5 ms·

"Only 57 children survived an accident that would otherwise have died (in one year), clearly we should scrap laws that demand carseats for children" This idea

by lcrz 6y ago

"Only 57 children survived an accident that would otherwise have died (in one year), clearly we should scrap laws that demand carseats for children" This idea that something that is (at most) a mild inconvenience (make sure the children in your car are well-protected) equates to "safety at any cost" is plainly ridiculous. The same reasoning is at the foundation for why the US now has +200000 people dead from the COVID-19 virus. "In the United States, 675 children 12 years old and younger died as occupants in motor vehicle crashes, 4 and nearly 116,000 were injured in 2017. Of the children 12 years old and younger who died in a crash in 2017 (for which restraint use was known), 35% were not buckled up." https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/child_passenger_safety/cps-factsheet.html https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/child_passenger_safet... So about 440 children died while buckled up. Suddenly 57 doesn't seem like such a bad number.

kalleboo 6y ago
> This idea that something that is (at most) a mild inconvenience The argument in the paper is that it's not just a mild inconvenience, but rather a complete showstopper for many couples, that they can't afford a larger car so they simply stop having children. The argument also isn't between car seats and letting your baby crawl around the floor, it's about the upper age limit for kids that also have some degree of protection from regular seatbelts. AAP recommendations are that kids should be in a five-point restraint car seat until age 8. Nobody does this. Should it be legislated?
- bbarn 6y ago
  Wouldn't a five point harness be safer for everyone, adults included?
  - curlypaul924 6y ago
    Not necessarily. I use a five point harness when I'm racing. With a helmet and a foam neck brace, I have walked away from getting T-boned in the driver door. But that extra equipment impedes visibility that I might need e.g. when parking. I've driven a fully caged car from coast to coast (US), but from what I understand I took a risk. The harness and cage and restraint are all designed to with together. The human body stretches in a collision, so there is risk of head injury compared to a street car. I trust the equipment in the race car with my life, but there is a reason I don't drive one to work every day.
- lultimouomo 6y ago
  > The argument in the paper is that it's not just a mild inconvenience, but rather a complete showstopper for many couples, that they can't afford a larger car so they simply stop having children. If they cannot afford a larger car now, they most probably cannot afford the cost of raising a third child in the coming years, so that they are dissuaded immediately instead of being into deep financial trouble down the road is a pretty good outcome!
sokoloff 6y ago
I wouldn’t be surprised if it turns out that COVID shutdowns and reduction in miles driven have saved 100 children and 400 or more adults from car crash related deaths in 2020. Perhaps we should extend the lockdowns indefinitely; think of the children!
542354234235 6y ago
> This idea that something that is (at most) a mild inconvenience We don’t mandate 5 point harnesses in cars. We don’t mandate helmets in cars. Both of those are milder and would save more lives than having to buy bulky and expensive car seats and carry them with you so they can be used in any car you get in. The world is a never ending risk benefit calculation. We constantly make tradeoffs. > The same reasoning is at the foundation for why the US now has +200000 people dead from the COVID-19 virus. No it is not. Taking something that is orders of magnitude larger to try and justify your point is not exactly compelling.
- bluGill 6y ago
  In fact the US bans 5 point harnesses in cars (or did last I checked), the idea being they think people would drive less safe if they knew that level of protection, combined with they are harder to put on so less people would use them. I don't believe the arguments, but they exist.

by lcrz 6y ago

kalleboo 6y ago

> This idea that something that is (at most) a mild inconvenience The argument in the paper is that it's not just a mild inconvenience, but rather a complete showstopper for many couples, that they can't afford a larger car so they simply stop having children. The argument also isn't between car seats and letting your baby crawl around the floor, it's about the upper age limit for kids that also have some degree of protection from regular seatbelts. AAP recommendations are that kids should be in a five-point restraint car seat until age 8. Nobody does this. Should it be legislated?

bbarn 6y ago
Wouldn't a five point harness be safer for everyone, adults included?
- curlypaul924 6y ago
  Not necessarily. I use a five point harness when I'm racing. With a helmet and a foam neck brace, I have walked away from getting T-boned in the driver door. But that extra equipment impedes visibility that I might need e.g. when parking. I've driven a fully caged car from coast to coast (US), but from what I understand I took a risk. The harness and cage and restraint are all designed to with together. The human body stretches in a collision, so there is risk of head injury compared to a street car. I trust the equipment in the race car with my life, but there is a reason I don't drive one to work every day.
lultimouomo 6y ago
> The argument in the paper is that it's not just a mild inconvenience, but rather a complete showstopper for many couples, that they can't afford a larger car so they simply stop having children. If they cannot afford a larger car now, they most probably cannot afford the cost of raising a third child in the coming years, so that they are dissuaded immediately instead of being into deep financial trouble down the road is a pretty good outcome!

sokoloff 6y ago

I wouldn’t be surprised if it turns out that COVID shutdowns and reduction in miles driven have saved 100 children and 400 or more adults from car crash related deaths in 2020. Perhaps we should extend the lockdowns indefinitely; think of the children!

542354234235 6y ago

> This idea that something that is (at most) a mild inconvenience We don’t mandate 5 point harnesses in cars. We don’t mandate helmets in cars. Both of those are milder and would save more lives than having to buy bulky and expensive car seats and carry them with you so they can be used in any car you get in. The world is a never ending risk benefit calculation. We constantly make tradeoffs. > The same reasoning is at the foundation for why the US now has +200000 people dead from the COVID-19 virus. No it is not. Taking something that is orders of magnitude larger to try and justify your point is not exactly compelling.

bluGill 6y ago
In fact the US bans 5 point harnesses in cars (or did last I checked), the idea being they think people would drive less safe if they knew that level of protection, combined with they are harder to put on so less people would use them. I don't believe the arguments, but they exist.