3 ms·
The result still seems compelling to me. If I can reduce the risk of my child being killed in a car accident by 28% (even if the raw numbers are small) I'm goin
by zrail 10y ago
The result still seems compelling to me. If I can reduce the risk of my child being killed in a car accident by 28% (even if the raw numbers are small) I'm going to do it.
I don't want to change the goal posts here, but death isn't the only thing these booster seats protect against. A properly used booster seat reduces the relative risk of non-fatal injury by more than half[1]. That is also extremely compelling to me.
[1]: http://jama.jamanetwork.com/mobile/article.aspx?articleid=196677 http://jama.jamanetwork.com/mobile/article.aspx?articleid=19...
- mhuffman 10y agoI agree. I am not convinced not to use a child seat for children I care about (also it is the law). However, the parent commenter used that single study (that seems to have an ax to grind with Levitt) as proof against Levitt's claim. And it does not appear so cut-and-dry to me.