Booster seats as babies are slaughtered...

(Tim, w/thanks to Ben Crum) Speaking of the Western World's repudiation of God's Moral Law, replacing it with an infinite number of trivial laws passed by nanny-state legislators: here are two good articles (one and two) on child booster seats demonstrating that the laws requiring them that are in vogue and have recently been passed across the country do nothing to protect our children. "Nothing" as in nothing.

It's utter hypocrisy for legislators to pass these meaningless laws while regularly driving past abortuaries in their own communities where many hundreds of babies are slaughtered by United Way's Planned Parenthood each year. We're all ignoring the real bloodshed of innocents while making a big show of opposing the bloodshed of innocents. But one's a joke while the other's nauseatingly real. "Real" as in real.


Levitt is a very good economist. This article is nicely written in that he starts off by talking about the simple fatality numbers, which show no superiority of child seats over seat belts (do note that he only discusses kids 2 and over, since babies can't wear seat belts and it's childseats or nothing)

Something that shocked me right at the start:
"Third, no standard errors are reported in
these earlier studies. When I replicate their analyses, I cannot reject the null hypothesis of equal coefficients on seat belts and child safety seats due to substantial standard errors."

What this means is that the official government studies also show no clear safety benefit, but purposely omit the details which would make that clear--- details which any scholarly journal, even the fifth rate ones, would absolutely require them to report and explain.

You know, the thought has occurred to me that these relatively new laws about booster/car seats for preschool and school-age children (along with this politically correct, enviro-hatred for large vehicles)is somewhat of a ploy to be anti-fertility/anti-babies. As long as you can make people feel "irresponsible" or guilty for having to buy and drive a large vehicle to fit "all those kids" (AND the car seats that must lawfully go into them), isn't that just one more deterrent from having children- or "too many" of them?

Eric has a very good point; either the government statisticians didn't understand variance (doubtful), or they deliberately hid it. I'm leaning towards the latter.

Thanks Tim (and Ben) for this bracing exhortation for those of us who live in relative peace and comfort, "protected" by such silly things, even as our lives are taken from us.

The biggest effect of child seats is to get children used to sitting relatively still for long periods of time. That's probably a good thing. It's hilarious how out of step with modern manners it is tho: Who would have imagined in 1960 that the parents of 2010 wouldn't spank kids who were naughty but would routinely strap them down tightly for no reason at all.

>>Who would have imagined in 1960 that the parents of 2010 wouldn't spank kids who were naughty but would routinely strap them down tightly for no reason at all.

Not I. It's almost funny.



Very good point!


Back in 1960, car seats weren't even required for babies! Those were the good old days.

A family in our area just lost their young child in an accident. Their car was rearended and the child was in a seat belt and not the mandated car seat.

That "meaningless" law would have saved that child's life. No one else in the car was killed.

Joke? The family of that child isn't laughing.

Dear Reagan,

Tragic though the particulars are, good laws are never made for the exception. The question of whether booster seats are good is a matter of stats--not one person's grief. But in our society, one person's pain always trumps truth, and your response to this post is a good example of this error.

Quantifying and addressing risk factors is a discipline needing precision. It can't be turned over to those who use safety to demonstrate how much they feel others' pain and wish they could make things better. The plain fact is that booster seats appear NOT to make children safer, in the aggregate. This does not mean that no child is ever protected by a booster seat, nor that there's no child who is dead because he wasn't in one.

It grieves us all to hear of the death of this child. But to imply that opposition to booster seat laws is to make a joke of the tragedy of this (or any other) child's death and parents' grief is malicious. Every one of us can trot out any number of tragedies that will shut down any number of discussions.


PS: For an example of the care needed in addressing risk, and the law of unintended consequences, check out this piece on the Valujet crash that ran in "The Atlantic":

Add new comment