Flyertalk home page/child safety seats/FAA/research
Sep 30, 2014, 7:18 am
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 799
Flyertalk home page/child safety seats/FAA/research
Interesting article on the Flyertalk home page: http://www.flyertalk.com/story/faa-e...e-message.html
Unfortunately, the only decent research article I found (admittedly, I did not delve into the databases too deeply) shows that the child safety seat requirement leads to more deaths, not less.
Reason: having to buy a seat for the child makes the trip less cost efficient, hence parents decide to drive, which is more dangerous than flying, thus leading to more deaths.
http://www.safetylit.org/citations/i...ls&citationIds[]=citjournalarticle_306176_38
As often happens in what seems reasonably policy: an unintended, dangerous consequence (in this case even deadly).
Unfortunately, the only decent research article I found (admittedly, I did not delve into the databases too deeply) shows that the child safety seat requirement leads to more deaths, not less.
Reason: having to buy a seat for the child makes the trip less cost efficient, hence parents decide to drive, which is more dangerous than flying, thus leading to more deaths.
http://www.safetylit.org/citations/i...ls&citationIds[]=citjournalarticle_306176_38
As often happens in what seems reasonably policy: an unintended, dangerous consequence (in this case even deadly).
Oct 2, 2014, 2:14 am
#2
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: NYC
Programs: DL PM, Marriott Gold, Hertz PC, National Exec
Posts: 6,736
This is an ongoing fight between NTSB (which wants to mandate that kids have their own seat and travel in a carseat) and the FAA (which has opposed the mandate for 20+ years. Everyone agrees that:
1. Kids on planes are safer in a carseat than in a lap.
2. Kids on a lap on a plane are safer than kids in a carseat in a car for a similar distance.
The debate is over the degree to which requiring parents to purchase a seat for small children will cause them to drive instead. The FAA's position has been that the higher cost will shift enough families to drive such that the increased risk from #2 will outweigh the benefits from #1. The NTSB disagrees (NTSB white paper on the topic is here: http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/recletter...n_analysis.pdf).
1. Kids on planes are safer in a carseat than in a lap.
2. Kids on a lap on a plane are safer than kids in a carseat in a car for a similar distance.
The debate is over the degree to which requiring parents to purchase a seat for small children will cause them to drive instead. The FAA's position has been that the higher cost will shift enough families to drive such that the increased risk from #2 will outweigh the benefits from #1. The NTSB disagrees (NTSB white paper on the topic is here: http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/recletter...n_analysis.pdf).
Oct 2, 2014, 4:56 am
#3
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
Interesting article on the Flyertalk home page: http://www.flyertalk.com/story/faa-e...e-message.html
Unfortunately, the only decent research article I found (admittedly, I did not delve into the databases too deeply) shows that the child safety seat requirement leads to more deaths, not less.
Reason: having to buy a seat for the child makes the trip less cost efficient, hence parents decide to drive, which is more dangerous than flying, thus leading to more deaths.
http://www.safetylit.org/citations/i...ls&citationIds[]=citjournalarticle_306176_38
As often happens in what seems reasonably policy: an unintended, dangerous consequence (in this case even deadly).
Unfortunately, the only decent research article I found (admittedly, I did not delve into the databases too deeply) shows that the child safety seat requirement leads to more deaths, not less.
Reason: having to buy a seat for the child makes the trip less cost efficient, hence parents decide to drive, which is more dangerous than flying, thus leading to more deaths.
http://www.safetylit.org/citations/i...ls&citationIds[]=citjournalarticle_306176_38
As often happens in what seems reasonably policy: an unintended, dangerous consequence (in this case even deadly).
Squeezing one side of a balloon, in the name of "safety/security" to reduce an extremely low probability risk, can cause the other side of the balloon to pop and drive up a higher probability risk of injury/death into a much higher probability risk of injury/death.
"To save the village, don't kill more of its people."
Last edited by GUWonder; Oct 2, 2014 at 5:05 am
Oct 5, 2014, 10:14 am
#4
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: NYC
Programs: DL PM, Marriott Gold, Hertz PC, National Exec
Posts: 6,736
Lots of injuries of young children are due to parents juggling -- or being distracted/encumbered by -- too many things, carseats included. More kids still are probably injured while parents/guardians are removing or installing a car seat than are injured in a plane. The NTSB should consider that too.
Squeezing one side of a balloon, in the name of "safety/security" to reduce an extremely low probability risk, can cause the other side of the balloon to pop and drive up a higher probability risk of injury/death into a much higher probability risk of injury/death.
"To save the village, don't kill more of its people."
Squeezing one side of a balloon, in the name of "safety/security" to reduce an extremely low probability risk, can cause the other side of the balloon to pop and drive up a higher probability risk of injury/death into a much higher probability risk of injury/death.
"To save the village, don't kill more of its people."