[HN Gopher] Odd and unsafe baby car seats from the past
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Odd and unsafe baby car seats from the past
        
       Author : Brajeshwar
       Score  : 93 points
       Date   : 2023-08-23 14:46 UTC (8 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (rarehistoricalphotos.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (rarehistoricalphotos.com)
        
       | hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
       | Pre 70s/80s cars were really total deathtraps, it's pretty
       | amazing how far we've come.
       | 
       | https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-vehicle/historical-fatalit...
        
         | wedn3sday wrote:
         | All modern cars are death traps.
        
           | afavour wrote:
           | All modern cars are deadly, just the deadliness is projected
           | outwards.
           | 
           | Don't get me wrong, increased car safety is a good thing but
           | people can drive like maniacs with a pretty good assurance
           | they're not going to be seriously injured even if they get in
           | a crash. So they do. Which is bad news is you're a pedestrian
           | or a cyclist.
        
             | bluGill wrote:
             | They drove the same (or likely worse!) in 1960 when cars
             | went just as fast as today, but they didn't have either the
             | drivers training or the safety features of a modern car.
        
           | mech765 wrote:
           | Aren't bicycles more deadly per passenger mile?
        
             | connicpu wrote:
             | In terms of being killed by other vehicles on the road yes
        
               | SoftTalker wrote:
               | Which is why they don't belong on the road with cars.
        
               | Robin_Message wrote:
               | I too agree with the banning of cars from areas where
               | pedestrians and cyclists are likely to be, for example,
               | all city centres and residential areas.
        
               | eru wrote:
               | You don't need to go quite so far. Dutch levels of
               | separation are probably enough.
        
               | connicpu wrote:
               | The roads belonged to pedestrians, horses, and bicycles a
               | long time before the car infestation took over
        
               | parineum wrote:
               | I can't believe you're in favor of banning cars, horses
               | and bicycles from the road.
        
           | t0mas88 wrote:
           | Modern cars are very safe for the occupants compared to all
           | previous iterations. It's the people by foot or bike you
           | crash those cars into that are in a bad place.
        
             | eru wrote:
             | Though different cars differ. SUVs are particularly bad for
             | pedestrians and cyclists.
        
         | genter wrote:
         | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_r5UJrxcck
        
         | [deleted]
        
       | nonethewiser wrote:
       | Now we have dozens of car seats designed by engineers and
       | thoroughly crash-tested to create car seats that get thrown away
       | (or are supposed to be) after any impact event. Makes me feel
       | like we are much richer than we used to be.
        
         | syntaxing wrote:
         | Same for helmets. It less so it's purposely designed so people
         | will keep buying them but more so that something has to absorb
         | the impact so the kid doesn't. Mechanical deformation turns out
         | to be the most effective and safest but deformation is also a
         | one way street hence why you need to change it after an impact.
         | That being said, how often are you getting into accidents?!
        
         | midasuni wrote:
         | Given how rare an impact event is that's quite reasonable -
         | I've had car seats for 11 years now, from rear facing carrier
         | to just a small booster (Italy requires a child to be 150cm to
         | travel without a car seat)
         | 
         | I've disposed of them as the youngest child outgrows them, but
         | they've never been in an impact.
        
         | isk517 wrote:
         | It's definitely a rip off. I'm working on a new type of child
         | car seat that I believe will take the market by storm.
         | Guaranteed to be reusable after every crash. My plan to achieve
         | this is by design the seat so that the force of the impact is
         | funneled directly into the child, protecting the car seat from
         | any damage.
        
         | ajford wrote:
         | Yeah, that's because they're designed to absorb the damage into
         | internal stress and deformation to dissipate the force of the
         | crash.
         | 
         | That force and momentum has to go somewhere and it's better to
         | absorb it into the car seat and consider it a consumable than
         | to transmit that force into the child it's meant to protect.
         | The same thing applies for helmets. A motorcycle helmet is a
         | consumable item and should be discarded after a crash as the
         | internal foam structure will be deformed and could fail to
         | properly absorb the impact forces in a subsequent crash.
        
         | blincoln wrote:
         | Imagine how much more expensive a car seat designed to be fully
         | reusable after a collision would be, then consider how often
         | most people are involved in serious collisions.
         | 
         | I'm in my 40s, and I've been a passenger in one collision that
         | required a tow truck, something like 20 years ago. Most people
         | I've talked to have similar experiences in terms of frequency
         | of serious collisions.
         | 
         | It's less expensive overall to do it this way.
        
       | wedn3sday wrote:
       | Not to be That Guy, but all car seats are unsafe since they're in
       | cars. Im shocked on a daily basis how stupid and short sighted
       | our car culture is, everyone has to behave perfectly all the
       | time, and the consequences are death for you and random
       | strangers. Any random stranger can sneeze at any time and kill
       | your whole family.
        
         | willio58 wrote:
         | > Any random stranger can sneeze at any time and kill your
         | whole family.
         | 
         | So true. I live right near a stroad and a crosswalk on that
         | stroad and about once a week I hear brakes being slammed on
         | because people aren't paying attention and it's a high-traffic
         | area for walkers (some of which are children) since the rest of
         | the neighborhood is actually quite walkable. I've live in this
         | place 1 year and now witnessed 4 accidents, luckily none of
         | them killing anyone yet but it's just a matter of time.
         | 
         | I've also been traveling a lot recently and experiencing cities
         | (even American ones) that value good public transportation with
         | metros (and even trains in the Northeast) and it's a breath of
         | fresh air. Then I come back to where I live and the only way to
         | describe it is I'm watching these huge machines, piloted by and
         | only transporting 1 person in most cases, barreling around my
         | local area just narrowly missing each other at high speeds.
         | Every pilot is just assuming every other pilot had enough
         | coffee that day, isn't massively distracted by any number of
         | things, doesn't have road rage, isn't trying to show off their
         | loud, polluting, and dangerous machine, etc. No wonder kids
         | increasingly stay inside and get depressed. Previous
         | generations literally built car and parking lot hellscapes and
         | expect people to still enjoy life outside the home.
        
         | eru wrote:
         | > Not to be That Guy, but all car seats are unsafe since
         | they're in cars.
         | 
         | Safety is a spectrum, not a binary.
        
       | ChoHag wrote:
       | I can't lie, I like the look of that one that hangs them out the
       | side window.
       | 
       | Can we get them for planes?
        
       | bombcar wrote:
       | One thing to realize about these photos - they're _still_ a vast
       | improvement over a child literally rolling around on the floor
       | (where they could get entangled with the pedals or who knows what
       | else).
        
         | drewg123 wrote:
         | I was a baby in the early 70s, and I'm not even sure I ever had
         | anything resembling a car seat. I remember walking around in
         | the back seat area of my grandmother's giant Ford sedan in the
         | early 1970s.
         | 
         | I also remember sitting on the rear "luggage shelf" of my mom's
         | Triumph TR6 2-seat sports car. I loved that, because my head
         | was high enough that I could see the road ahead. I can only
         | imagine how I would have gone flying and likely been impaled on
         | the gear shift if there had been an accident...
        
           | [deleted]
        
           | bombcar wrote:
           | It was much later than that, I remember sleeping on the back
           | shelf of my parent's little 240D Benz on long road trips.
           | 
           | Of course, people still do things like sleep on the floor of
           | a minivan, but it's not quite as _common_ now.
        
             | CRConrad wrote:
             | For a bit of perspective , it's kind of funny to see the
             | 240D called a "little" car. A while back, after the
             | introduction of the 190 (predecessor of the C-class), the
             | 240 and its ilk (the successors of which are now
             | collectively known as the E-class) were the definition of a
             | mid-size Mercedes - but even before that, they were
             | generally accepted all over the world, _except_ for North
             | America, as _large_ cars.
        
         | justrealist wrote:
         | I'm not convinced that's true. In a crash, the bar is going to
         | cause a lot of internal damage and whiplash (if it contains
         | them at all)... I mean it might be true, but I really doubt it
         | was tested formally.
        
           | flir wrote:
           | It's ok, babies fold. I'm sure I've read that somewhere.
        
           | kuhsaft wrote:
           | I think OP means that it's an improvement in crash prevention
           | not crash safety.
        
             | bombcar wrote:
             | Exactly. You could go your entire life without being
             | involved in a crash, but if a child is rolling around in
             | the car, you will probably be involved in at least
             | annoyance quite quickly.
        
         | jwestbury wrote:
         | I'm not _entirely_ convinced that your baby hanging outside the
         | car is an improvement over your baby just laying on the seat.
        
           | bombcar wrote:
           | I think that one was a "baby hangs inside the window when
           | driving, but you can hang them outside when parked at a
           | picnic".
           | 
           | But maybe not! Maybe life was much more exciting (and bug
           | filled) for babies back then.
        
             | AdmiralAsshat wrote:
             | I feel like the _metal frame_ external car seat would get
             | hot as hell in the baking sun when taking your baby for a
             | picnic.
        
               | eru wrote:
               | Park in the shade?
        
               | CRConrad wrote:
               | Either way, at least Baby wouldn't suffocate in the heat,
               | as they do nowadays.
        
         | eweise wrote:
         | I don't think I wore a seatbelt until my teenage years. We
         | mainly rode in the back of the stationwagon where there was
         | enough room to play games.
         | 
         | I also remember riding in truck beds was a normal thing.
        
           | [deleted]
        
         | dumbfounder wrote:
         | Some may provide a little extra safety. Some seem to make
         | things worse. A hammock for safety? LOL.
        
           | brazzy wrote:
           | If that hammock and it's attachment are strong enough, it's
           | probably the safest of all the options shown in the article.
        
           | jakemoshenko wrote:
           | Pros: It will automatically orient to either a frontal or
           | rear collision and has tons of contact area with the body. If
           | it's made of even a slightly stretchy material it would also
           | spread the force out over some period of time.
        
             | Scoundreller wrote:
             | I wish more vehicles had more rear-facing seats. Can't get
             | used to it without experiencing it throughout life.
             | 
             | Seems like only bi-directional train cars have them, or
             | trams that rarely slow down rapidly.
        
               | seszett wrote:
               | Metros have them, and in my experience the rear-facing
               | seats are more comfortable, as metros decelerate much
               | faster than they accelerate (or at least in Lille, I
               | didn't notice it as much in three other metros I took).
        
         | Someone wrote:
         | Also, driver safety wasn't a thing, either. If a car came to a
         | rapid stop, those kids would have been flying through the front
         | window, but chances are the driver would be impaled on the
         | steering column (the steering wheel would easily break of, but
         | that column would be rigidly connected to the front axle), the
         | engine block might be pushed through the car into the back
         | seats, maiming any legs it encountered, etc.
         | 
         | Cars were extremely dangerous at the time and could kill their
         | passengers in collisions even at low speeds.
         | 
         | Ralph Nader had a point (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsafe_a
         | t_Any_Speed:_The_Desig...)
        
           | cogman10 wrote:
           | > If a car came to a rapid stop, those kids would have been
           | flying through the front window
           | 
           | That's how my sister broke her arm and what got my entire
           | family on the "buckle up every time" train.
           | 
           | Fortunately, she was in the backseat of a van so she wasn't
           | ejected from the vehicle. But it was a real wake up call.
           | (This happened back in the 90s).
        
           | jvm___ wrote:
           | The glass broke like picture frame glass, all sharp-edged and
           | spiky. Safety glass was invented as it breaks into tiny
           | shards that are unlikely to cause major damage.
        
             | Symbiote wrote:
             | I read Roald Dahl's autobiography when I was young (young
             | enough to be reading his other children's books) and
             | remember his description of the car accident in 1925, when
             | he was 9:
             | 
             | > The driver was to be that twelve-years-older-than-me
             | half-sister ... She had received two full half-hour lessons
             | in driving from the man who delivered the car, and in that
             | enlightened year of 1925 this was considered quite
             | sufficient.
             | 
             | > ...
             | 
             | > Spurred on by our shouts and taunts, the ancient sister
             | began to increase the speed. The engine roared and the body
             | vibrated. The driver was clutching the steering-wheel as
             | though it were the hair of a drowning man, and we all
             | watched the speedometer needle creeping up to twenty, then
             | twenty-five, then thirty. We were probably doing about
             | thirty-five miles an hour when we came suddenly to a
             | sharpish bend in the road. The ancient sister, never having
             | been faced with a situation like this before, shouted
             | 'Help!' and slammed on the brakes and swung the wheel
             | wildly round. The rear wheels locked and went into a fierce
             | sideways skid, and then, with a marvellous crunch of
             | mudguards and metal, we went crashing into the hedge. The
             | front passengers all shot through the front windscreen and
             | the back passengers all shot through the back windscreen.
             | Glass (there was no Triplex then) flew in all directions
             | and so did we. My brother and one sister landed on the
             | bonnet of the car, someone else was catapulted out on to
             | the road and at least one small sister landed in the middle
             | of the hawthorn hedge. But miraculously nobody was hurt
             | very much except me. My nose had been cut almost clean off
             | my face as I went through the rear windscreen and now it
             | was hanging on only by a single small thread of skin. My
             | mother disentangled herself from the scrimmage and grabbed
             | a handkerchief from her purse. She clapped the dangling
             | nose back into place fast and held it there.
             | 
             | -- Roald Dahl, _Boy_ (1984)
        
           | huehehue wrote:
           | This story is dumb luck, and not an anti-seatbelt sentiment
           | in any way: my grandmother was in a collision severe enough
           | to send her flying through the front windshield and into the
           | ditch, and the shape of the car(s) afterwards suggested that
           | if she _weren 't_ tossed from the car she would have been
           | crushed to pieces.
           | 
           | Things are different today, but interesting to think that the
           | structural integrity on these old machines was so poor that
           | you'd rather get hurled from the car in an accident.
        
             | connicpu wrote:
             | Yeah, it's crazy to think there was a time when cars put
             | little to no engineering into passenger safety. A modern
             | car is designed with room for the engine bay to be crushed
             | to absorb some of the impact while all of the rigidity is
             | put into the cage surrounding the passenger compartment
        
               | eru wrote:
               | At least that's the case for normal cars. SUVs have some
               | weird regulatory loopholes around them (in the US) that
               | negate these good ideas.
        
               | UniverseHacker wrote:
               | Decent manufacturers still use best safety practices even
               | when not required to. Volvo and Mercedes invented most of
               | the modern safety tech in the 70s and 80s and use it on
               | all models, most other higher end cars do as well
               | nowadays.
               | 
               | If your car company only makes your car as safe as
               | legally required, is that what you want to trust your
               | family with?
        
               | Scoundreller wrote:
               | Sure, but try to import a euro-spec Volvo or Mercedes
               | into USA or Canada and the safety authorities will treat
               | you like you're pointing a gun at them.
        
               | CRConrad wrote:
               | The body of the car is identical. It would make no
               | commercial sense to build the same vehicle with a rigid
               | passenger cell surrounded by crumple zones for some
               | markets, and in some other fashion for others. Any spec
               | differences are equipment, peripherals, and engines - so
               | performance, fuel economy, and exhaust cleanliness may
               | differ, but not passive safety.
               | 
               | ETA: Also, many of those Euro-standard "European" cars
               | are built in the USA and exported to their "home"
               | markets.
        
               | paul_funyun wrote:
               | Sure, the legal requirements are more than sufficient
        
               | UniverseHacker wrote:
               | That's a personal decision of course, but the most
               | dangerous cars have real world death rates over 200x that
               | of the safest designs, and they are all legal[1]. Driving
               | is incredibly dangerous on average, yet the risk can be
               | almost entirely mitigated by choosing the right vehicle.
               | I find it shocking how much difference there is.
               | 
               | [1] https://www.kbb.com/car-news/the-deadliest-and-least-
               | deadly-...
        
               | dancek wrote:
               | That's an understatement. According to that data, the
               | most dangerous cars are infinitely more dangerous than
               | the safest cars (205 driver deaths per million registered
               | vehicle years vs. 0). Even more interestingly, the fifth
               | safest car is infinitely more dangerous than the safest
               | four cars (2 vs 0).
               | 
               | Also note that this is the _driver_ death rate. The death
               | rates for other people are vastly different.
               | 
               | You shouldn't jump to conclusions from the data, either.
               | A Dodge Challenger (3rd most driver deaths) is probably
               | not unsafe per se, it just attracts people that want to
               | take unnecessary risks.
               | 
               | Driving is quite safe on average. In my home country
               | there's 5.1 deaths per a billion vehicle kilometers.
               | That's about one death every 2.5 million hours of driving
               | at highway speed. Many other things carry a greater risk
               | of death.
        
               | UniverseHacker wrote:
               | Traffic accidents are still the leading cause of death in
               | older children and young adults... as a parent, it is by
               | far the most important safety factor I have any control
               | over.
               | 
               | That is a good point about confounding factors based on
               | who buys these cars, but overall it is pretty clear that
               | most of the safest vehicles are larger cars and mid-sized
               | SUVs from the higher end Japanese and European companies.
               | They are all vehicles that are both heavy _and_ have car
               | like safety features.
        
               | nradov wrote:
               | There are some SUVs such as the Nissan Pathfinder and BMW
               | X3 with a driver death rate of _zero_.
               | 
               | https://www.iihs.org/ratings/driver-death-rates-by-make-
               | and-...
        
             | SoftTalker wrote:
             | That was an argument people made when seatbelts first
             | became mandatory. They thought that without a seatbelt they
             | would be "thrown clear" in an accident, when in reality
             | that is very unlikely to happen.
        
       | user3939382 wrote:
       | Does the playpen in the back of my mom's WV Bus count?
        
       | jvm___ wrote:
       | I've sat backwards in the trunk of a Ford Taurus station wagon. A
       | few years later there was one at a demolition derby - after the
       | first hit there wasn't much car left behind the rear wheels...
       | Eep!
        
       | maxwell wrote:
       | I glanced at motor vehicle fatality rates in the U.S. previously
       | and didn't see a clear impact of seat belt laws myself, instead
       | the major drops seem to line up with economic recessions:
       | 
       | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35833165
        
         | derbOac wrote:
         | This is getting tangential but it's striking to me how fatality
         | rates went up during the pandemic. You can see the dips during
         | previous recessions and energy crises like you're saying, and
         | I'd expect something similar during the pandemic, but it went
         | the other way.
        
           | brewdad wrote:
           | People were bored sitting at home. Getting out in your car
           | and driving stupidly fast on empty roads was one way to
           | alleviate that boredom. My 25mph road regularly became a drag
           | strip.
        
             | dr_orpheus wrote:
             | Seems likely, I had to keep going to work in person during
             | COVID and my commute to work became very fast, and not just
             | because of the empty roads. I also wonder if there was an
             | uptick in fatality as people started returning to work and
             | those used to speeding down an empty road were suddenly
             | confronted with traffic.
             | 
             | Also reminds me of some statistics I saw back in drivers ed
             | class. I don't remember the exact stats, but in winter
             | months there were significantly more crashes due to
             | inclement weather/poor visibility as one might expect. But
             | there were more fatal crashes in summer because people
             | drive faster when they have clear conditions and line of
             | sight.
        
           | lostlogin wrote:
           | > fatality rates went up during the pandemic.
           | 
           | They went down during lockdown in some places. I think the
           | severity of lockdown is likely related, and New Zealand's was
           | more severe than most.
           | 
           | https://www.1news.co.nz/2020/12/31/sad-and-
           | disappointing-202...
        
         | loloquwowndueo wrote:
         | That's likely because people do not instantly start obeying the
         | law the moment it's instituted - takes time to break a habit
         | and lax enforcement (honestly how many people do you know who
         | were pulled over for not wearing a seatbelt) would result in no
         | noticeable cliff in fatalities. Instead it probably gets
         | absorbed in the gradual fatality reduction you see over time.
        
           | maxwell wrote:
           | Good point, seat belt utilization is impossible to track
           | accurately (until in-car surveillance cameras are fully
           | rolled out), and likely varies widely generationally,
           | regionally, etc.
        
             | neuronexmachina wrote:
             | US's NHTSA has stats on belt use rate from 1983-2017 based
             | on the National Occupant Protection Use Survey: https://en.
             | wikipedia.org/wiki/Seat_belt_use_rates_in_the_Uni...
        
               | viraptor wrote:
               | ~10% not using seatbelts in 2017 is extremely surprising
               | to me. I really thought it would be ~1%.
        
               | mrguyorama wrote:
               | Humans are terrible at risk management and there is still
               | a stupidly large contingent of people who think seat belt
               | laws are "nanny state", or that seat belts are "more
               | dangerous" and they'd "rather be thrown clear in an
               | accident"
               | 
               | Basically a lot of people operate on cartoon logic.
        
               | midasuni wrote:
               | More common than mobile phone usage
               | 
               | https://metro.co.uk/2023/08/17/police-use-ai-to-
               | catch-300-dr...
        
               | cogman10 wrote:
               | There's a bunch of people that will say "It's none of the
               | government's business if I wear a seatbelt or not, so I'm
               | not going to in protest of the nanny state"
        
           | dfxm12 wrote:
           | In the places I drive, you _can 't_ get pulled over for not
           | wearing a seatbelt. You can only get cited after some other
           | violation, like speeding or blowing through a stop sign.
        
             | dontlaugh wrote:
             | In many countries the police can pull over a vehicle and
             | fine a passenger that isn't wearing a seatbelt.
        
               | rootusrootus wrote:
               | Many places in the US, you can be ticketed if a passenger
               | isn't wearing a seatbelt. But I think the point GP is
               | making is that it's also not a primary offense in may
               | jurisdictions -- you can't be pulled over for it
               | specifically, but it's fair game if you get pulled over
               | for something else.
        
       | [deleted]
        
       | kn0where wrote:
       | I can't tell if this article is AI generated or just sloppily
       | written. The organization is really weird. There are just two
       | (very specific) subheadings in the piece: "Bunny Bear Booster
       | Seat (1933)" and "In the 1970s Car Hammocks for Babies Were a
       | Thing (1970s)", but these sections discuss multiple different car
       | seat designs besides the title ones, making me think these
       | "sections" were LLM-generated.
       | 
       | None of the photos are specific to the sections of the article
       | they appear in--it's as if the author just did a google image
       | search for "old car seat" and sprinkled them throughout the
       | article with no particular chronological or contextual
       | significance.
        
         | dfxm12 wrote:
         | It reads like an AI generated article. There also doesn't
         | appear to be a by line. The site has a contact form, but no one
         | is named in the contact us or about us page. To me, this points
         | more to AI generated than sloppily written.
        
           | Terr_ wrote:
           | It is kinda weird: It'd be one thing if it was simply an
           | unordered list of photos, but the text seems like it was
           | randomly interspersed too.
        
         | Aardwolf wrote:
         | I didn't read it, just enjoyed scrolling through the photos.
         | 
         | It's at least awesome that such a collection of photos exists
         | of a topic that would otherwise certainly be entirely
         | forgotten.
         | 
         | Do you think archeologists might still be able to find this
         | series of photos in, say, 500 years?
        
           | moribvndvs wrote:
           | I mean, I just google image searched "historical car baby
           | seat" and all those photos showed up, almost in the same
           | order as the article. To answer your question, if Google is
           | still around, yes.
        
         | [deleted]
        
       | aimor wrote:
       | Wow this reminds me how much I miss all the legroom we used to
       | have without a floor/center console. In modern cars I feel like
       | I'm penned in a tiny personal pod.
       | 
       | I'm hopeful electric cars lead to a return of leg room.
        
       | fsckboy wrote:
       | that little seat with the steering wheel? I had one of those, and
       | I still remember it from age ... 3? 4? I remember the day I
       | realized that moving the steering wheel back and forth all the
       | time is not the way you drive a car, as fun and obvious as it is
       | that it should work that way. I noticed my mother was holding the
       | wheel straight so I started imitating her. (looking back now I
       | can see so much of my generalized autism: playing with matchbox
       | cars, I spent most of my time setting them up for parallel
       | parking, and then for diagonal parking between the stripes. I
       | hated when my friends wanted any type of "fantasy" play, i just
       | wanted to be realistic all the time.)
       | 
       | I concur that the main point of those car seats was as a booster
       | seat, to get the kid up high enough to see out the window so they
       | could better occupy themselves and not squall, but perhaps my
       | perspective is biased.
       | 
       | Also, that woman driving the car in the white heels? looks pretty
       | much exactly like my mother.
        
         | greggsy wrote:
         | It's interesting that you use the way you played with matchbox
         | cars as an example, as I've seen that exact scenario used by
         | therapists to inform an autism spectrum diagnosis in children.
         | Probably not a coincidence, since they're a very, very common
         | toy that's accessible to every demographic in western
         | societies.
        
       | erulabs wrote:
       | Kids are certainly less likely to be injured these days - but car
       | seats for a dollar! Raising kids in the last 100 years makes
       | normal consumer inflation look like a cute joke - modern car
       | seats are easily 200x more expensive!
       | 
       | It's a horrible actuary table to make, especially as a parent,
       | but the engineer in me does some napkin math:
       | 
       | A) Number of children killed in car seat accidents
       | 
       | B) number of children not born due to increased financial burden
       | of any given child
       | 
       | If B > A, we're down net-children. Is "more kids" better than
       | "safer kids"? Who's to make a judgement like this?
       | 
       | It's a gruesome math - and not one that applies to the
       | financially well off: if you can afford it, you're not
       | complaining about increasing your child's safety.
        
         | jlawson wrote:
         | It's not just about financial costs, it's also the physical
         | space limitations.
         | 
         | Cars generally can only fit 3 carseats. Regardless of equipment
         | costs, that makes it infeasible for parents to have a 4th
         | child. They wouldn't be able to go anywhere.
         | 
         | This by itself has prevented thousands of births.
         | 
         | I've known people for whom this was a major factor in a
         | decision to not have another child. They are always the most
         | thoughtful, low time preference people whose kids would benefit
         | society the most.
        
           | woobar wrote:
           | The cars with more than 5 seats do exist. If cost is not an
           | issue as you suggest, it is pretty feasible to have 4+
           | children. It is even easier if you are not aiming to have
           | them born in a rapid succession. Older kids can ride upfront.
        
             | bluGill wrote:
             | Sure, but they are vans or large SUVs. You have a lot less
             | choice as you can't look at most cars, and they generally
             | use more fuel.
             | 
             | Just going from 2 to 3 kids shocked me at the cost
             | increase, and we already had a minivan (hotel rooms sleep
             | 4, so now we have to get 2 rooms or a suite). There are a
             | lot of other things that go up a lot more than you would
             | expect when you have more than 2 kids. Kids eat free is
             | normally each parent can have one free kid.
             | 
             | Overall kids are not very expensive, and I'm glad I have
             | them. However there are a number of things we can't do
             | anymore. Family memberships are well worth it for us since
             | most of them are one price no matter how many kids you
             | have, and thus cheap entertainment for the rest of the
             | year.
        
           | kevinpet wrote:
           | Did you read the same essay as me?
           | https://thezvi.substack.com/p/on-car-seats-as-contraception
        
           | cameldrv wrote:
           | This was still a problem in the 80s after mandatory seatbelts
           | came in and cars got narrower. Some people say that 3 across
           | is too hard with a normal car but I've found that even with a
           | small car you can get 3 in without much trouble if you just
           | get narrower seats.
        
           | tragomaskhalos wrote:
           | In the early 70's we'd drive down to Cornwall on holiday with
           | my cousins - 3 adults and 3 kids squashed into a bog standard
           | saloon car. It seems completely inconceivable now.
        
         | cameldrv wrote:
         | You can buy a car seat that meets the U.S. federal standards
         | for about $60. Sure it won't be as padded or have the maximum
         | safety or have lots of cupholders, but it will do the job and
         | be much safer than what I had as a kid.
        
           | RobinL wrote:
           | You can also (in the UK at least) buy a second hand 'good
           | brand' for about PS20 from Facebook marketplace, or free if
           | you're lucky.
           | 
           | You can't get one from eBay or a charity shop because
           | ridiculously they're not allowed to sell them in case they're
           | unsafe (eg they've been in an accident), but I imagine the
           | actual risk to the child of gambling on a second hand one is
           | miniscule.
           | 
           | We've had all ours second hand, 5 in total including ones
           | bought for the grandparents cars, and we've spent less than
           | PS80 in total
        
             | jandrese wrote:
             | In the US secondhand car seats are almost impossible to buy
             | because the expiration date on car seats is so short. You
             | sometimes can't even reuse car seats for a second child
             | because everybody knows that a seat manufactured before
             | 2020 is a total deathtrap and there have been so many
             | safety innovations it is missing.
        
               | SoftTalker wrote:
               | "total deathtrap" is a wild exaggeration.
               | 
               | The expiration dates are to force you to keep buying them
               | instead of re-using what you already have.
        
               | lelanthran wrote:
               | > The expiration dates are to force you to keep buying
               | them instead of re-using what you already have.
               | 
               | Maybe. I _do think_ that the foam they use for impact
               | absorption[1] has a limited life, and degrades over time.
               | 
               | [1] I assume it's the same or similar foam they use in
               | motorcycle helmets, which degrade over time. I personally
               | won't use an old helmet (say, 4 years), even if it has an
               | expiration date in the future (which I also never check -
               | I know when I buy it, so I know when I am going to
               | replace it).
        
               | rodric wrote:
               | > "total deathtrap" is a wild exaggeration.
               | 
               | Sarcasm ;-)
        
               | spookthesunset wrote:
               | Those expiration dates generate so much waste. We just
               | give ours away on craigslist.. better than a landfill.
        
         | [deleted]
        
         | SoftTalker wrote:
         | Car seats for a dollar when median family income was about
         | $3,500 a year. It's about the same.
        
       | gumby wrote:
       | My parents were quite concerned about car safety and tell me that
       | when they bought a new car after I was born they insisted that it
       | be fitted with seat belts even though the salesman insisted that
       | it was a waste of money (mid 1960s).
       | 
       | Also my parents: they bought my sister and me chid car seats "so
       | you could look out the windows". Basically a shallow plastic bowl
       | with a cushion attached and a folding wire frame underneath to
       | make it higher.
        
         | adrianmonk wrote:
         | Was it a Cosco Go Seat?
         | 
         | https://www.ebay.com/itm/195773905158
         | 
         | That's what I had as a kid. I don't recall a cushion, though.
         | Also, the plastic developed a crack and would painfully pinch
         | your skin if you were wearing shorts.
        
       | Mizoguchi wrote:
       | I used to stand on the front seat with my mom driving (she was a
       | terrible driver btw). She also took us kids once on a road trip
       | around the mountains at 12000 ft elevation, lots of snow and
       | exposed roads. This among other negligences unrelated to driving.
       | A true miracle we made it into adulthood.
        
       | h2odragon wrote:
       | 70s kids rode in the back of the pickup truck. They'd yell at us
       | not to jump around too much back there.
       | 
       | Car seat laws are fun, they often talk about size and (hopefully,
       | usually) age: Some small people have a legal grey area where they
       | should legally be in a car seat as they learn to drive.
        
         | resolutebat wrote:
         | In Singapore even today, all passengers in a car must wear
         | seatbelts, unless they're crammed into the back of a pickup
         | truck.
         | 
         | https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/opinion/article/3131590/singa...
        
         | AlgorithmicTime wrote:
         | Meanwhile my son is almost 3 and already approaching a size
         | where he legally only needs a booster seat.
        
         | deckard1 wrote:
         | 1980s kids too. I remember after tee-ball my entire team would
         | hop into the back of the coach's pickup and ride to get ice
         | cream.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2023-08-23 23:01 UTC)