I'm somewhat sympathetic to this view. My parents moved between states a week after I was born and for the entire 12 hour trip my mom held me in her lap in the

I'm somewhat sympathetic to this view. My parents moved between states a week after I was born and for the entire 12 hour trip my mom held me in her lap in the front seat. When we made short trips in-town, we as kids would get to sit in the "way back" of a hatchback without seatbelts (or even seats) as a treat. Neither of these were optimal safety choices. We were definitely at a higher risk of death or injury. If everyone did this society wide, the number of child fatalities in traffic accidents *would* be higher. Yes, people who relate such anecdotes and then say, "...and we survived" are literally demonstrating survivorship bias. Times change and I don't think I'd make these same safety trade-offs with my kids. I'm also not sure taking these kind of risk/reward trade-off decisions out of the hands of parents is a net positive either. It's hard to talk about whether the current status quo is reasonable because for many of us, that status quo predates us and "wait, you're saying you are FOR more kids dying in car wrecks" is a pretty natural reaction. For that reason, I think it's easier to consider the reasonableness of an incremental, hypothetical change to the current status quo. Imagine a study comes out tomorrow that shows that children in wrecks have a 3% higher fatality rate in cars manufactured before 2015, so a law is passed saying that as of 2024 driving a pre-2015 car with children in it will be a ticketable offense. Is there anything that would give you pause about this scenario, is it an unalloyed good thing, or is it another "I mean, I GUESS it's for the best, it's complicated tbh" situation?