jimpeel
Well-Known Member
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.
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.
