4 ms·

> Generations of kids survived without their parents needing to know their location at all times. And cars used to be safe even without seatbelts! It turns ou

by wepple 2y ago

> Generations of kids survived without their parents needing to know their location at all times. And cars used to be safe even without seatbelts! It turns out times change. Before you think I’m disagreeing with the entirety of your comment, my own kids are the most free-range in-the-dirt kids I know. But it’s location-dependent. I trust cities and their people far less than wild animals.

NullPrefix 2y ago
>And cars used to be safe even without seatbelts! Me and a lot of people wear them purely out of fear of being robbed by the state
- forgotusername6 2y ago
  I met a guy who didn't wear his seatbelt. He was a delivery driver and in a collision at 20mph. His head went through the windscreen and it scalped him from the eyes up. He had a scar all the way across from ear to ear. He couldn't shut his eyes for months. He wears his seatbelt now.
  - NullPrefix 2y ago
    So? Obesity is a way worse toll on the human body than a scarred face, but we don't issue fines for people who enter McD's Other people have their own bodies and they do not belong to you
    - daedrdev 2y ago
      I would rather we don't have to spend precious emergency responder time on preventable injuries and deaths that occur at much higher rates by people not wearing seatbelts. If we can require you wear glasses to drive, we can require you wear a seatbelt as well. When someone dies in an accident because they didn't wear a seatbelt, there is another driver who now has to live with the fact that they killed someone.
      - NullPrefix 2y ago
        Your answer does not refute anything that I said. Because judging from your reasoning, we should ban McDonald's and other bad food, so that people would not get heart attacks and die, so that we wouldn't waste the precious time of first responders, when they could rather attend to other people who actually want to live - those who don't eat poison
    - tzs 2y ago
      If I'm in McDonald's and a fat person enters that does not increase my chances of gaining weight. If I'm driving and a driver not wearing a seatbelt enters the road it does increase my chances of being in an accident because if something happens that makes them have to swerve sharply, such as a large animal leaping into the road in front of them, a seatbelt increases the chances they will be able to remain in control during that maneuver.
      - NullPrefix 2y ago
        According to the CDC in the US every year 800k people suffer from a heart attack. It could happen while driving. While it does not increase your chance of gaining weight, it increases your chance of getting in a car accident, because that other person might be driving while having a heart attack
    - Peanuts99 2y ago
      One of the primary aims of seatbelts are to stop you becoming a projectile and protect other occupants of your car and people outside it. It's not just a personal choice.
      - NullPrefix 2y ago
        I drive alone
swatcoder 2y ago
The purpose of cars is to get people from place to place. That purpose isn't hampered by wearing a seatbelt. There's not even a compromise involved. It's all upside. The purpose of childhood is produce future adults. That purpose isn't fully served when kids get too far removed from choices, risks, and consequences. Yes, we also need to make sure they stay alive, but survival can't be the only metric parents optimize for or they'll just produce confused old kids trying to live adult lives. (`Big`, but for real and without a magical fix in act 3.)
- locococo 2y ago
  What are you smoking? No choice is removed from anyone. Survival is the primary objective, what do you think it is? Limiting electronic device usage?
daymanstep 2y ago
> I trust cities and their people far less than wild animals. Is this based on statistical reasoning? Would you really rather leave your kid with say, a wild boar, than with a person randomly chosen out of a city's population?
- Loughla 2y ago
  I think you missed the point a little or are being overly pedantic. I trust the wildlife where I live, because I know the dangerous stuff isn't here.
hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
> And cars used to be safe even without seatbelts! No, they weren't, which is why this is a poor analogy. We discovered that seatbelts could save an enormous number of lives with minimal impact on individuals, so we mandated them. With child safety it's difficult to get comparable numbers (overall crime spiked in the 90s, so it's difficult to say whether kids were less safe because they had less tracking or just that overall crime was higher then), a big reason experts give for the reduction in crime affecting kids is they're simply inside a whole lot more. They'd be even safer if we just put them in a plastic bubble I guess.
- wepple 2y ago
  > No, they weren't Yea they were. The model T was plenty safe simply because it wasn’t fast enough to be a significant danger. The point is, claiming that “we used to do X and it was fine” is a weak argument. Times change.

by wepple 2y ago

NullPrefix 2y ago

>And cars used to be safe even without seatbelts! Me and a lot of people wear them purely out of fear of being robbed by the state

forgotusername6 2y ago
I met a guy who didn't wear his seatbelt. He was a delivery driver and in a collision at 20mph. His head went through the windscreen and it scalped him from the eyes up. He had a scar all the way across from ear to ear. He couldn't shut his eyes for months. He wears his seatbelt now.
- NullPrefix 2y ago
  So? Obesity is a way worse toll on the human body than a scarred face, but we don't issue fines for people who enter McD's Other people have their own bodies and they do not belong to you
  - daedrdev 2y ago
    I would rather we don't have to spend precious emergency responder time on preventable injuries and deaths that occur at much higher rates by people not wearing seatbelts. If we can require you wear glasses to drive, we can require you wear a seatbelt as well. When someone dies in an accident because they didn't wear a seatbelt, there is another driver who now has to live with the fact that they killed someone.
    - NullPrefix 2y ago
      Your answer does not refute anything that I said. Because judging from your reasoning, we should ban McDonald's and other bad food, so that people would not get heart attacks and die, so that we wouldn't waste the precious time of first responders, when they could rather attend to other people who actually want to live - those who don't eat poison
  - tzs 2y ago
    If I'm in McDonald's and a fat person enters that does not increase my chances of gaining weight. If I'm driving and a driver not wearing a seatbelt enters the road it does increase my chances of being in an accident because if something happens that makes them have to swerve sharply, such as a large animal leaping into the road in front of them, a seatbelt increases the chances they will be able to remain in control during that maneuver.
    - NullPrefix 2y ago
      According to the CDC in the US every year 800k people suffer from a heart attack. It could happen while driving. While it does not increase your chance of gaining weight, it increases your chance of getting in a car accident, because that other person might be driving while having a heart attack
  - Peanuts99 2y ago
    One of the primary aims of seatbelts are to stop you becoming a projectile and protect other occupants of your car and people outside it. It's not just a personal choice.
    - NullPrefix 2y ago
      I drive alone

swatcoder 2y ago

The purpose of cars is to get people from place to place. That purpose isn't hampered by wearing a seatbelt. There's not even a compromise involved. It's all upside. The purpose of childhood is produce future adults. That purpose isn't fully served when kids get too far removed from choices, risks, and consequences. Yes, we also need to make sure they stay alive, but survival can't be the only metric parents optimize for or they'll just produce confused old kids trying to live adult lives. (`Big`, but for real and without a magical fix in act 3.)

locococo 2y ago
What are you smoking? No choice is removed from anyone. Survival is the primary objective, what do you think it is? Limiting electronic device usage?

daymanstep 2y ago

> I trust cities and their people far less than wild animals. Is this based on statistical reasoning? Would you really rather leave your kid with say, a wild boar, than with a person randomly chosen out of a city's population?

Loughla 2y ago
I think you missed the point a little or are being overly pedantic. I trust the wildlife where I live, because I know the dangerous stuff isn't here.

hn_throwaway_99 2y ago

> And cars used to be safe even without seatbelts! No, they weren't, which is why this is a poor analogy. We discovered that seatbelts could save an enormous number of lives with minimal impact on individuals, so we mandated them. With child safety it's difficult to get comparable numbers (overall crime spiked in the 90s, so it's difficult to say whether kids were less safe because they had less tracking or just that overall crime was higher then), a big reason experts give for the reduction in crime affecting kids is they're simply inside a whole lot more. They'd be even safer if we just put them in a plastic bubble I guess.

wepple 2y ago
> No, they weren't Yea they were. The model T was plenty safe simply because it wasn’t fast enough to be a significant danger. The point is, claiming that “we used to do X and it was fine” is a weak argument. Times change.