[throw003away]

> Especially considering that many people are likely breaking the laws (not just car seats, but supervision, etc), with no ill effects

Car accidents are the #1 cause of death of kids in Mexico. People have 0 literacy about car seats there.

> I was riding without a booster seat well before age 8 and we'd occasionally ride with a friend's family in a station wagon or SUV with the add-on cargo seats.

This story could have been very different if your car was hit and you were disabled because of, I don't know, something totally preventable.

[giantg2]

"Car accidents are the #1 cause of death of kids in Mexico. People have 0 literacy about car seats there."

There are other traffic differences as well. We can't tie all of it just to the car seat. Even with car seats (and other measures not in MX), it's still a leading cause in the US.

"This story could have been very different if your car was hit and you were disabled because of, I don't know, something totally preventable."

Totally preventable? You do understand that even kids in car seats are susceptible, right?. I was in an accident as a child and had no ill effects. We can play the "could" game all day, like outlawing cars would make all traffic deaths preventable.

Do you have any data on the net benefit of the laws? What percentage of people would not use the devices without the laws? Which instances would the devices be beneficial - the article thinks 90% of the issues would be covered at age 4, and note that rear facing is still a safer form of travel, so should we have cars with all rear facing seats except for the driver? Sure there are preventable deaths that could be avoid this way. Where is the line drawn and why? How many people's lives have been ruined by enforcement of the laws.

[dragonwriter]

> There are other traffic differences as well. We can't tie all of it just to the car seat. Even with car seats (and other measures not in MX), it's still a leading cause in the US.

In the US, the absolute number (not just the rates) of child deaths as vehicle passengers have dropped almost monotically since 1989, to less than half by 2019 what they were in 1989.

> the article thinks 90% of the issues would be covered at age 4,

details vary by state, but beyond age 4, most states only require boosters (to deal with shoulder belt height) which do not have the bulk or other issues of safety seats, not actual safety seats. (In some states, this is actually earlier than age 4.) So, while abandoning rules isn't going to have much benefit on fertility, if the burden of safety seats is the source of the problem you are trying to address.