3 ms·
"negligible" safety increase seems to be about 19% reduction in injury vs not using a booster seat: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5522634/ https:
by matteotom 2y ago
"negligible" safety increase seems to be about 19% reduction in injury vs not using a booster seat: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5522634/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5522634/
I would love any citation for "This shit has a direct and measurable impact on birth rates", since there's good reason to believe it has a greater than negligible increase in safety
- normie3000 2y agoFrom the link does this bit mean? > The risk of experiencing an incapacitating/fatal injury was not associated with booster use. It seems to imply that booster seats do not reduce the risk of serious injury or death, but I'm not sure I am reading correctly.
- matteotom 2y agoI’d read that as saying the data are insufficient to prove either way. Likely because there are so many fewer deaths and only 10% of the children used booster seats, so the error bars are too big.
- parpfish 2y agoI think the both rate thing is in reference to studies like those discussed here: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/c4daDbQD398BmW5k5/on-car-seats-as-contraception https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/c4daDbQD398BmW5k5/on-car-sea... The idea is that you can only fit two car seats in the backseat and upgrading to a larger car that could fit three is enough of an expense/hassle that it discourages having a third child
- elzbardico 2y ago19% seems to be a big number, until you figure out that the absolute number is not that big. Individually, it may make sense to mandate it, societally, probably no.