3 ms·

> When I was a kid (not too long ago) I was riding without a booster seat well before age 8 and we'd occasionally ride with a friend's family in a station wagon

> When I was a kid (not too long ago) I was riding without a booster seat well before age 8 and we'd occasionally ride with a friend's family in a station wagon or SUV with the add-on cargo seats. It wasn't unusual to occasionally ride in a pickup bed on private roads, or pile 8-9 people in the old Caprice for short (< 1mi) trips. Safety was a relative term and left to the discretion and best judgment of the participants. This is a great example of literal survivorship bias

giantg2 4y ago
Yes, and so is the fact that we don't all ride rear facing, or that we have cars at all. The point is to draw a line somewhere that makes sense. The Overton window has been shifting an a rapidly increasing pace for child "safety" laws in the past two decades or so. If we make it an absolute about "Even one child", then we ignore promoting net benefit and can end up with detrimental effects, which is essentially the point of the article.
- SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
  I don't disagree there's some medium there, but I think we can both agree that despite the Overton window shifting we probably won't consider riding in the bed of a pickup acceptable child safety. As I understand it the rear facing childseats are only required until the age of two. If you can only fit one in the back of your truck, doesn't that mean that really you just need to stagger out your children if you want to have multiple?
  - giantg2 4y ago
    "we probably won't consider riding in the bed of a pickup acceptable child safety." On a private road (my example) at low speeds <15mph, it seems acceptable to me, especially with older kids (not talking about <7 or so). This is quite common in some areas and really shouldn't be a safety issue. "As I understand it the rear facing childseats are only required until the age of two. If you can only fit one in the back of your truck, doesn't that mean that really you just need to stagger out your children if you want to have multiple?" Which is covered in the article and goes over the inconvenience and how that leads to lower birth rates. For example, as those kids get older and are spaced out you have a logistical issue due to different age groups meaning different friend groups and different sports teams. If you're responding to my comment about everyone being rear facing in the prior comment, my point is that being rear facing is safer even for adults yet we don't enforce that in car design. Thus the laws are largely not based on safety but on society's views of what is safe enough. With fewer laws, those determinations are left up to the individual. With more laws, society is making that determination and imposing it via force (criminal laws), removing the person's discretion. I think this ignores edge cases, and leads to more people feeling ostracized, powerless over their own life, and oppressed by the masses.
    - SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
      > On a private road (my example) at low speeds <15mph, it seems acceptable to me, especially with older kids (not talking about <7 or so). This is quite common in some areas and really shouldn't be a safety issue. OK, so that's an anecdote entirely unrelated to the question at hand regarding child seats. > With fewer laws, those determinations are left up to the individual. With more laws, society is making that determination and imposing it via force (criminal laws), removing the person's discretion. I think this ignores edge cases, and leads to more people feeling ostracized, powerless over their own life, and oppressed by the masses. Well unfortunately for them they are responsible for another human being. It's not just their own self interest in question, and when the other party can't effectively advocate for itself it only makes sense to create minimum standards of care.
      - giantg2 4y ago
        It's not entirely unrelated as it's on the topic of child safety laws related to vehicles. It's proving a point - that the knee-jerk reaction of banning something that "must not be safe" can be an overreaction. Yes, they are responsible for aborher human. The question is who sets those minimum standards and what should they be. If the caregiver can't be trusted with simple everyday things like this, then can they be entrusted with this child at all?

giantg2 4y ago

Yes, and so is the fact that we don't all ride rear facing, or that we have cars at all. The point is to draw a line somewhere that makes sense. The Overton window has been shifting an a rapidly increasing pace for child "safety" laws in the past two decades or so. If we make it an absolute about "Even one child", then we ignore promoting net benefit and can end up with detrimental effects, which is essentially the point of the article.

SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
I don't disagree there's some medium there, but I think we can both agree that despite the Overton window shifting we probably won't consider riding in the bed of a pickup acceptable child safety. As I understand it the rear facing childseats are only required until the age of two. If you can only fit one in the back of your truck, doesn't that mean that really you just need to stagger out your children if you want to have multiple?
- giantg2 4y ago
  "we probably won't consider riding in the bed of a pickup acceptable child safety." On a private road (my example) at low speeds <15mph, it seems acceptable to me, especially with older kids (not talking about <7 or so). This is quite common in some areas and really shouldn't be a safety issue. "As I understand it the rear facing childseats are only required until the age of two. If you can only fit one in the back of your truck, doesn't that mean that really you just need to stagger out your children if you want to have multiple?" Which is covered in the article and goes over the inconvenience and how that leads to lower birth rates. For example, as those kids get older and are spaced out you have a logistical issue due to different age groups meaning different friend groups and different sports teams. If you're responding to my comment about everyone being rear facing in the prior comment, my point is that being rear facing is safer even for adults yet we don't enforce that in car design. Thus the laws are largely not based on safety but on society's views of what is safe enough. With fewer laws, those determinations are left up to the individual. With more laws, society is making that determination and imposing it via force (criminal laws), removing the person's discretion. I think this ignores edge cases, and leads to more people feeling ostracized, powerless over their own life, and oppressed by the masses.
  - SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
    > On a private road (my example) at low speeds <15mph, it seems acceptable to me, especially with older kids (not talking about <7 or so). This is quite common in some areas and really shouldn't be a safety issue. OK, so that's an anecdote entirely unrelated to the question at hand regarding child seats. > With fewer laws, those determinations are left up to the individual. With more laws, society is making that determination and imposing it via force (criminal laws), removing the person's discretion. I think this ignores edge cases, and leads to more people feeling ostracized, powerless over their own life, and oppressed by the masses. Well unfortunately for them they are responsible for another human being. It's not just their own self interest in question, and when the other party can't effectively advocate for itself it only makes sense to create minimum standards of care.
    - giantg2 4y ago
      It's not entirely unrelated as it's on the topic of child safety laws related to vehicles. It's proving a point - that the knee-jerk reaction of banning something that "must not be safe" can be an overreaction. Yes, they are responsible for aborher human. The question is who sets those minimum standards and what should they be. If the caregiver can't be trusted with simple everyday things like this, then can they be entrusted with this child at all?