Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Simplicity" data-source="post: 3211216" data-attributes="member: 1496">Maybe you should read that article a little closer before declaring "facts".  Carseats are 54% safer than not restraining your child AT ALL.  They're 54% safer than no seatbelt whatsoever.  It doesn't take a genius to figure that carseats are safer than nothing.  The point of the paper is that once you account for putting the kid in the backseat and putting them into a seatbelt...  Carseats aren't really any safer for children over 2.  And seatbelts aren't costing us $300 million a year.The authors are economists, who if nothing else are extremely good at looking at statistical correlation.  It's what they do.  It's not like they have a major stake in disproving the efficacy of car seats.  This doesn't come from the car-seat haters of America.  In fact the authors themselves are trying to determine why the margin is so small given that other studies using other survey methods seem to show different results.The paper was using government data (plus insurance industry data) of hundreds of thousands of car crashes.  So saying that the government data proves it safer is not entirely accurate, it is?  If "the man" constitutes statistics, then yes.  The man is out to get you.I think I'm going to let this thread die its lonely death now.  Feel free to have the last word, if you like.</blockquote>