3 ms·

This was my reaction as well. The article calls out high selling manufacturers directly, implying that they are the worst offenders, but without sales data you

This was my reaction as well. The article calls out high selling manufacturers directly, implying that they are the worst offenders, but without sales data you can't determine recall rate (something like recalled toys per 1000 sold), which is what consumers need to act upon this data. It strikes me that the largest manufacturers with the most mature design and fabrication processes at least have all the tools to outperform smaller manufacturers in this regard, and so the article may well be nudging readers to manufacturers with higher recall rates. I mean, one of the principal challenges of empirical data analysis is putting together data from disparate sources in order to come to actionable analysis. One doesn't just publish the data that's easy to come by and then call it a day. And the poor analysis presented in this article is a good illustration of why.

Zancarius 13y ago
> I mean, one of the principal challenges of empirical data analysis is putting together data from disparate sources in order to come to actionable analysis. One doesn't just publish the data that's easy to come by and then call it a day. I thought it was curious how the most dangerous "toy" is the bicycle. I suppose that's not surprising, but other charts indicate that the greatest hazard to children is choking. I'd wager it's difficult to choke on a bicycle save for disassembling it and ravenously ingesting the smaller parts. Given the CPSC's recent history (think Buckyballs), I also wonder if the relative number of product recalls has increased due to changes in regulation, changes specific to the CPSC itself (organizational, leadership, mission, etc), or increased pressure from consumer/physician groups. Products containing lead appear to be responsible for a sizable portion of the recalls, but I'm not completely sure I agree with the implicit suggestion that modern toys are somehow more dangerous based on recalls alone. The US is a litigocracy (and increasingly so) after all.

Zancarius 13y ago

> I mean, one of the principal challenges of empirical data analysis is putting together data from disparate sources in order to come to actionable analysis. One doesn't just publish the data that's easy to come by and then call it a day. I thought it was curious how the most dangerous "toy" is the bicycle. I suppose that's not surprising, but other charts indicate that the greatest hazard to children is choking. I'd wager it's difficult to choke on a bicycle save for disassembling it and ravenously ingesting the smaller parts. Given the CPSC's recent history (think Buckyballs), I also wonder if the relative number of product recalls has increased due to changes in regulation, changes specific to the CPSC itself (organizational, leadership, mission, etc), or increased pressure from consumer/physician groups. Products containing lead appear to be responsible for a sizable portion of the recalls, but I'm not completely sure I agree with the implicit suggestion that modern toys are somehow more dangerous based on recalls alone. The US is a litigocracy (and increasingly so) after all.