The unintended consequences of the government protecting you.

[jimpeel]

Hmmm...lets take a different tack...How is government help linked to obesity and drug addiction? Both can be linked to government programs that give away free food if you want to go on a tangent...

All of the stuff mentioned here in this thread is going on because the public is, in general, stupidly short-sighted.

• Americans are now trained from birth that government is the end-all, be-all.
• Schools are now government indoctrination centers.
• Parents are scared to death to structure their feral children because they don't want to be turned in for trying to make human beings out of them.
• It seems like there is a new snitch line being added to the repertoire every day (dial 1-800-jews-in-the-attic).
• The SCoTUS is turning American jurisprudence on its ear.
• The Congress passes unconstitutional laws with impunity.

Through all of this, people still believe that the Democrats and Socialism are the answer.

They don't realize that any government that can give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have.

 

[chcr]

Through all of this, people still believe that the Democrats and Socialism are the answer.

Interesting conclusion in light of the last two presidential elections (well, the last one anyway).

 

[jimpeel]

Interesting conclusion in light of the last two presidential elections (well, the last one anyway).

You may be right considering the Congress they voted in has lower performance ratings than the president. They have done absolutely nothing since they have been there. They cl;aim they will get rid of things like earmarks but the earmarks continue and they are the ones doing it. They are a do-nothing Congress.

Bush rightly ripped them a new one the other day when he said that they have done nothing but run meaningless investigations.

 

[2minkey]

okay, here's your 'contentions.'

I am considering submitting the text after the story as an editorial opinion piece. Any thoughts from the members of the board would be appreciated.

The unintended consequences of feel-good laws.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,306556,00.html



We are now facing what the same people and organizations, who opted and lobbied for these laws regarding the placement and seating provisions for children, are calling an “epidemic”.

There have been numerous cases of children being left in hot cars while the parent(s) are at work or other activities. The answer to why this is happening with increasing frequency is simple -- the law of unintended consequences.

Back in the mid 1960s, seat belts began to appear in cars as an option. The effect on the reduction of accident related deaths was almost immediate. It was not long before the government mandated the installation of seatbelts in all cars.

The effectiveness of shoulder belts was demonstrated shortly thereafter. The government stepped right in and mandated that all cars be equipped with front seat shoulder belts and rear seat lap belts.

As time progressed, it was found that young children sitting in the back seat with lap belts securing them were susceptible to spinal separation injuries when they were involved in frontal impact accidents. The government mandated that all cars must have rear seat shoulder belts as well as all other previously mandated restraint devices.

The problem with the new mandate was that the children using the newly mandated shoulder belts were being "clotheslined" during frontal impacts causing severe injuries and even some deaths. The answer to this was for the government to further mandate child seats for younger, lighter children and booster seats for older heavier children. This at no small cost to parents.

The advent of the airbag ushered in the age of the passive restraint system. Manufacturers offered the new technology as an option in new cars. Before long, the government mandated that all cars must have airbags as well as all other previously mandated restraint devices. It was at about this time that state governments, never able to pass up a revenue enhancement opportunity, started mandating the use of restraint systems for vehicle passengers, including children, with citations and fines for failure to use them.

It was also at about this same time that forward facing infant seats were found to be unsafe. The age of rear facing seats was upon us. Infant seats laid the child on their back facing rearward.

The fallacy of this new technique soon became apparent as child after child was killed or severely injured by airbag deployment during low-impact accidents. In one case, the child was decapitated right in front of it’s mother. The new recommendation, soon to become a government mandate, was to place the child in the back seat away from the airbags.

Federal law prohibited the disabling of the airbags system so that was not an option. To the back seat the children went -- out of sight, and out of mind.

Which brings us to the unintended consequences of today. Parents are simply following the law and placing their children in the back seat. Unfortunately, if the child is asleep and making no sounds to alert parents to their presence, the parent can forget they are there until it is too late. Thus we have this “epidemic” of children dying in hot cars, and the parents going to jail, all because of the unintended consequence of a “benign” government mandate that was designed to protect those same children.

So what have those who opted and lobbied for these laws come up with to counter the unintended consequences of their actions? They suggest that you place a teddy bear on the front seat where you can see it to remind you that your child, who should be sitting where the teddy bear is, is in the back seat, fast asleep.

you really should not quit your day job, as i believe SnP suggested.

you have an issue with causality here. kids dying in cars is not a consequence of a particular law. kids dying in cars is a result of shitty parenting. which is a result of moral slippage. which is a result of... hmm well i'll leave that alone.

yeah. hmmm. what about the intended consequences of child safety laws...

"Sitting in a rear seat instead of the front seat reduces fatal injury risk by 36 percent among children 12 and younger.”5

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/enforce/ChildrenAndCars/pages/Belts.htm#ref5

hmmmm. yeah once in a while a kid dies in a car because of a negligent mom...

BAN MOMS! BAN CARS! (oh, right, you didn't say that...)

or at least moralize about... something....


respond to your contentions?

there's hardly anything here to respond to.

 

[jimpeel]

"Sitting in a rear seat instead of the front seat reduces fatal injury risk by 36 percent among children 12 and younger.”5

That was likey true in the 1950s before restraint systems came into play. EVERYONE is safer in the back seat except in rear-end and side-impact collisions.

That stat proves nothing but the logic that the back seat is safer for everyone -- unless, of course, you get pregnant as a result.

 

[BeardofPants]

The citation is from 2004 - study undertaken in 2002. He provided you with data and all you can do is repudiate?

 

[2minkey]

That was likey true in the 1950s before restraint systems came into play. EVERYONE is safer in the back seat except in rear-end and side-impact collisions.

That stat proves nothing but the logic that the back seat is safer for everyone -- unless, of course, you get pregnant as a result.

the real issue isn't the stat, anyway, it's your extremely weak causal connection between a law about kids in cars and shithead moms leaving 'em to fry...

which you absolutely can't defend, at least plausibly to anyone who understands the basics of formal logic. try googling "formal logic" and you'll get to "causality" pretty fast. or take a cheap course at you local community college. while you're there you can cruise the restrooms for twinks.

 

[jimpeel]

The citation is from 2004 - study undertaken in 2002. He provided you with data and all you can do is repudiate?

If you call common sense repudiation -- then yes.

In a frontal impact situation you will always be safer, and less prone to injury, in the back seat. To say that "36 percent among children 12 and younger" are safer in the back seat is simply common sense.

The back of the front seat is a cushion against impact. The front clip -- fenders, hood, etc. -- is less probable to penetrate into the back seat. The dashboard is not likely to be pushed into the back seat. The engine and transmission are not likely to violate the passenger compartment back to the rear seating area. All of the above, however, ARE likely to happen to the front passenger compartment in a frontal impact.

Given the choice of being in the front seat or back seat during a frontal collision? I'll take the back seat any time.

In addition to the above, children are more relaxed and are often asleep during an accident. They don't tighten up like adults in a situation and are less prone to injury as a result. How many times do we hear of the "miracle baby" after a catastrophic event who came through it unscathed?

If you need a concession, then I concede that children are safer in the back seat. I also concede that the figure given -- "36 percent among children 12 and younger" are safer in the back seat -- as statistically true for the purposes of that study, even though I have not read the study nor analyzed the controls.

Does that satisfy you?

 

[jimpeel]

the real issue isn't the stat, anyway, it's your extremely weak causal connection between a law about kids in cars and shithead moms leaving 'em to fry...

I gave the timeline wherein the requirement went from the kids being in front and in sight to the kids being relegated to the back seat out of sight. If this is incorrect, then why are these incidents -- an "epidemic" as the experts now put it -- on the rise where they were nearly non-exexistent prior?

which you absolutely can't defend, at least plausibly to anyone who understands the basics of formal logic. try googling "formal logic" and you'll get to "causality" pretty fast. or take a cheap course at you local community college. while you're there you can cruise the restrooms for twinks.

Congratulations, that snappy one-liner actually got a smile out of me.

That's one in a row. Keep up the good work.

 

[2minkey]

I gave the timeline wherein the requirement went from the kids being in front and in sight to the kids being relegated to the back seat out of sight. If this is incorrect, then why are these incidents -- an "epidemic" as the experts now put it -- on the rise where they were nearly non-exexistent prior?

i'm sorry, but where is this timeline? the one scrolling horizontally with the years and incident rates? just because two things increase or decrease at roughly the same time does not make them causally connected. hey maybe the troop surge in iraq is why my cat has gained weight!

again, time for that intro course...

now maybe i missed something, but who are these experts calling babies dying in cars with the proximate cause of thems deadkins being this particular law, and where do they make this claim?

don't forget that "common sense" arguments are horseshit and a cop out. so don't bother.

 

[jimpeel]

Ci'm sorry, but where is this timeline? the one scrolling horizontally with the years and incident rates?

Timeline by description is still a timeline. It does not have to be a graph to be so; nor is a graph necessary to the chronology.

just because two things increase or decrease at roughly the same time does not make them causally connected.

• Lapbelts caused an increase in spinal separations.
• The addition of shoulder belts increased the incidence of "clotheslining" injuries.
• Airbags increased injuries and deaths when rear facing seats were introduced.
• Incidents of children being forgotten in the back seat of cars has increased since the law was passed.

Just coincidence, I guess.

now maybe i missed something,

You certainly have; the following being a glaring example.

but who are these experts calling babies dying in cars with the proximate cause of thems deadkins being this particular law, and where do they make this claim?

The experts have stated that the incidence of children being left in cars is on the rise and in their words has reached "epidemic" proportions. They have not voiced any opinion on whether the law has caused this increase. THIS IS MY CONTENTION.

Perhaps you need to re-read the thread header.

I have placed that contention before you and described the timeline of events that have led to this increase. You disagree. That's fine.

don't forget that "common sense" arguments are horseshit and a cop out. so don't bother.

Since you rarely demonstrate it, it is a wonder I do.

 

[paul_valaru]

The experts have stated that the incidence of children being left in cars is on the rise and in their words has reached "epidemic" proportions. They have not voiced any opinion on whether the law has caused this increase. THIS IS MY CONTENTION.

What is the basis for this contention? Is it the timelines of the 2 things, or is there more?

 

[jimpeel]

What is the basis for this contention? Is it the timelines of the 2 things, or is there more?

The contention is that the rise in regulation, and the incremental steps by which they were increased regarding child seating requirements, has led to an increase in children being accidentally left in cars.

The contention is based solely on the showing of the failure, through increased incidents of death and injury, of prior regulations; and how those failures were addressed, incrementally, through further regulation.

The contention is mine and mine alone. Whether anyone else recognizes that is for them. I have merely placed it before the assemblage here for consideration.

Thank you for that question.

 

[2minkey]

What is the basis for this contention? Is it the timelines of the 2 things, or is there more?

and we're right back to square one with his lack of convincing causal argument.

here you go, jim, try thinking about these different things and understanding the difference-

• Lapbelts caused an increase in spinal separations.
• The addition of shoulder belts increased the incidence of "clotheslining" injuries.

(direct, physically verifiable proximate causes of injury)

• Incidents of children being forgotten in the back seat of cars has increased since the law was passed.

(possible link, however speculative, and with the obvious proximate cause of the issue being parental negligence)

that's it! i've got it. alert the fucking press! (and hey, i could actually write something coherent, too...)

IT'S an EPIDEMIC of SHITTY, SELFISH PARENTING!
(gee, now there's a revelation... )

hey maybe a public service awareness campaign would be great, huh?

maybe that would rescue me from my lack of common sense!

 

[paul_valaru]

The contention is that the rise in regulation, and the incremental steps by which they were increased regarding child seating requirements, has led to an increase in children being accidentally left in cars.

The contention is based solely on the showing of the failure, through increased incidents of death and injury, of prior regulations; and how those failures were addressed, incrementally, through further regulation.

But has it been proved that children are left in cars more often, or is it just reported on more?

Has the prevelance of AC in cars had any impact "oh it's cool in here, I can leave little bobby for 5 minutes" then they get in a conversation.

I understand the argument you are making, Child safety seat laws have increased, and so has incidences of children left in cars ergo one effects the other. But instances of people taking up smoking have decreased in that time (out of ass example, no proof or link) so does that either effect children left in cars? Or child safety seat laws. It's faulty logic one thing happens and another thing happens so they must be connected.

You need a concrete link between the 2 to prove your argument.

Though I understand your hypothesis, I disagree with it.

 

[jimpeel]

and we're right back to square one with his lack of convincing causal argument.

here you go, jim, try thinking about these different things and understanding the difference-

• Lapbelts caused an increase in spinal separations.
• The addition of shoulder belts increased the incidence of "clotheslining" injuries.

(direct, physically verifiable proximate causes of injury)

• Incidents of children being forgotten in the back seat of cars has increased since the law was passed.

(possible link, however speculative, and with the obvious proximate cause of the issue being parental negligence)

Actually a good response on your part. It is too bad you couldn't resist the temptation to go off on a maniacal diatribe which I have not quoted here.

You have apparently chosen to ignore what I said in the original post which was this:

So what have those who opted and lobbied for these laws come up with to counter the unintended consequences of their actions? They suggest that you place a teddy bear on the front seat where you can see it to remind you that your child, who should be sitting where the teddy bear is, is in the back seat, fast asleep.

Would such a move improve the situation by placing the child in view? Yes. Would this be an improvement against the perils of "parental negligence"? Yes.

The problem is this, also from my original post:

Federal law prohibited the disabling of the airbags system so that was not an option. To the back seat the children went -- out of sight, and out of mind.

If you have a pickup truck which, unlike mine, has no back seat the law has been amended to allow the disabling of the airbag on the passenger side. Any bets that the people accidentally leaving the kids in the car are not driving pickup trucks?

If the kids are considered safe in the front seat of a pickup truck without airbags in a frontal collision; why, then, are those same children not as safe in the front seat of a four door sedan or minivan?

 

[jimpeel]

But has it been proved that children are left in cars more often, or is it just reported on more?

An important and insightful question.

The short answer is "I don't know for sure."

The long response is this. I have been in the pro-firearms arena for many years and one of the things that drives the news is firearms injuries and fatalities. Several studies were done on this subject; and all of them found that while firearms fatalities were falling, the perception of the general public was that they were on the rise.

This phenomenon was attributed to two things:

• Increased coverage and these types of news stories leading the news.
• Better and far ranging news coverage and news availability.

So the valididty of your observation is obvious. Again, however, I have to defer to the short answer.

Has the prevelance of AC in cars had any impact "oh it's cool in here, I can leave little bobby for 5 minutes" then they get in a conversation.

The preponderance of these incidents is parents going to work and leaving the kid in the car all day, as this waitress did. About a month ago, there was news coverage of a mother who left her child in a car by accident. The police were called and the newspeople showed up.

There was film of the mother running full tilt out of the store screaming as she realized that her child was in the car that had been mentioned to her in the store. She was absolutely inconsolable and near breakdown as she stood by the car. The child was unharmed and, in a brilliant show of common sense, she was not charged although the matter was referred to CPS.

I understand the argument you are making, Child safety seat laws have increased, and so has incidences of children left in cars ergo one effects the other. But instances of people taking up smoking have decreased in that time (out of ass example, no proof or link) so does that either effect children left in cars? Or child safety seat laws. It's faulty logic one thing happens and another thing happens so they must be connected.

The problem is with government regulation that, when the first regulation fails to produce the desired result or exhibits unintended consequences, attempts to remedy that failure through further regulation. In this case, the progression was lap belts, shoulder belts, child booster seats, airbags, rear facing carriers, rear seat placement. Each have demonstrated failures or unintended consequences and I personally believe the accidental leaving of children in cars is a partial, if not direct, result of the last regulation.

You need a concrete link between the 2 to prove your argument.

That would require a government grant, a Nexis-Lexis subscription, and countless hours of research. Could be fun. Ya wanna apply for that grant together?

Though I understand your hypothesis, I disagree with it.

Your clear headed, thoughtful responses are refreshing. Thank you.

 

[2minkey]

Actually a good response on your part.

thanks!

hey, so are you actually going to address the key issue or are you going to keep skirting around it by throwing out fact-lets?

 

[paul_valaru]

That would require a government grant, a Nexis-Lexis subscription, and countless hours of research. Could be fun. Ya wanna apply for that grant together?

I'm Canadian, I can only get a grant if I want to pile up manure and call it art or something.

 

[jimpeel]

I'm Canadian, I can only get a grant if I want to pile up manure and call it art or something.

BWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!