5 ms·

Since 1998, the number of children who died of heatstroke in vehicles has been around 30 to 50 a year [1]. Before that, the number was a bit lower (10 or less)

by u801e 9y ago

Since 1998, the number of children who died of heatstroke in vehicles has been around 30 to 50 a year [1]. Before that, the number was a bit lower (10 or less) [1]. Around that time, the NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) mandate on new vehicles having passenger side airbags as standard equipment came into effect. To address the issue of children dying due to airbag deployments (which were designed to protect an unbelted 50th percentile size male in a frontal crash), the NHTSA recommended that children in car seats be placed in the rear seats in the vehicle. Due to the fact that it's much easier to not notice a child in a rear facing car seat in the rear of the car, as opposed to one in the front passenger seat, the number of children who died of heat stroke each year increased from 10 per year to 40 per year. [1] https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/media/images/76289000/gif/_76289574_airbags_heatstroke_deaths_624.gif https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/media/images/76289000/gif/...

rrdharan 9y ago
How many children were dying as a result of the airbag deployments before the recommendation I wonder?
- u801e 9y ago
  Before the recommendation, the chart I linked in my previous post shows about 60 children died in 1995. More than 30 died each year in 1996 and 1997. Edit: Updated my answer to answer the question asked instead of citing information about when the airbag mandate came into effect.
- veidr 9y ago
  EDIT: Oops, I didn't initially notice that the chart in the grandparent post actually lists both airbag and heat fatalities... --- Good question. As of 1996, it was only 21 total, according to the NY Times[1], but more than half of those were killed in the first 9 months of that year. In 1999, Car and Driver magazine reported a total of 99 child fatalities. So, low "first-few-google-hits" data quality aside, that seems to show a rapidly rising trend[2]. Next, I got to this horrifying article about a University of Georgia study concluding that the government statistics on airbags are wildly wrong and airbags are actually killing us all[3]. (I gave up my research at this point and will sleep better if the next HN reader that comes along with a little time on their hands debunks that as publicity-seeking bad science that's now been discredited...) [1] http://www.nytimes.com/1996/09/18/us/more-children-are-killed-by-air-bags-and-parents-are-blamed.html http://www.nytimes.com/1996/09/18/us/more-children-are-kille... [2] http://www.caranddriver.com/columns/airbags-kill-more-kids-than-school-shootings http://www.caranddriver.com/columns/airbags-kill-more-kids-t... [3] https://phys.org/news/2005-06-airbags-probability-death-accidents.html https://phys.org/news/2005-06-airbags-probability-death-acci...
  - veidr 9y ago
    An update from my coffee break: Here's an IIHS/HLDI refutation of the study by Mary Meyer and Tremika Finney of the University of Georgia, that I mentioned above: http://www.iihs.org/iihs/sr/statusreport/article/41/2/2 http://www.iihs.org/iihs/sr/statusreport/article/41/2/2
  - u801e 9y ago
    > Next, I got to this horrifying article about a University of Georgia study concluding that the government statistics on airbags are wildly wrong and airbags are actually killing us all The hyperbole isn't really necessary. Before "depowered" airbags were allowed by the NHTSA, the standard described in FMVSS (Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard) 208 stated that airbags must be able to protect an unbelted 50th percentile sized male in a frontal crash. This required that the airbag deploy at lower collision speeds and with more force than would be necessary with a belted occupant of smaller stature. This lead to injuries and deaths due to airbag deployments in low speed collisions as mentioned in the study. My guess is that the study period was at a time when depowered airbags weren't as common as they are today.
nashashmi 9y ago
Looks like we will need an invention to prevent heat stroke deaths from children getting stuck in cars.
dheera 9y ago
We have keyless entry, lane departure warning, cruise control, and even autopilot. Can't we have a stupidly simple system that if a human is detected in the car and the temperature is over 37 degrees C: - 0. Call the car owner's phone or alert them through any communication app they use - 1. After 5 minutes, call the police Ether or both would save lives. It doesn't seem like a very difficult technical task to me.
- StephenConnell 9y ago
  I am not sure detecting humans is the right solution... But -2. Open the windows -3. A/C...
- lend000 9y ago
  I wouldn't trivialize the reliable detection of people, especially small children. I think we are just now getting at the point where that technology could be reliable, and from an automaker's perspective, it could be a similar level of investment as autopilot, and a much smaller benefit (more people would be saved by reliable autopilot, and it's also much more desirable to consumers). Even if they had such a technology, the automaker would certainly be afraid of the legal consequences of their system failing a real scenario, opening itself up for liability lawsuits and bureaucratic investigations.
  - cm2187 9y ago
    wouldn't a motion detector be enough? It doesn't really matter if it's a kid or a dog.
    - gliese1337 9y ago
      No, it wouldn't. Not if the child is asleep. Some kids wiggle in their sleep in a carseat, but there are plenty who sleep like a sack of flour.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > I wouldn't trivialize the reliable detection of people, especially small children. A fairly simple weight sensor as used for passenger seat belt alarms would seem likely to work (it's a little more complicated because you need to zero it for the weight of the child seat.) You'll get false positives if you carry goods on that seat, but if you have an installed child seat you are unlikely to do that. The notification aspect is probably harder to get right than the sensor. Though an internally audible alarm and warning light for a short period when turning off the car with a detected child would probably itself be a big help to prevent the initial problem rather than reacting to it the way “call the owner and then the police” mechanisms do, plus be far simpler to implement.

by u801e 9y ago

rrdharan 9y ago

How many children were dying as a result of the airbag deployments before the recommendation I wonder?

u801e 9y ago
Before the recommendation, the chart I linked in my previous post shows about 60 children died in 1995. More than 30 died each year in 1996 and 1997. Edit: Updated my answer to answer the question asked instead of citing information about when the airbag mandate came into effect.
veidr 9y ago
EDIT: Oops, I didn't initially notice that the chart in the grandparent post actually lists both airbag and heat fatalities... --- Good question. As of 1996, it was only 21 total, according to the NY Times[1], but more than half of those were killed in the first 9 months of that year. In 1999, Car and Driver magazine reported a total of 99 child fatalities. So, low "first-few-google-hits" data quality aside, that seems to show a rapidly rising trend[2]. Next, I got to this horrifying article about a University of Georgia study concluding that the government statistics on airbags are wildly wrong and airbags are actually killing us all[3]. (I gave up my research at this point and will sleep better if the next HN reader that comes along with a little time on their hands debunks that as publicity-seeking bad science that's now been discredited...) [1] http://www.nytimes.com/1996/09/18/us/more-children-are-killed-by-air-bags-and-parents-are-blamed.html http://www.nytimes.com/1996/09/18/us/more-children-are-kille... [2] http://www.caranddriver.com/columns/airbags-kill-more-kids-than-school-shootings http://www.caranddriver.com/columns/airbags-kill-more-kids-t... [3] https://phys.org/news/2005-06-airbags-probability-death-accidents.html https://phys.org/news/2005-06-airbags-probability-death-acci...
- veidr 9y ago
  An update from my coffee break: Here's an IIHS/HLDI refutation of the study by Mary Meyer and Tremika Finney of the University of Georgia, that I mentioned above: http://www.iihs.org/iihs/sr/statusreport/article/41/2/2 http://www.iihs.org/iihs/sr/statusreport/article/41/2/2
- u801e 9y ago
  > Next, I got to this horrifying article about a University of Georgia study concluding that the government statistics on airbags are wildly wrong and airbags are actually killing us all The hyperbole isn't really necessary. Before "depowered" airbags were allowed by the NHTSA, the standard described in FMVSS (Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard) 208 stated that airbags must be able to protect an unbelted 50th percentile sized male in a frontal crash. This required that the airbag deploy at lower collision speeds and with more force than would be necessary with a belted occupant of smaller stature. This lead to injuries and deaths due to airbag deployments in low speed collisions as mentioned in the study. My guess is that the study period was at a time when depowered airbags weren't as common as they are today.

nashashmi 9y ago

Looks like we will need an invention to prevent heat stroke deaths from children getting stuck in cars.

dheera 9y ago

We have keyless entry, lane departure warning, cruise control, and even autopilot. Can't we have a stupidly simple system that if a human is detected in the car and the temperature is over 37 degrees C: - 0. Call the car owner's phone or alert them through any communication app they use - 1. After 5 minutes, call the police Ether or both would save lives. It doesn't seem like a very difficult technical task to me.

StephenConnell 9y ago
I am not sure detecting humans is the right solution... But -2. Open the windows -3. A/C...
lend000 9y ago
I wouldn't trivialize the reliable detection of people, especially small children. I think we are just now getting at the point where that technology could be reliable, and from an automaker's perspective, it could be a similar level of investment as autopilot, and a much smaller benefit (more people would be saved by reliable autopilot, and it's also much more desirable to consumers). Even if they had such a technology, the automaker would certainly be afraid of the legal consequences of their system failing a real scenario, opening itself up for liability lawsuits and bureaucratic investigations.
- cm2187 9y ago
  wouldn't a motion detector be enough? It doesn't really matter if it's a kid or a dog.
  - gliese1337 9y ago
    No, it wouldn't. Not if the child is asleep. Some kids wiggle in their sleep in a carseat, but there are plenty who sleep like a sack of flour.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > I wouldn't trivialize the reliable detection of people, especially small children. A fairly simple weight sensor as used for passenger seat belt alarms would seem likely to work (it's a little more complicated because you need to zero it for the weight of the child seat.) You'll get false positives if you carry goods on that seat, but if you have an installed child seat you are unlikely to do that. The notification aspect is probably harder to get right than the sensor. Though an internally audible alarm and warning light for a short period when turning off the car with a detected child would probably itself be a big help to prevent the initial problem rather than reacting to it the way “call the owner and then the police” mechanisms do, plus be far simpler to implement.