Child-safety laws may reduce the birth rate • Hacker News Board

Re: Child-safety laws may reduce the birth rate

#131

Post by lotsofpulp » Wed, Dec 16, 2020, 11:15 PM UTC

nsxwolf wrote: post #105

anonAndOn wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Minivans are only un-cool until you are forced to appreciate their practicality. They can transport groups of kids and all their gear, a bunch of dogs, a surprising amount of furniture or even large sheets of lumber or drywall. I would only consider replacing my minivan with an electric minivan.

Got the Pacifica a few years ago, never looked back. Probably will buy a new one in a few years.

What is the wear and tear cost per mile? I would be very apprehensive about investing in a Fiat Chrysler product.

Re: Child-safety laws may reduce the birth rate

#132

Post by bobthepanda » Wed, Dec 16, 2020, 11:15 PM UTC

sneak wrote: post #118

Analemma_ wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems to be very rarely enforced. I ride in Seattle without a helmet all the time and have never had a problem.

Out of curiosity: why do you ride without a helmet?

Helmets are big unwieldy things. They're not easy to carry, and are shaped such that even if you had a bag big enough for one, it would probably crowd out a lot of things that might also go in the bag (e.g. very few bags might hold a 15-in laptop and also a helmet) It is inconvenient to take spontaneous or quick bike rides if you have to lug a helmet around everywhere.

Also, there is at least some debate about whether or not wearing a helmet actually makes drivers less careful around you, since it looks like you're better protected. https://qz.com/1474671/scientists-are-still-debating-whether...

Re: Child-safety laws may reduce the birth rate

#133

Post by rags2riches » Wed, Dec 16, 2020, 11:18 PM UTC

sneak wrote: post #118

Analemma_ wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems to be very rarely enforced. I ride in Seattle without a helmet all the time and have never had a problem.

Out of curiosity: why do you ride without a helmet?

If one leaves it up to the law, it's easy. If not, it's basically an expression of personal weights assigned to a whole lot of fuzzy things.

Can you draw a clear line between when you wear a helmet and when you don't? Is it perfectly obvious or more up to habit? Would it be influenced by a change in laws? Or if there were helmets available marketed for the specific activity?

Is it obvious where riding a bike fits in between riding a car a car, climbing a tree, playing soccer with the kids, having a shower, walking up a staircase, cooking in your kitchen, walking near a pool, hiking in the hills... Your head can be hurt in so many ways. Wearing a helmet might save you. So why don't you do it more often?

Re: Child-safety laws may reduce the birth rate

#134

Post by lotsofpulp » Wed, Dec 16, 2020, 11:24 PM UTC

analog31 wrote: post #102

testfoobar wrote: post #33

The reality for a lot of families is that having children is frighteningly expensive. The twin costs of childcare and a reduction in parental work hours (often mom's) and as a result future career and income advancement potential can be substantial drag on a family's income. Each additional child just prolongs this drag. Multigenerational households where grandparents provide childcare are one solution around this pr…

A lot of people move away from home to find work, especially if educated, and don't have access to grandparents. Also, as people are waiting longer to have kids, the grandparents are older and not as capable -- or may even be in need of care themselves. In addition to childcare, there's also health care and education to pay for. Middle class families get virtually no help on either front.

Also, as people wait longer to have kids, the mother's body is less and less able to bounce back from pregnancy. I know tons of couples who have 2 kids in their 30s, but 2 only so that the first kid can have a sibling. CDC recommends 3 years between births for a woman's body to recover, and I don't know many women eager to continue having kids past 35.

Re: Child-safety laws may reduce the birth rate

#135

Post by Enginerrrd » Wed, Dec 16, 2020, 11:25 PM UTC

minikites wrote: post #8

The unspoken assertion is that we want a high birth rate. Why do we want a high birth rate?

Demographics can explain a lot of ills in a society. A nice pyramid is pretty good and stable. When things get too top heavy (low birth rate compared to previous generations) or too bottom heavy (high birth rate compared to previous generations), serious but predictable problems almost always occur.

Re: Child-safety laws may reduce the birth rate

#136

Post by lazyjones » Wed, Dec 16, 2020, 11:25 PM UTC

I joked a few times about families in the 70s and early 80s often having a 3rd child as a reserve here in Europe, since we grew up without child seats, airbags and such things and the birth rate dropped by approximately 1 child per mother since these safety measures were introduced. Seems like there was some truth in that...

Re: Child-safety laws may reduce the birth rate

#137

Post by el_nahual » Wed, Dec 16, 2020, 11:27 PM UTC

IBCNU wrote: post #3

"number of people who drowned by falling into a pool correlates with films nocolas cage appeard in"

The conclusions here are fairly robust because there's a few natural experiments due to different states enacting stricter child safety laws at different times.

Re: Child-safety laws may reduce the birth rate

#138

Post by chrisco255 » Wed, Dec 16, 2020, 11:28 PM UTC

handmodel wrote: post #5

IBCNU wrote: post #3

"number of people who drowned by falling into a pool correlates with films nocolas cage appeard in"

While I don't quite see how the safety seat alone could cause that much of a difference, I don't think it is unreasonable to see a causal relationship here. Raising a child has gotten more expensive in the US for many reasons (laws about child seats, more money needed for education, no longer socially acceptable to leave kids alone for awhile) and that certainly has an impact.

I'll throw one out there: the birth rate has been falling everywhere across the globe at the same time, even in countries that don't have the same laws about child safety restraints. So the hypothesis is bogus, or it's a tiny fraction of what holistic analysis would suggest are the causes.

Re: Child-safety laws may reduce the birth rate

#139

Post by ghaff » Wed, Dec 16, 2020, 11:32 PM UTC

rags2riches wrote: post #133

sneak wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Out of curiosity: why do you ride without a helmet?

If one leaves it up to the law, it's easy. If not, it's basically an expression of personal weights assigned to a whole lot of fuzzy things. Can you draw a clear line between when you wear a helmet and when you don't? Is it perfectly obvious or more up to habit? Would it be influenced by a change in laws? Or if there were helmets available marketed for the specific activity? Is it obvious where riding a bike fits in…

At least among certain demographics in the US, a very clear orthodoxy has emerged between uses where you must wear helmets vs. where helmet use would seem pretty silly for the most part. There's some logic in the categorization but almost certainly not the clear line that some people would like to think exists.

Re: Child-safety laws may reduce the birth rate

#140

Post by imaginenore » Wed, Dec 16, 2020, 11:32 PM UTC

war1025 wrote: post #44

irateswami wrote: post #15

This is an actual conversation I had to have with my wife, having a third kid definitely requires a larger vehicle as the vast majority of cars today simply don't work for a family of five. Child car seats are too wide and the backseats of most cars are too narrow, and the price jump to a vehicle that would be able to handle three child car seats at once is enormous. Throw in some dogs, a couple pieces of luggage tha…

We ended up buying Diono Radian carseats [1], which are marketed as "the 3-across car seat" We can fit our three kids in the back of our Honda Civic perfectly well. But we've had exactly the same conversation. In order to have a fourth kid, we'd need to swap out our vehicles. House is fine, insurance is fine, income is fine, but we'd need to upgrade vehicles, and that seems to be just enough friction to make the idea…

Except National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) rated Dino carseats with 2 stars for ease of use. Which means you're more likely to injure a child when using the seat.