Help me out here. I want to bring you in to this conversation. But you’re going to need to give us some context or something. What abused dogs?
As a little kid, I’d often fall asleep in the car and be left there because it was easier. As an older kid, I’d sit in the car while my Mum was off doing whatever. As a teenager, I was parked in the shade, but the sun moves and you don’t notice that while you’re sleeping. Some serious traffic jams have lasted more than half an hour. Have you seriously never sat in a car for half an hour?
Don’t most commuters sit in the car for longer than that? Cars these days usually have aircon, but back until the early nineties (in the UK - probably earlier in warmer parts of the US) that was a luxury.
And again: note that the article said that rolling the window down made little difference, so ‘a closed-up car’ or rolling the window down is irrelevant.
I mean, I don’t think shutting dogs in the car for half an hour is a good idea in many ways, but that study just doesn’t make any sense.
No, it says that having the windows “cracked” open 1.5 inches made little difference.
Well, the article seems authoritative. It matches my own experience, which does not match yours. It matches the news articles I see about infants dying when left in cars on hot and on not-very-hot days. It matches what animal control officers have told me.
Your claim is the one that does not match.
Maybe the fallibility of human memory?
Are you a dog? As was mentioned early on in this thread, the only body temperature regulation a dog has is panting, they do not have their entire surface area with which to sweat like an adult human does. (babies do not regulate their body temperature very well and are prone to overheating the same as dogs.)
No one in a traffic jam or a parked car will keep all the windows rolled up on a sunny day when the interior of the car starts to heat up. As was pointed out already, the article specified cracking a few windows, not rolling them all the way down.
True - and that’s still different to an entirely closed car. It’s also siginificant because leaving the window wide open would be unsafe in a lot of cases.
Nah, this is a very large number of personal experiences; it’s not just one or two occasions.
I’m a bit lost here. I guess my personal experience must be vastly different to yours if you’ve never sat in an unmoving car for half an hour.
Again: the study wasn’t about the way dogs or humans of any age react to the heat. It was just about the heat of the car.
Lots of people sitting in a traffic jam or parked car when the temperature is 22 degrees will keep the windows rolled up, if it’s raining.
You should start a poll in IMHO asking how many times people have ever sat in an unmoving car with the windows rolled up in direct sun on a warm day for more than 30 minutes.
I’m not familiar with the weather patterns in England. Do you typically get a lot of direct sunlight in the rain?
Again, it’s not your very large number of personal experiences against mine, it’s your “personal experiences” against a peer-reviewed medical paper, among other things.
That’s not what I meant and you know it.
Are you talking about a windshield? Cause you can usually put your fist through a side window. Unless newer cars have stronger side windows.
These charts and studies should include lower temperatures as well. It is good to know a car can get deadly on a warm, sunny day, but it would be useful to know what happens at lower temperatures as well. Where is a safe range? Failing to include this data can result in blanket statements like one can NEVER safely a dog in a car, which simply aren’t true.
Yeah, right. After the hostile way people have reacted to my posts in this thread? I don’t think so.
And again, they said it didn’t matter if the windows were cracked open, so I don’t know why you keep talking about having the windows rolled up.
I’m surprised that sitting in a car for 30 minutes would make you feel so unwell, but humans vary of course. If I had regular access to a car I’d be happy to carry out the experiment you suggested (with no snark intended at all, I’m sure), but
I don’t have regular access to a car.
Yes, it happens sometimes. Rain doesn’t always mean that the entire sky is cloudy. It can also be sunny for five minutes then overclouded and horrible for two minutes then sunny again, etc. And in, say, Florida at certain times of the year, it’s common to have an extremely high ambient temperature and pouring rain at the same time. It doesn’t even look cloudy. And the study didn’t mention direct sunlight, btw.
I don’t know what you meant, then.
It’s my experiences against a peer-reviewed medical paper, agreed, hence me saying ‘there must be something else going on here.’ A variable that occurred in the study but doesn’t always occur in real life, the types of car used, how and where they measured the temperature, lots of things. I’m not saying that the study is crap, just questioning it; it’s not like the Straight Dope to accept a conclusion unquestioningly.
Well, OK. If you’re so entrenched in your position that you are now seriously trying to say that a brief sun break in the middle of a rainstorm is equivalent to direct sunshine on a windshield for 30 minutes, I don’t really feel like we can have a serious discussion. But since you don’t even have a car, and I don’t have a dog, this is pretty much academic anyway.
That’s not what I said. And the study didn’t say anything about direct sunlight.
But yes, I’m more than happy to discontinue this discussion. It is frustrating to talk about something with someone who repeatedly misreads you and misreads the study we’re supposed to be talking about.
That is indeed frustrating.