According to the UK Government’s Highway Code, a seat belt harness, pet carrier, dog cage or dog guard are ways of restraining animals in cars1. These are the safest and most appropriate ways to restrain your dog in the car, and it’s important to choose the restraint-type that suits you and your dog the best1. If your pet isn’t restrained properly, you can face a fine of up to £5,0002. Your car insurance and pet insurance could also be invalid if you don’t obey the highway code2.
The law states that dogs must be suitably restrained in cars. I suppose there’s a possibility that a dog in a footwell, even if restrained, could be crushed if someone hit the passenger wing. However, you could argue that any dog or person could be injured if a vehicle hits the car at a certain point.
I used to carry my dog in a cage in the back of my car and I stopped doing that because I drive a Toyota iQ currently and a rear-end shunt in that could cause more harm to a dog than if it was sat in the front passenger seat and restrained using a seatbelt attachment. My Toyota iQ has nine airbags. I don’t think it’s possible to switch them all off, just the front passenger airbag. A mark 2 mx5 doesn’t have side airbags, as far as I am aware. Well, not the one I’m in the process of buying anyway.
Rule 57
“When in a vehicle make sure dogs or other animals are suitably restrained so they cannot distract you while you are driving or injure you, or themselves, if you stop quickly. A seat belt harness, pet carrier, dog cage or dog guard are ways of restraining animals in cars.”
Is the Highway Code actually law? No, taken alone the Highway Code is not the law . But many of its instructions are backed up by law and so have legal muscle behind them. Those points supported by the law are clearly identified in the document by wording like ‘MUST’, ‘MUST NOT’, rather than ‘should’ or 'should not"
So it’s all pretty vague.
“So it’s all pretty vague”
Indeed
What seems like many moons ago I did pass a post-grad course in ‘The English Legal System’ [bit of paper somewhere]
Because Legislators can’t foresee every eventuality they ‘generalize’ to give a hint of what they are thinking e.g. ‘seat belt harness, cage, carrier’ etc
Whether it’s Code or a Law
Whether it’s Must/Must Not or Should/Should Not
It boils down to the mind of the Legislators as I mentioned above ‘What is the Purpose Behind this Code/Law’
And strangely enough that involves a bit of ‘Common Sense’ [which is a forbidden word for many professionals whether they be Lawyers or Academics or Folk that work in e.g. Car Insurance because they tend to be an Argumentative Lot…It’s how they earn their pennies] AND why it’s
‘All Pretty Vague’ [deliberately so as legislators can’t predict all future scenarios so decided on a case by case basis for example]
So it is clear to me that Maya asked a genuine question of us and it is clear she cares about her MX-5 and dawg and is trying to do the right thing by both
Perhaps we should give her a break and let her enjoy her MX-5 and Staffy instead of arguing with her
Because It all becomes ONLY RELEVANT if she and dawg (s) have an Accident/Incident
This topic was automatically closed 30 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.