Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Child-safety laws may reduce the birth rate

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 411 posts

Re: Child-safety laws may reduce the birth rate

#111

Post by oblio »

gowld wrote: post #43
jimbob45 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because we don’t want to be Japan, which is about to become an expansion state of immigrants since their birth rate can’t support their future population. Africa has a high birth rate. Should we crack down on that? Or are you just saying it’s a problem when rich, low-crime nations have high birth rates?

What's wrong with Japan?

Well, Japan keeps aging and we haven't discovered immortality so something's got to break at some point. The rest of the developed world is following with a 20-40 year delay.

Re: Child-safety laws may reduce the birth rate

#112

Post by mikepurvis »

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…

When my partner and I had our third, the Mazda 5 was our compromise vehicle— still has sliding doors and the overall aesthetics of a minivan, but drives like a car, gets decent gas mileage, and has a footprint comparable to a CUV for the purposes of parking and so-on.

We may well go to a full size van at some point, but once the kids are no longer babies, they actually travel somewhat lighter— no stroller, playpen, diaper bag, etc being shlepped everywhere.

Re: Child-safety laws may reduce the birth rate

#113

Post by defen »

motohagiography wrote: post #98

Lacking an Economist subscription, is it due to a game theory explanation for how above a certain survival or wealth probability threshold, human societies switch from r-selection to K-selection, or is it just that the overprotected ones genetically select out because they grow up to be unattractive?

The articles describes a study which purports to show that stricter child safety requirements for cars inhibits families from going from 2 -> 3 children, since it essentially forces them to buy a minivan, which is either too expensive or makes you look like the kind of family that drives a minivan.

Re: Child-safety laws may reduce the birth rate

#114

Post by thedanbob »

anonAndOn wrote: post #42
kube-system wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I was young, this was what minivans were for: families with three kids.

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.

I inherited my family’s old minivan while I was at college—a small, private one where the students lived on campus and most didn’t have their own vehicles. Overnight my popularity skyrocketed.

Re: Child-safety laws may reduce the birth rate

#115

Post by iso947 »

leetcrew wrote: post #36
mb7733 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe you're thinking of Australia. There are very few (if any?) places in the US with helmet laws for adults.

could be on the books but not enforced. in my city helmets are required when riding those electric scooters. you're also exposed to the same DUI laws that apply to actual cars. doesn't stop a bunch of drunk college kids from riding them around with no helmet every night.

There are more head traumas from car occupants than cyclists, it’s odd that there aren’t laws mandating helmets for drivers - 20% of Traumatic brain injuries Resulting in hospitalisation were caused by car crashes - about 1,000 a week.

Re: Child-safety laws may reduce the birth rate

#116

Post by LeifCarrotson »

war1025 wrote: post #89
Someone1234 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Radian is definitely king of three across. But they're premium priced ($200 each, or $600 for three), and sacrifice comfort particularly for longer trips. In general people who have never had kids don't seem to grasp that the average (non-Radian) car-seat is BIGGER than an adult side-to-side. The Radian series has a niche because they produced a car-seat the same size as an adult (with no loss of safety), but had…

> sacrifice comfort particularly for longer trips. I guess maybe they are less comfortable than traditional car seats, but since car seats are basically build like lazy-boy recliners, that seems unsurprising. Our kids have never complained about the comfort or lack-thereof. They seem to have pretty equivalent comfort when compared to the back seat itself as far as I can tell.

What makes you say they're less comfortable? Compared to my kid's carseat, it looks like they removed the side bolsters (which are like 6" tall in mine) but kept everything else basically the same - a few mm of foam and some neoprene over plastic.

Re: Child-safety laws may reduce the birth rate

#117

Post by spankalee »

mikepurvis wrote: post #112
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…

When my partner and I had our third, the Mazda 5 was our compromise vehicle— still has sliding doors and the overall aesthetics of a minivan, but drives like a car, gets decent gas mileage, and has a footprint comparable to a CUV for the purposes of parking and so-on. We may well go to a full size van at some point, but once the kids are no longer babies, they actually travel somewhat lighter— no stroller, playpen, d…

The Ford Transit Connect is an awesome, just slightly larger version of that if you want to be a bit smaller than a full-sized van or a Metris.

Re: Child-safety laws may reduce the birth rate

#118

Post by sneak »

Analemma_ wrote: post #96
blang wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

King county Washington[1]. [1] https://www.kingcounty.gov/depts/health/violence-injury-prev... !

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?

Re: Child-safety laws may reduce the birth rate

#120

Post by dhosek »

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.

The Pacifica Hybrid is wonderful. We buy very little gasoline (even less this year).
Post reply on HN