Thanks for the article, but in the nicest way I want to add something to this. First of all the article didn’t mention that a car seat would have prevented any injury. It appears the turbulence was unexpected, and as mentioned that means the kid could have been out of the carseat at the time. If they expected it either the kid would be safely strapped into the car seat or the parent would have had a tight hold on the kid (similar yet not as affective as a seat belt). What the article did mention was that there were laptops and such flying around the cabin, which would have been a hazard if you had a car seat or not. Actually you might have a fighting chance of deflecting objects heading to your baby if you had them in your lap. If you truly want to increase the safety of your kids you won't put them in a car or in a plane in the first place. I mean a plane has a chance to crash and everybody die, and cars we all know how much more dangerous those are, so why would you put your child in that situation.

You always have to look at the cost vs. benefit. If you didn’t, I would imagine everybody would be driving around safer cars (like tanks). I mean we could design a car that would be a lot safer than the ones on the road (like a tank). If you are in a tank the likely hood of your kid getting injured in a wreck goes way down. Of course it would cost a bundle to buy and the fuel economy wouldn’t be the best. But you have to do what is safest for your child right, no matter the cost. Actually the cost/use of tank is probably cheaper than cost/use of a seat for a lap child.

Saying all that, I am not opposed to parents buying seats for their lap child (that would be kind of silly now wouldn’t it), nor do I think their opinions are invalid. I just think that it is an opinion (not necessarily right or wrong) and it is all useful for the OP to read and form their own conclusion. But I hope those people also aren’t condemning anybody who brings a lap child.