A number of readers have asked what I would do differently from Center for Pet Safety's crash test. That is a fair question to ask given my critical evaluation of their methods.

This is the second part of the follow up to our travel crate white paper. We examine the response of Center for Pet Safety and Subaru of America.

The Testers

Center for Pet Safety (CPS)

Neither CPS nor any of its associates returned our messages. CPS operates a very prolific marketing campaign directed at print, radio and tv outlets to ‘advocate’ with their test results. Yet, they are completely silent when legitimate questions arise concerning their ‘research’ methods. It is highly unusual for real scientist researchers not to respond to criticism, either by issuing corrections or defending their results.

In mid November, ismypetsafe.com published a three part series on the subject of pet travel crates (also available as a single PDF white paper). A few days after publication, I reached out to all those mentioned for their comments on the report as well as any thoughts they might have on the Center for Pet Safety (CPS) crash tests.

This is part two of a three part study that makes an extensive investigatoin of the safety of pet travel crates and 'crash testing'. Here I examine the limited crash testing results available and come away with some very serious concerns. The entire study will be available as a single white paper after part three is published. Revised 2015-11-05 to include 2 additional photos of d-rings and anchors.

Crash Test Reports

Much of the previous analysis is based on product literature and visual appearance. Augmenting that with actual crash testing data would give me more confidence in my final determination.

Both the ProLine and the MIM Variocage have undergone some type of crash testing by a third party at the request of the manufacturer. I utilized the manufacturer and testing company websites to better understand the methodologies used and the test results.