This is old news recycled and basically a headline grabbing media stunt.
Maybe the recent pandemic-induced rise in dog ownership has led lazy journalists to resurrect this old chestnut on a slow news day?
Rule 57 of the Highway Code in both Great Britain and Northern Ireland (which has been in existence for a good long while) says:
“When in a vehicle, make sure that dogs and 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.”
However, breaking the Highway Code
isn't on its own an offence, but it can be used in court to show that you’re liable for what happened after an accident if you didn’t follow it.
It’s not against the law to drive with your pet unsecured, but if the animal distracts you or you have an accident then this could be an offence.
Driving with an unrestrained pet could contribute to something that is an offence, for example
"careless and inconsiderate driving". Police can issue a fixed penalty notice on the spot—which amounts to a fine of £100 and three points on the driver’s licence—in “low harm” cases. The driver has the option of refusing the fine and choosing to go to court instead. In more serious cases police can report the driver to be summonsed to court.
The Highway Code says this offence carries the possibility of an unlimited fine, possible disqualification from driving and between three and nine points on your licence.
If your case goes to court and you are sentenced then one of the factors that determines the extent of any fine, points and driving ban is how culpable you were in the offence.
Nothing new then
![Woman shrugging :woman_shrugging: 🤷♀️](https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f937-2640.png)