I hadn't even thought of it in those terms JSRom until I read your posts. Ofcourse you are correct that many families will opt for driving and not flying if they have to pay for a child seat (most likely those that will have to pay for several child seats).
However, where do you draw the line? Taking your reasoning to the extreme government should subsidize the airlines to give free (or almost free) travel to all so that intercity travel in motor vehicles would be reduced saving many lives.

I would be more than willing to have an extra $5 or $10 tacked on to my ticket (doubt it very much it would be more than $1 or two) if the airlines would secure a free seat with flights seat for children under 2 (so parents could take the kids to see relatives etc after they are born). For children over 2 a 50% off ticket seems more than fair and other pax are already subsidizing these fares(thanks everyone ). I would also support an exception and allow children up to age 14 to fly free in cases of death and illness of a close relative.

Surely in the end it comes down to parents choices regardless of means. Some parents will choose to pay the extra money and forgo something else (maybe have a cheaper vacation or make budget cuts). Other parents will choose to save the money. I suggest that most lap children belong to parents who feel that either the extra seat is not worth the money given the small chance of anything happening and statistically they are probably right within the context of their own valuation of things. Or they may just not be aware of the risk at all.

In nearly all cases it would be cheaper and safer to just stay at home and not travel at all and that is a choice too. The family that decides to drive 400 miles because the child seats are too expensive is making the decision to do that and it seems a little hard to justify transferring the cost of a decision like that to the rest of the paying public.

[This message has been edited by Mvic (edited 08-26-2000).]