I'll respond to you first since your response is the easiest to respond to (since it lacks intelligence/actual knowledge). #1. No one said airbags didn't save lives. #2. Saving lives doesn't mean shit. What matters is saving lives in proportion to the cost (risk/reward ratio). So off the bat, your point doesn't hold water. If airbags save 1 life a year, you'd say it's worth it. Forgive me for not digging up the info (I've already wasted enough time on this thread), but I did a bit of research on the real effectiveness of airbags years ago, and the DATA was less than overwhelming, to say the least.

The overwhelming majority of lives it "saved" were due to the people who weren't wearing seatbelts. As far as I'm concerned, that's not a life "saved," but in order to spin the stats to make airbags look better, it was counted of course. Those idiots ought to be dead. The statistics were marginal at best that showed airbags showed a significant safety improvement, especially for the passenger (without a steering wheel in front of them). In many cases, airbags have CAUSED injuries (which you can't ignore if we're talking safety). Anyway, I won't go on about it, but I encourage folks to do some research. Not that it matters now, as airbag mfr's aren't going anywhere, but helps to educate yourself.

 

Actually no, my point wasn't a straw man, but "stretching a point to its logical extreme." Google it, it's a valid/logical way to make a point, and why my point is valid. If you're ok w/ mandating in one place, you're being hypocritical not mandating everywhere.

You're right my number was out of thin air, it was just an example. Sure it's reduced by 33%, but what's the likelihood of a child getting injured? That's an important statistic. 33% of .05% isn't a whole lot. Also, let's factor in perhaps a driver is driving even safer due to them driving in a "less safe" care, so that 33% of .05% drops.

I'm sure the people who recommend these do it for a reason (at least partially safety), but don't exclude money out of your analysis. Airbags were implemented largely thanks to lobbying and spinning statistics (it's too easy). Going back to my first point though.. if walking in the house carries a 1% chance of being injured or killed, perhaps we ought to address that as well, because we're so concerned about little jr. Logically it'd be dumb/hypocritical not to if you have a "safety comes first" motto.

 

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.
[/quote]
If you are talking about the OP who wants to put his kid in his S2000, it is made clear that he is intending to follow the laws of his government and that he is Canadian, not American. He's seeking assistance in doing so.

 

Forgive me for being so skeptical, but I have a hard time believing any statistic without exact data/knowledge of the sample/etc. Lies, damned lies, and statistics.. What were the demographics/kind of cars for the kids who rode in the front. Perhaps they were poor/of less means, and drove an old/less safe car to begin with(a lot of older cars don't even have side door reinforcements)? Maybe the parents were more careless and the kids weren't even riding in a proper seat? I'm not denying that the rear seat is safer, but simply questioning how much so. And again.. we get back to my point of.. how much safer is it to ride in a car vs. any other activities. A child who is neglected everywhere but in the car is no better off imo. Like I said, to each his own. Perhaps the parent who wants to stick their kid in their s2k minimizes risk in other ways that many parents don't do. Tomayto. Tomahto.

 

I don't see how you can reconcile the statement that you aren't judging him but you feel sorry for his kid.

In my opinion, no one here can considered

1. the possibility that his sedan is ONLY as safe as his S2000. (There is even the possibility that it's less safe.)
2. the increased likelihood of an accident due to the additional miles driven so he can swap cars.
3. the reduced time spend with his child due to the delay incurred in him picking his child up.

There are many scenarios where using the S2000 is the logical choice.

 

Almost any idea can be proven to be foolish if you take it to it's "logical extreme". Regardless of what Google tells you, it's not a valid method to make an argument. If that logic was sound, we could show that the idea of showering to be clean could lead to compulsive scrubbing of the skin with bleach, which is dangerous and damaging and therefore showering is a bad idea. There's even people suffering from various neuroses that do this very thing that we could use to prove our point. This doesn't actually mean showering to be clean is a bad idea.

I would think this would be up to the parent - I posted additional numbers in a follow up post, but I would think most parents would be happy to reduce the risk of injury to their child. According to this, for children in sports cars (highest risk category), there's a slightly higher than 5% chance of injury in a crash.

I understand there are many opportunities for marketing and improving sales via fear mongering, but I don't see how anyone has anything to gain from where you seat your child. What I'm ready is that, all else being equal (vehicle, safety equipment, child seat, etc), seating in the rear center is safer than the front passenger.

 

Well, I clearly can't converse with you about this. You make statements supported by numbers you admittedly make up but then have no interest in statistics provided to you by the NHTSA and National Safety Council. I don't care to verify the validity of these studies because honestly, I don't care enough to continue with someone that has already made up their mind. I have no reason to disbelieve or discount the numbers though as there is nothing else to compare them against and they're consistent with information provided by any other entity I could find.

 

Regarding the back seat being safer than the front, it may be true, but it isn't necessarily applicable when talking about the S2000. This is an averaged statistic. I find it hard to believe that two-seaters were included in the data for this study or that the car to car crash safety variability is necessary smaller than this improvement from going from the front seat to the rear seat.

I claim that it is possible that the front seat of one car is safer than the rear of another. If I could had to choose between putting a kid in the back seat of an '85 Yugo GV or the airbag disabled front seat of a '12 Audi A6, I'd choose the latter.

 

First off, my point was simply that I didn't present a straw man (that's a logical fallacy). Taking a point to its logical extreme is logical by definition, but it may or may not be applicable to the situation. Your example is a bad one (and is not a good example), because it actually hurts the person (scrubbing with bleach), so it's no longer just cleaning at the point where you start doing harm. Logically my point very much makes sense.. if you're that concerned about safety, mandating laws at home are next in line. I'm done arguing and splitting hairs with you.. like I said, we can agree to disagree.

The larger/simpler point is people make decisions and are responsible for themselves. If you're worried about your kid, do what you want, and don't worry about someone else's. Perhaps you need to start some safety seminars in mexico where people are squeezed into a car and people ride freely in the back of pickups.

Have a good weekend.

 

"I don't see how you can reconcile the statement that you aren't judging him but you feel sorry for his kid."

Yeah, that was my little joke.

"In my opinion, no one here can considered
the possibility that his sedan is ONLY as safe as his S2000. (There is even the possibility that it's less safe.)
the increased likelihood of an accident due to the additional miles driven so he can swap cars.
the reduced time spend with his child due to the delay incurred in him picking his child up.

There are many scenarios where using the S2000 is the logical choice."

BS. Sell your S and buy a car that's safe for your kid. There are plenty of cars that are safer than the S that cost less than the S. And if the added miles make it less safe, then don't take your sports car to work. Drive the car you intend on safely transporting your child in. This whole conversation is maddening because the S is a frigging luxury car. If you can't provide a safe mode of transport for your kids then you should sacrifice the luxury of owning a sports car. If this guy was asking us if it would be ok to pick up his two year old on a Suzuki GSXR all of the arguments would be the same. Theres the folks who put the kid first, and then ones who put themselves first. We can agree to disagree.