You have the following problems:
1. you are an uninformed idiot

 

Says the guy that thinks a single problem is plural. But you make a solid and insightful point there. Better to go out of your way to risk a kid's life than allow the government to tell you what to do. Hurr durrr Amurican freedom and guns and all.

 

Well played Would you even bother with a car seat?

 

Ya, because requiring a car to transport a kid that you may or may not have is "going out of your way."

Good job tearing that straw man to shreds! Straw men do a great job explaining your point.

 

"My post was directed at those judging him because he's considering putting his kid in the seat."

Then stop quoting me every five minutes. I'm not judging him. I do feel somewhat sorry for his kid.


"Ya, because requiring a car to transport a kid that you may or may not have is "going out of your way." "

Have you even read the OP's original post???????? He says he has a sedan but is too lazy to go home and pick it up before he picks up his daughter. He does have the proper car and he doesn't want to go out of his way to use it.


"If someone is willing to take the precautions necessary to make it "safe," so be it."

I was so caught up in turbo kits and cold air intakes that I forgot about all the S2000 baby safety mods out there. I personally love the 12 inch lift that Playschool puts out. And the Babies R Us rear seat add is super amazing.

 

When someone chooses to have a kid, there is an expectation, both by society and by law, that the parent has agreed to do certain things (feeding, providing shelter, etc) for that kid and to NOT do certain things (endangering, abusing, etc). If the parent doesn't fulfill these expectations, they can lose their child. So when a parent makes intentional decisions that expose the kid to unnecessary danger, that is going out of your way as far as I'm concerned. These decisions and actions are actively made. OP would have to modify his car just to minimally pass regulation, and even then it most likely wouldn't be nearly as safe as the sedan he has at home. So yes, that's going out of your way.

I'm not sure what you mean by "a kid that you may or may not have", but I assume most parents are aware that they're parents, especially when they're responsible for transporting an infant. Sometimes, this comes with lifestyle changes, things like blocking stairs off, keeping handles of boiling liquid pointed towards the rear of the stove, etc. If OP can make the car safer for an infant by disabling airbags - that's great. If his kid is killed though because they're in a collision and she's in an un-anchored, front passenger car seat instead of being in an anchored car seat in the center rear of a sedan, suddenly there would be a difference between doing the "right thing" and going out of your way to do what you want.

His post had no point except to insult rob-2 for having an opinion he clearly didn't agree with. I didn't really feel the need to make "a point" in responding to a meaningless and insulting post but thanks for the feedback

 

I'm not going to spend the time to respond on a point by point basis to the previous posts, but my point is pretty simple, and something we can simply agree to disagree on. It's a PARENT'S decision what happens to their kid. Period. A "reasonable" level of safety is relative to a person, but as long as a kid isn't riding on the hood of their parent's car, I'm ok for the most part. People act as if riding in the car is the only unsafe time a child will ever encounter. Kids fall down the stairs and die, don't wear a helmet when riding a bike, hurt themselves in all sorts of different manners.. so perhaps we ought to mandate children <18 walking around from the moment they wake up with a helmet? Of course not. My point is, you can't eliminate risk.

You think a careless parent who restrains their kid properly in a seat is ok, but if the kid falls and dies down the stairs because they don't pay attention to them that's ok? Clearly we ought to mandate blockading of stairs at all times, and have home inspectors visit homes every month to be sure. My point being.. risk is everywhere. A child riding in an s2k is more risky than in the back of a sedan, but how much more risky..? .0001% higher chance of them getting injured? BFD. We all accept and take risks in everything, and if a parent wants to stick their kid in the car with them when they go for a ride in an s2k, so be it. If you really think the kid is that much worse off because of it, you're simply naive/clueless imo. If the parents are careless with the kid.. guess what.. there are probably a hundred other places the child is more at risk.

To clarify I typed too quickly and didn't proofread: "because requiring a car to transport a kid that you may or may not have is "going out of your way." Meant to say "because requiring a car that you may or may not have to transport a kid.."

Btw, my argument is hardly illogical. At some point you have to QUANTIFY risk. If the risk is .000001% worse, than to me it's largely negligible and it can be ignored (that occasional time you take a child in your s2k). Someone taking their child along in an s2k accepts this risk, and if something bad happens, so be it. Just because something is "safer" doesn't mean it's worth it. And for the record, I'm very much against the majority of airbags (except for the driver). Huge waste of money.

 

I see you're not above using the straw man tactic you're so quick to point out in others. I clearly am not saying it's okay for a child to die falling down stairs or that we need a police state to regulate home safety - my point was simply that most people voluntarily make changes to their behavior and environment to reduce the likelihood of injury or death to their child. This extends outside of the home as well obviously.

You're absolutely right, that risk is all about quantification, but I'm not sure where you get the .000001% number from (aside from thin air perhaps). According to the California Highway Patrol for example, a child's injury risk in the front seat is reduced by 33% when they're moved from the front to the rear, which is a bit larger than your estimate. I suspect that there is a reason that the all of the organizations that perform these studies to quantify risk all recommend children be seated in the rear as opposed to the front.

 

Airbags a waste of money , ok Ive heard enough to completely disregard anything you say , airbags save lives period ...thats not worth the money ....anybody thats puts a child at risk cause its convenient , should not be a parent in my eyes . Your children should be over safe with you , not somewhat safe ....

 

Here's some more quantification for you: http://www.autotrader.com/research/a...n-the-back.jsp

• The survey showed that on average six percent of all children ages 0-12 are being placed in the front seat according to their parents...32 percent of all child fatalities were among children riding in front.
• Children ages 12 and under are 26 to 35 percent less likely to be fatally injured in a crash if they are in the back seat.
• More than 1,700 children have been saved between 1996 and 2001 solely because they were sitting in a rear seat