A loose pet is a distraction and can become easily injured in only minor traffic situations. Some pets ride very nicely without destruction, but when you have to brake suddenly ware will your pet end up and in what condition?

reply
democoach to John T. 2012/06/12 18:22:19

+1
your going on the assumption that every one is bad at training their dogs to lay in cars properly like you!

reply
John T. to democoach 2012/06/17 13:11:24

Look at it this way, Would you let your child clime all over the car while you are driving without any protection in case of sudden stops? If so, the police will take you to jail for child endangerment. If you love your pet, you will want to protect it like it was your child.

reply
democoach to John T. 2012/06/17 21:04:17

true! but I DON"T NEED THE DAMN GOVERNMENT TO FORCE ME TO DO IT!

reply
John T. to democoach 2012/06/25 03:36:29

If you are a responsible person the government is not telling you to do anything that you are not already doing. They are telling that other ideate to do what is safe and the right thing to do.

reply
Kristopher Atkinson 2012/06/12 17:57:16

No

+2
If you come to a sudden stop with your pet restrained the chance of injury only increases

reply
Jo to Kristop... 2012/06/12 19:57:04

thats no more true than with people.

reply
Michelle to Jo 2012/06/12 20:46:27

Except a person understands what might happen if they are thrown around in a car. A pet does not; they understand that are restrained and hurt. If they are injured by their restraint at a sudden stop because they are not human, they will try to struggle and escape their restraint, causing more injury.

reply
Jo to Michelle 2012/06/12 20:49:31 (edited)

do you think for one second that those factors are not taken into consideration when the pet harnesses are made? its the same as car seats--they're tested for safety, and 1) they dont cause physical pain to the animal, and 2) the potential for injury upon an collision while wearing them is no greater than what it is for humans in a seat belt. Besides, just like with humans, being injured while in a restraint is a hell of alot better than being thrown thorugh a windshield.

reply
Michelle to Jo 2012/06/12 20:57:42

So I have to buy a special pet harness for my dog to travel through New Jersey? *eyeroll*. The fact that has bearing is that the dog does not understand why it's being restrained, and will therefore struggle.

And, really, how many cases are there of people being killed by animals thrown through windshields. The safest place for dogs, in that case, is lying down in the backseat, not being restrained in a sitting position.

reply
☂cinderella.dress.in.yellow☂ 2012/06/12 17:46:57

Yes

if it's like a puppy yes but like a full grown dog

reply
Jo to ☂cinder... 2012/06/12 19:57:40

why the distiction? No matter the size of the animal, the same thing happens in an accident.

reply
☂cinder... to Jo 2012/06/12 20:27:46

+1
yea your right

reply
ancientmath 2012/06/12 17:45:56

No

+2
I am NEVER going to visit the country of New Jersey.

reply
daveygater to ancient... 2012/06/12 18:24:06

Here, Here!!

reply