4 ms·

Someone crashing into your car is not something one can easily mitigate the risk of. But had they driven with a baby into a remote area, like a desert, without

Someone crashing into your car is not something one can easily mitigate the risk of. But had they driven with a baby into a remote area, like a desert, without cell service, and they all died in some "freak incident", that would also be negligent in my book. I'm not suggesting they did anything illegal. And if anyone wants to take their children into remote areas without a backup plan, that's their choice, I just think it's bad parenting. No baby needs to go on remote hikes when there are much less risky hikes to be had. The parents were doing this for themselves. It was risky and selfish behavior.

robbrown451 5y ago
"Someone crashing into your car is not something one can easily mitigate the risk of." You can absolutely mitigate it by deciding how much time you spend on the freeway. I don't think sharing a love of the outdoors with your kid is selfish at all. It's also keeping the parents in shape, which the kid typically benefits from. The fact that a freak occurrence happened makes it easy to judge, but this situation is not at all typical of families that do similar things with their kids (even babies).
- staunch 5y ago
  Yes, of course... and you probably shouldn't drive at 2 am on a Friday night with children in the car, unless it's not easily avoided. But you can only do so much. Everything is a calculated risk. And there are plenty of ways to take children into the outdoors without taking the risk these parents did. There are thousands of miles of hiking trails in California alone that are not as remote and don't lack cell service as this location. That's my entire point.
  - robbrown451 5y ago
    I think if you look at it as "everything is a calculated risk," you'd find that the only way you'd rationally consider this any riskier that various other things they could have chosen for their weekend activity (such as a road trip) was through the 20-20 hindsight that is conveniently available to you. Since we don't even know how what caused their deaths, it's quite premature to blame the parents for doing something risky.

robbrown451 5y ago

"Someone crashing into your car is not something one can easily mitigate the risk of." You can absolutely mitigate it by deciding how much time you spend on the freeway. I don't think sharing a love of the outdoors with your kid is selfish at all. It's also keeping the parents in shape, which the kid typically benefits from. The fact that a freak occurrence happened makes it easy to judge, but this situation is not at all typical of families that do similar things with their kids (even babies).

staunch 5y ago
Yes, of course... and you probably shouldn't drive at 2 am on a Friday night with children in the car, unless it's not easily avoided. But you can only do so much. Everything is a calculated risk. And there are plenty of ways to take children into the outdoors without taking the risk these parents did. There are thousands of miles of hiking trails in California alone that are not as remote and don't lack cell service as this location. That's my entire point.
- robbrown451 5y ago
  I think if you look at it as "everything is a calculated risk," you'd find that the only way you'd rationally consider this any riskier that various other things they could have chosen for their weekend activity (such as a road trip) was through the 20-20 hindsight that is conveniently available to you. Since we don't even know how what caused their deaths, it's quite premature to blame the parents for doing something risky.