4 ms·

Seriously, this is my number one reason for not having kids. For the younger crowd who may not understand, I was born in '77: - I rode in the back hatch (no s

Seriously, this is my number one reason for not having kids. For the younger crowd who may not understand, I was born in '77: - I rode in the back hatch (no seats) of my dad's corvette until I was 8, cops would wave to us. - At 6 I could ride my bike around pretty much anywhere I wanted, but wasn't allowed to cross rt6 (which I didn't, though no one checked). - Left in the car in parking lots for up to an hour. - Arrived home from school with no one home starting in 1st grade.

claar 12y ago
Yep, I can relate. I was born in '78 and grew up on a farm. Please, have kids and raise them reasonably according to your own standards, not the nanny-state's. If we don't defend personal freedom, who will?
tptacek 12y ago
Putting children in the seatless back hatch of a Corvette was probably not a great parenting call either. Not everything that used to be S.O.P. for parents was good judgement. Not every safety concern we've developed over the last 20 years is wrong. Some of them are very valid.
- mentat 12y ago
  Risk minimization as an overriding strategy is fundamentally flawed as it is never complete. It also appears that people are really bad at understanding the costs for very small benefits.
- awj 12y ago
  Yeah, people also survived when we put lead paint on everything. Evaluate the issue on its actual merits and relevant statistics, not wether or not you personally won the "take an unnecessary risk" dice roll.
Pxtl 12y ago
For the record, even today with our safety obsessed culture? Car accidents are still the leading preventable cause of death in children (non-preventable things like birth-defects and complications from childbirth itself are the only things that rank higher). Cars are what kills kids, even now in our hyper-safe society. So it's worth re-examining that stuff. Which means the thing with the Corvette? Probably wasn't a good idea in hindsight. But yeah, the total lack of independence in today's kids is a different story. There is no epidemic of kiddy diddlers, of kids wandering off and getting lost and somehow dying. So the obsessive "have your kids with you at all times" thing is probably a modern over-reaction. But the stuff about cars? Yeah, respect and fear traffic.
- IanDrake 12y ago
  >Which means the thing with the Corvette? Probably wasn't a good idea in hindsight. My dad even thinks that now. Still the irony is that a corvette of that age isn't safe in an accident with any type of seat for any type of occupant. However, put a child seat in it any we all can pretend that it's somehow safe. Just writing that makes me think there will be a law soon that kids can only ride in child-safe certified cars.
pbhjpbhj 12y ago
Survivorship bias. I too rode in the boot of the car, but presumably some other kids did that and died in an accident slamming in to back of their parent's heads and the windscreen when the car had to break suddenly. Or maybe they got crushed when a lorry rode in to the back of them.
- IanDrake 12y ago
  Yeah, I knew kids that had dogs growing up. We all think it's safe, but alas, family dogs kill children. I guess we all suffer from that survivorship bias. The lesson here is anyone with a family dog should have their children taken away. I also used to take the ferry to Nantucket and MV as a kid. Thought that was safe too, but apparently those things sink and kill children. What, you let your kids take the ferry? Someone call child services! Also known to kill children: Bee stings (don't let kids play outside), food allergies (or eat), influenza (be around other people), drowning (go swimming or take a bath). I suppose to dismiss any of these as unlikely is an example of survivorship bias? I'm pretty sure it's not. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United... http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/06/world/asia/south-korea-ship-sinking/ http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/06/world/asia/south-korea-ship-si... The only proper way to let your kids leave the house: http://smurk.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/bubble_boy_2-7543792.jpg http://smurk.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/bubble_boy_2-754379...
  - aidenn0 12y ago
    Car accidents are the #1 cause of death for children. Family dogs are not.
  - pbhjpbhj 12y ago
    To dismiss them as unlikely is not survivorship bias, no. That's not how it works - you knew that and knew that we did too. But, for example, to say "I used to jump in to rivers and swim around, never hurt me" as an argument for allowing kids to jump in to [untested] rivers would be. Sure most children would survive but we nonetheless have the bias in the lack of testimony from those that drowned, or possibly impaled themselves on detritus hidden below the surface , and died. Just because there is a survivorship bias in testimonies concerning [sufficiently] safe activities for children doesn't of course mean that one is required to stop their children taking part in those activities. All activities and inactivities have risks. The note of the bias is simply a reminder to take it in to account when weighing those risks.

claar 12y ago

Yep, I can relate. I was born in '78 and grew up on a farm. Please, have kids and raise them reasonably according to your own standards, not the nanny-state's. If we don't defend personal freedom, who will?

tptacek 12y ago

Putting children in the seatless back hatch of a Corvette was probably not a great parenting call either. Not everything that used to be S.O.P. for parents was good judgement. Not every safety concern we've developed over the last 20 years is wrong. Some of them are very valid.

mentat 12y ago
Risk minimization as an overriding strategy is fundamentally flawed as it is never complete. It also appears that people are really bad at understanding the costs for very small benefits.
awj 12y ago
Yeah, people also survived when we put lead paint on everything. Evaluate the issue on its actual merits and relevant statistics, not wether or not you personally won the "take an unnecessary risk" dice roll.

Pxtl 12y ago

For the record, even today with our safety obsessed culture? Car accidents are still the leading preventable cause of death in children (non-preventable things like birth-defects and complications from childbirth itself are the only things that rank higher). Cars are what kills kids, even now in our hyper-safe society. So it's worth re-examining that stuff. Which means the thing with the Corvette? Probably wasn't a good idea in hindsight. But yeah, the total lack of independence in today's kids is a different story. There is no epidemic of kiddy diddlers, of kids wandering off and getting lost and somehow dying. So the obsessive "have your kids with you at all times" thing is probably a modern over-reaction. But the stuff about cars? Yeah, respect and fear traffic.

IanDrake 12y ago
>Which means the thing with the Corvette? Probably wasn't a good idea in hindsight. My dad even thinks that now. Still the irony is that a corvette of that age isn't safe in an accident with any type of seat for any type of occupant. However, put a child seat in it any we all can pretend that it's somehow safe. Just writing that makes me think there will be a law soon that kids can only ride in child-safe certified cars.

pbhjpbhj 12y ago

Survivorship bias. I too rode in the boot of the car, but presumably some other kids did that and died in an accident slamming in to back of their parent's heads and the windscreen when the car had to break suddenly. Or maybe they got crushed when a lorry rode in to the back of them.

IanDrake 12y ago
Yeah, I knew kids that had dogs growing up. We all think it's safe, but alas, family dogs kill children. I guess we all suffer from that survivorship bias. The lesson here is anyone with a family dog should have their children taken away. I also used to take the ferry to Nantucket and MV as a kid. Thought that was safe too, but apparently those things sink and kill children. What, you let your kids take the ferry? Someone call child services! Also known to kill children: Bee stings (don't let kids play outside), food allergies (or eat), influenza (be around other people), drowning (go swimming or take a bath). I suppose to dismiss any of these as unlikely is an example of survivorship bias? I'm pretty sure it's not. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United... http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/06/world/asia/south-korea-ship-sinking/ http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/06/world/asia/south-korea-ship-si... The only proper way to let your kids leave the house: http://smurk.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/bubble_boy_2-7543792.jpg http://smurk.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/bubble_boy_2-754379...
- aidenn0 12y ago
  Car accidents are the #1 cause of death for children. Family dogs are not.
- pbhjpbhj 12y ago
  To dismiss them as unlikely is not survivorship bias, no. That's not how it works - you knew that and knew that we did too. But, for example, to say "I used to jump in to rivers and swim around, never hurt me" as an argument for allowing kids to jump in to [untested] rivers would be. Sure most children would survive but we nonetheless have the bias in the lack of testimony from those that drowned, or possibly impaled themselves on detritus hidden below the surface , and died. Just because there is a survivorship bias in testimonies concerning [sufficiently] safe activities for children doesn't of course mean that one is required to stop their children taking part in those activities. All activities and inactivities have risks. The note of the bias is simply a reminder to take it in to account when weighing those risks.