
Study Explains Why We Arrest Moms for Putting Kids in Nearly Non-Existent Danger - okket
http://reason.com/blog/2016/09/22/breakthrough-study-explains-why-we-arres
======
Eiriksmal
As a parent of two kids, the leaving children at home unattended while the
parent runs a short errand being considered a crime has always caused me
anguish.

The leading cause of death in children in the United States is by car
accident[0]. So if my youngest son is asleep in his crib and I need to leave
to grab groceries from the store a mile away, I have to wake him up, strap him
into his placebo seat[1], and put his life into statistically far, _far_
greater danger than the risk of him somehow suffocating in his empty crib or
dying in a house fire. Not to mention the added stress on both him and me that
arises from waking a toddler prematurely--stresses that result in shaken baby
syndrome and the third leading cause of death in his age group.

[0]
[https://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/pdf/leading_causes_of_inj...](https://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/pdf/leading_causes_of_injury_deaths_highlighting_unintentional_injury_2014-a.pdf)

[1]
[https://www.ted.com/talks/steven_levitt_on_child_carseats](https://www.ted.com/talks/steven_levitt_on_child_carseats)

~~~
yes_or_gnome
Upfront, I want to say that I agree with just-about everything that you have
written here. I would have upvoted you and move on if it weren't for the lame
"placebo seat" comment. It's beyond me as to how anyone could watch that talk
and agree with Mr Levitt's conclusions.

He flat out admits that his only sources of his "research" are 1) the DoT
NHTSA's FARS [0] and 2) four crash tests that were run by an anonymous test
center.

I can't think of a better example of a red herring argument. He's basically
saying, "Don't bother second guessing my data because I have these videos from
a person who will NOT collaborate the results."

The FARS data is heavily biased as well. First, it only reports _accidents
with fatalities_. It's a completely voluntary survey, it's up to state and
local governments to enforce their police jurisdictions to comply. At the time
of the video it spanned 30 years of data, 1975-2005. There's incredible
amounts car safety improvements in that time frame. I'll defer to an expert
here, but air bags and crumble zones will top that lists; I'm sure there have
been improvements to seat belts and car seats in that time. Point being, most
of that data is irrelevant.

And, then his ego shines through when he glorifies economists superiority over
"scientists" because economists "look at real world data"; if his opening
wasn't awkward wretch inducing already, then that surely should have done it.

If you want to be an advocate for Mr. Levitt's ideas proceeding for actual
scientific inquiry, have at it. But, don't spread a cockamamie pejorative,
like "placebo seat", because you watched a terrible TED talk.

I can't help, but feel my response was overkill for having taken offense from
two words. I attempted to find some follow up studies based on Levitt's TED
talk, but as it should be to nobody's surprise, neither side seems to have
taken it seriously (to progress nor retort). The only source that I found
which I actually liked is called "What If These TED Talks Were Horribly
Wrong?" [1]. In which, Levitt gets top billing, and there is link to a study
called "Effectiveness of Child Safety Seats vs Seat Belts in Reducing Risk for
Death in Children in Passenger Vehicle Crashes" [2]; it's freely available,
but I have yet to read it.

[0] U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, Fatality Analysis Report System,
[http://www.nhtsa.gov/FARS](http://www.nhtsa.gov/FARS)

[1] [https://theawl.com/what-if-these-ted-talks-were-horribly-
uns...](https://theawl.com/what-if-these-ted-talks-were-horribly-unspeakably-
wrong-c4b94e2c4824)

[2]
[http://archpedi.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=20506...](http://archpedi.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=205063)

~~~
meowface
It seems like a good majority of TED talks are based far more on flashy
presentation and emotion than hard fact.

~~~
Noseshine
So what about your own seemingly mostly emotion-based blanket one-sentence
statement that omits even the attempt of citing prove, or even to actually
examine the issue you present?

Relevant ancient educational tiny story:
[https://riddlesbrainteasers.com/three-philosophers-
tree/](https://riddlesbrainteasers.com/three-philosophers-tree/)

I got an epiphany moment about that story when I read a story about a medical
doctor visiting a "quack" conference. There was one "esoteric" who complained
about the others being "esoteric" (he practiced something else than the
others, but still something weird), and the doctor looking down on them all.
But the crowning part of that story was that the doctor herself held a believe
by now proven to be wrong by studies. So they were all laughing about each
other, in addition to the original three-philosopher problem this anecdote
included a hierarchy (I am better than you), going over several levels, and it
turned out the person who thought was at the top looking down on everybody
else actually wasn't and should have had a good look in the mirror herself.

The hint should have been seeing that one guy lamenting that all the others
were esoteric, but introspection based up on what we see in others isn't many
people's string suit. No, (only) _they_ are "stupid".

The philosophers in the little ancient Greek story/riddle managed to get to
the truth by including themselves into their logical reasoning and not just
think about the others. When you come to a conclusion about other people,
always consider if/how it applies to yourself.

The more modern saying is that about throwing stones in a glass house... but
it lacks the educational value of the three philosopher problem because it's
only the "TL;DT" (too long, didn't think).

~~~
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC
Whether it is reasonable to believe something does not depend on whether it is
true (because you can't know that), but on whether it is the currently best-
known explanation of the available evidence.

Quacks aren't stupid because what they believe isn't true, but because they
believe it without sufficient evidence, or, often enough, despite evidence to
the contrary.

~~~
Noseshine
I don't understand your reply - could you please tell me what connection there
is with what I wrote? Seems like random rambling to me.

~~~
kybernetikos
I presume the argument was that a doctor who is misinformed about the latest
studies in wrong is an entirely different way to a quack (e.g. a vaccine
denier) who may be 'not even wrong'.

~~~
Noseshine
You presume too much and don't understand the story. Maybe you grow into it
some day, some things cannot be taught.

Not to mention that your reply is the pinnacle of hypocrisy and stupidity.
"Even when I'm wrong I'm _better_ wrong than you!" How incredibly stupid.

------
Joof
I'd love to see people do some PSAs on this. A campaign for people to back the
fuck off.

Mom leaves child at home to shop; evil music plays; kid looks like he might
get into trouble; nothing happens and everyone smiles at the end with some
statistics on how it's pretty safe.

~~~
evincarofautumn

        INT. HOME - DAY
    
        A MOTHER is getting ready to leave the house. Her
        TODDLER is sitting in his playpen.
    
                MOTHER
              (Warmly)
            I’ll just be gone for a few minutes, buddy!
    
                TODDLER
              (Pleased, without understanding)
            Gah!
    
        The door slams and a nosy NEIGHBOR appears immediately
        outside the window. Seeing the unattended TODDLER, the
        NEIGHBOR gasps, and calls 911.
    
                NEIGHBOR
            Hello? Yes, a woman has just left her baby
            unattended!
    
        Two police officers appear. OFFICER #1 arrests the
        NEIGHBOR. The MOTHER, returned, holds the TODDLER as
        both watch the NEIGHBOR’s arrest. Before getting into
        the cruiser, the NEIGHBOR turns to OFFICER #2.
    
                NEIGHBOR
              (Weeping)
            But...why?
    
                OFFICER #2
              (With visible lack of sympathy)
            You’ve caused more trouble today than you
            could statistically have prevented.

~~~
mschuster91
Have an upvote well deserved. Thank you for making me laugh, even on a serious
matter as this.

~~~
evincarofautumn
Thanks. I just wanted to highlight the absurdity, as it’s an issue I care
about; if I’m ever a parent, I don’t want self-proclaimed do-gooders meddling
in my family’s affairs.

~~~
DonHopkins
Like Gladys Kravitz on Bewitched. [1] [2]

[1]
[http://bewitched.wikia.com/wiki/Gladys_Kravitz](http://bewitched.wikia.com/wiki/Gladys_Kravitz)

[2]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mdFctlvB3w](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mdFctlvB3w)

------
fma
Definitely agree with the conclusion that nowadays, "In other words, the only
socially acceptable mom has become a mom who never takes her eyes off her
kids".

When I was growing up in the 90's and took the bus to school, parents just
dropped off the kids on the corner and parents go about the day. Now when I
drive by school bus stops, I see a line of cars parked on the side of the
road. Both parents and kids sitting in the car till the bus comes.

~~~
api
A major unanswered question I have is why this happened. Where did this
collective insanity come from?

~~~
apatters
Even before the arrival of social media, the mass media was feeding people
stories about the world which made it look far more dangerous than it actually
was. So media isn't the reason.

The reason is that the majority political philosophy in the US has shifted
from libertarianism/classical liberalism to progressivism. The libertarian
point of view is that people generally should be free to go about their own
business in the manner they see fit. The progressive point of view is that we
have a collective responsibility to police the wrongdoing of other people and
fix it, using state power if necessary.

In the video where the guy goes off at the mother for leaving her kid in the
car, you can see the progressive power dynamic in play immediately. The guy
thinks she's doing something wrong so he gets involved. (Who is he? Doesn't
matter. It's everyone's job to right wrongs.) It takes maybe 15 seconds before
someone mentions the police, because the only way such intrusive activism
works is when a higher power (can be state, law, society, science, God,
whatever) is used to identify and enforce a definition of what's right. Even
though the activist doesn't explicitly threaten to call the cops, during the
confrontation they are mentioned constantly because the threat of state power
is the only reason the mother even has to give this guy the time of day.

If you want to go a level deeper and ask why this political shift has
occurred, it's likely that one contributing factor is urbanization which been
underway in the US for some time--historically densely populated cities tend
to be more authoritarian than rural areas because a crazy person can do more
damage in a dense city (you don't see mass shootings happening in cornfields).

~~~
kalleboo
If progressivism is at fault, why aren't we seeing this problem in countries
that are far more progressive?

~~~
apatters
That would depend on which country you're talking about. I think some
countries like Sweden get away with being more progressive because they're
more homogeneous. People in these countries have fewer differences of opinion
and a higher level of social trust in general.

------
jernfrost
"We" should be replaced with Americans. This is just one more of those nutty
things which are particular to America but which doesn't really generally
happen in the rest of the west.

This is a much broader issue. America is simply developing a very
dysfunctional way of dealing with children. America is the only developed
country I know of (maybe only country period) where police is routinely used
to deal with school discipline issues. Even parents in the US call police to
discipline their kids for silly stuff like drinking alcohol. I am actually
surprised by how normal this is in the US even among intelligent and seemingly
normal families.

With the extensive killing of blacks it is clear that the US has a general
police dysfunction. The police is seen as a solution to almost every issue in
society.

America needs a serious re-evaluation of what role police and punishment
should play in society. Police and the justice system can't become a
substitute for parents and teachers.

~~~
deerpig
America wasn't like this when I left in the late 80's. I'm not saying that
America had no problems -- clearly it did, but there wasn't so much fear, and
things felt more free (at least if you were white) and different parts of the
country still were different -- the chain stores hadn't yet homoginized the
country -- and turn coffee into a fetish.

It was a shock to see it happen in slow motion from the opposite side of the
world over the next three decades, the country just seemed like a frog being
slowly boiled without it being aware.

From time to time people ask me why I don't move back and I just smile and say
that this is my home now. Few people would understand the sadness I feel for
those left behind.

~~~
Gracana
In the late eighties we imprisoned a bunch of daycare workers for satanic
ritual sexual abuse, based on tedtimony coerced from children over long
periods. No physical evidence was ever found.

------
rayiner
This is really mind-boggling to me as someone who grew up in the 1990s
frustrated by having an "overprotective asian mom." When we were 5-6 she'd
kick us out of the house in the morning to go play with the neighborhood kids
and tell us to come back for dinner. We walked to school alone, waited for the
bus stop alone, etc.[1]

Yuppie millennial parents are hands down the worst. It starts with the baby
wearing and escalates from there. We've got a rooftop club-house/grill in our
apartment building. I was grilling some steaks when my daughter (almost four)
said she needed to use the bathroom. I took her inside, left her in the
restroom, and went back to check on my steaks. When I got back, some mom was
standing there with her in the hallway giving me the eye. Lady, kids don't get
stolen from locked-down apartment buildings--relax.

[1] The school even posted 3-6th graders as "patrols" to help the smaller kids
cross some of the intersections, with nary an adult in sight.

~~~
bunderbunder
With you everywhere but the babywearing bit. Especially in an urban
environment, strollers are a downright hassle. Unless and until the kid's too
heavy to carry comfortably, it way easier to just strap 'em on your back and
go about your business virtually unencumbered than it is to spend the whole
day wrestling with a glorified shopping cart.

~~~
rayiner
Sure, baby carriers have been used throughout the world long before strollers
were invented. But the recent resurgence in the west is driven by the
popularity of attachment parenting:
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babywearing](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babywearing).

~~~
bunderbunder
Genetic fallacy, yo.

Even if you're not fond of attachment parenting, that doesn't imply that
everything attachment parents like is a bad idea, or even that things that
attachment parents like are primarily only popular with that subculture.

------
Kenji
We will look back at the late 20th century/early 21st century and facepalm
about all the horrific stuff we've done in the name of 'psychology',
'education' and 'safety'.

I feel like there has never been a more vile and aggressive attack on common
sense than these days, in the sense of a regression, rather than a progression
of common sense which one would expect with a growing body of science.

~~~
api
The really insane thing is this: we have never in all of human history been
safer.

Crime is at a 50 year low, and nearly everyone has health care. Not only that
but more than two thirds of the population carries a location aware
communication device that can be used to summon help almost anywhere in
minutes.

I sometimes wonder if this is in fact the problem. Maybe we are so wired for
scarcity and danger that we become neurotic and paranoid in its absence. It's
analogous to the 'hygiene hypothesis' for allergies.

~~~
daeken
I think there's a simpler explanation: observation bias.

30 years ago there was more crime, but if it didn't happen in your town or to
someone you knew, you were pretty unlikely to hear about it. Now, there's less
crime but we're orders of magnitude more likely to hear about it.

IMO, this is a side-effect of 24-hour news networks and social media needing
something to fill the dead air.

~~~
WalterBright
Essentially, if it's a problem you read about in the newspaper, it is highly
unlikely to affect you. Consider that the newspaper doesn't report car
accidents, cancer diagnoses, etc.

~~~
warkdarrior
What are you talking about? Last month Jax from American Idol was diagnosed
with cancer and the news outlets were prompt in reporting it.
[https://www.yahoo.com/music/american-idol-star-jax-speaks-
ou...](https://www.yahoo.com/music/american-idol-star-jax-speaks-out-about-
cancer-battle-at-age-20-214349084.html)

~~~
WalterBright
He's a celebrity.

------
KODeKarnage
Yeah yeah yeah. Everyone is talking big here about how "obviously" these
inflated concerns about child safety are absurd and ridiculous.

But how many of you would step up to slap down those morons who berate parents
for leaving their kids in the car for 30 seconds?

THAT is what is needed. It is no good to simply THINK that these people are
going overboard. We have to actively STOP the stupid busy-bodies from
assaulting those poor parents.

Step up. Step in. And slap down.

~~~
masklinn
> But how many of you would step up to slap down those morons who berate
> parents for leaving their kids in the car for 30 seconds?

The morons in question are generally litigation-happy brown-nosing assholes,
so that's a good way to get charged with assault and battery.

~~~
jshevek
The parent comment may have been using colorful idiomatic phrasing to advocate
for non-violent verbal engagement.

------
susan_hall
Many social factors often external to the economy would negatively change our
understanding of our "standard of living" if included. In the USA, if you only
look at the nominal median wage and then subtract the inflation tracked by the
Consumer Price Index then it seems like the male median wage peaked in 1973
and family income peaked in 1999. But the CPU does not track rent, and the
peak year for the ratio of wage to rent was 1958, which was also the peak year
of the Baby Boom (and obviously those 2 facts are linked).

If you were to also track the social changes that have increased the scrutiny
on mothers (and parents as a unit), the question would arise if real,
meaningful family income actually peaked in 1999. Perhaps it was in decline a
long time before that?

I was in kindergarten in 1972. I grew up in an affluent, white neighborhood in
the suburbs. At that time, it was thought normal that the children should walk
to school on their own. The school was exactly 1 mile away. My parents kissed
me goodbye at the door of our house, then I joined up with my friends, and we
walked to school. Yes, we were 5 years old.

Any parent who does this nowadays will be arrested, but at the time it seemed
safe because everyone did it. I never walked to school alone, I always walked
with my classmates. I'm told that Japan is still somewhat like this, but
obviously the USA has changed.

~~~
fma
Can confirm..in my trips to Japan, Korea, Hong Kong, China...Kids take mass
transportation by themselves to and from school. Hoards of kids play at the
park with few adult supervision.

Up to elementary school (1994) I would walk to the park with some friends
after school and play or go to the library (next to the park) for 2.5 hours
till my mom picked me up. It's where a lot of kids went.

Generally if there is only one or two kid left at the park, a parent would
stay after to ensure everyone is picked up.

My middle school was in a different part of the city so not sure how much
longer I would have continued that.

------
pm24601
I hate all the internet shaming that goes into this.

Everyone on the internet feels that they get to judge a parent's parenting
ability.

Some kids are more responsible than others.

I was handling myself at age 6 in Europe. I was navigating public busses from
age 6 on.

I have had police officers tell me I am putting my own kids in danger by
leaving them alone in a car.... when they were 8 and 7 years old (and in front
of my house).

The police officer couldn't even articulate what the exact danger was.

~~~
parshimers
The danger of leaving a kid in the car is heat if it's warm outside. That may
or may not have been a reasonable concern based on the circumstances.

~~~
konradb
I remember being left alone in the car at 7 or 8. If it was too hot I would
have opened the window, or in extreme cases, stepped outside for some time.

------
11thEarlOfMar
It doesn't help that every couple of months, my phone suddenly blurts out
"Amber alert!...". [0]

It's well intentioned, and has been effective, but talk about keeping a
society on edge about child safety. It's really unnerving.

[0][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMBER_Alert](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMBER_Alert)

~~~
late2part
you can turn that off, you know...

~~~
codeddesign
But why would you? I know of incidents just this year that a child was saved
because of amber alerts. It's put out for the same reason that people on here
are arguing for "if your surrounding community were more aware or had a
personal interest in each other, these situations would not happen"

~~~
slededit
Because it doesn't respect the silent setting on my cell phone. Its unlikely
the missing child is in the vicinity of the meeting I just interrupted.

~~~
swiley
I couldn't remember why I turned it off and now I do.

------
JustSomeNobody
A couple reasons, I think.

As Americans, we are inundated with news that tells us how bad our neighbors
are and how they only want to harm our children. This may have started with
some high profile kidnappings, etc. in the 80's and 90's. Now, you can't let
your child go anywhere alone. Ever.

We're a blame society. If we do something wrong, it's someone else's fault.
This thought process has expanded to if we see someone else doing something we
think is wrong we blow it out of proportion. We so desperately want to find
faults in others. As if that'll make our own faults less significant.

Note: 'We' is a generalization.

------
mysterypie
Of the 66 comments here at this moment, almost every comment strongly agrees
with the article's premise that the US has a "bizarre disconnect between real
and perceived danger when it comes to kids".

There's an obvious contradiction: How do we (Hacker News readers at least)
agree that this is crazy but society keeps doing craziness like "arresting a
mom for letting her kids, 8 and 9, wait at the condo for an hour".

~~~
mschuster91
> How do we (Hacker News readers at least) agree that this is crazy but
> society keeps doing craziness

Because HN readers tend to be an extremely small subset of the general
population. General population will happily vote for Trump, le Pen, Orban,
Petry and other populists, which in my opinion is equally stupid with
arresting parents for growing up their kids "range-free"...

More and more, I have the feeling that "Idiocracy" looks more and more like a
documentation of now than a satire.

~~~
csuwldcat
While I detest Trump and authoritarians in general (which Hillary is really
just a different flavor of), I don't think you're statement holds water here.
California, where I live, is the ultimate nanny state - we've criminalized the
everloving shit out of everything. California has 3x as many laws on the books
than the next closest state in volume, and it makes many activities, business
and personal, very complex.

'Progressive' ideology places the State in greater and greater control over
defining most aspects of life, and tends to turn to law and mandates more
frequently than other ideological systems. This naturally drives the use of
state mechanisms as a means of operation and resolution over non-legal
communal resolution between individuals.

------
andreiw
This is why I don't want to raise my kids at all in the US. The system at
large is doing everything for them to grow into incompetent imbeciles...the
kind that live in their parents' basement until they are 40 and are too scared
of making a commitment or raising a child until they're fifty...

------
oli5679
This is because of cable news reporting on several high profile young-girl
abductions over the last 20 years. Statistically the chance is very small, but
these horrible stories have been burned into the consciousness of a generation
of mothers.

~~~
grecy
Cable news has severely distorted Americans view of what's dangerous and
what's not, in the interest of getting more people hooked on TV.

Even very minor shark attack in Australia is blown out of all proportion until
everyone thinks the wildlife in Australia is going to kill you.

It's the same reason everyone thinks Colombia, Mexico and Africa are insanely
dangerous. The media/Hollywood told them so, and they believe it.

Never mind the more than 500 people a year that are murdered in NYC and
another 500 in Chicago _every single year_. Nobody would tell a person not to
go on vacation to NYC because it's too dangerous, but they'll talk until
they're blue in the face about how you're going to be murdered in Senegal,
Mauritania or Colombia.

~~~
semi-extrinsic
> Never mind the more than 500 people a year that are murdered in NYC and
> another 500 in Chicago every single year.
    
    
        It's a war going on outside we ain't safe from
        I feel the pain in my city wherever I go
        314 soldiers died in Iraq, 509 died in Chicago
    

\- K. West

~~~
icebraining
By that logic, Germany in the same year was a more dangerous place than
either, at 700+ murders.

Lies, damned lies and Kanye West statistics?

~~~
grecy
> _By that logic, Germany in the same year was a more dangerous place than
> either, at 700+ murders._

And Germany has a population of 80 million people. More than 10x the
population of either NYC or Chicago, so it's actually over 10x _safer_

~~~
icebraining
Exactly. And similarly, Iraq only had 150k US soldiers, so it was actually
much more dangerous than Chicago. Which is why Kanye West's comparison is
nonsensical.

~~~
grecy
> _Which is why Kanye West 's comparison is nonsensical._

When you think about it from a media perspective, I think it's actually very
insightful.

The American public was up in arms about the death of 314 soldiers on foreign
soil, but seemingly oblivious to the >500 killed right at home in just one
city in the good 'ol USA.

Surely all lives are equal, and it doesn't matter _where_ a person is killed,
but only that they are killed. For every minute of airtime given to the deaths
Overseas, more than that should have been given to the deaths in Chicago
alone. And NYC, and Baltimore, etc. etc.

It wasn't. The media is not giving an accurate representation of real life,
and now people are making life decisions based on that false picture.

~~~
cderwin
> Surely all lives are equal, and it doesn't matter where a person is killed,
> but only that they are killed.

Why do you think this? There seems to be very little basis for this in fact,
and surely certain deaths are more tragic than others (surely and elderly
man's passing is less tragic than that of a heroic soldier defending his
brothers).

~~~
4ad
> surely and elderly man's passing is less tragic than that of a heroic
> soldier defending his brothers

I can't tell if this is sarcasm or not.

~~~
4ad
I am downvoted, so I guess this was obvious sarcasm?

------
csuwldcat
The shift toward more laws, police incidents, and over-regulation of ordinary
parental duties isn't isolated, nor is it surprising. The US is a country that
has been on the path of abandoning individual liberty in favor of
paternalistic, authoritarian statism for decades. The real irony is that
people are expressing dismay about issues and outcomes such as this, while in
the same breath supporting piles and piles of evermore invasive laws that
dictate how others should live their lives. When you replace the state as the
primary actor in so many areas that were once the role of parents and
community members, you get the state handling things the most common way it
knows how: by force and criminalization.

------
peter303
I am glad I grew up boomer times when we didnt worry about crazy shit like
this.

------
KODeKarnage
Yeah yeah yeah. Everyone is talking big here about how "obviously" these
inflated concerns about child safety are absurd and ridiculous.

But how many of you would step up to slap down those morons who berate parents
for leaving their kids in the car for 30 seconds?

THAT is what is needed. It is no good to simply THINK that these people are
going overboard. We have to actively STOP the stupid busy-bodies from
assaulting those poor parents.

------
Qantourisc
Some people I know occasionally call this natural selection. If you kid can
stay alive/safe in safe conditions ...

------
jaequery
Anyone know when and who made these laws? Is this the case of government doing
a little too much?

~~~
M_Grey
Too much? Maybe just the wrong things. It's easier to get votes passing feel-
good "protect the children" legislation than, you know, a budget.

------
analog31
As a bicyclist, I've observed some interesting parallels: It's become
virtually impossible to have a civil discussion about helmets or stop signs.

~~~
jdavis703
I get the stop sign anger, but helmets? Drivers really think bikers should be
required to wear helmets?

~~~
analog31
I'm of two minds about it. On the one hand, I wear a helmet myself, most of
the time, and using one seems to make sense. I don't bother with a helmet if
it's a short trip on tame roads, such as the 1/2 mile from my house to the
grocery store. On the other hand, I can't point you to supporting evidence for
a benefit to making helmets mandatory.

~~~
SturgeonsLaw
I can.

> Wearing a helmet reduced the risk of head injury by 63% (95% confidence
> interval 34% to 80%) and of loss of consciousness by 86% (62% to 95%).

[http://www.bmj.com/content/308/6922/173?linkType=FULL&ck=nck...](http://www.bmj.com/content/308/6922/173?linkType=FULL&ck=nck&resid=308/6922/173&journalCode=bmj)

> Bike helmet use increased significantly during the first 4 years of the
> campaign and again after the helmet law was implemented. The total number of
> bike-related head injury admissions declined by more than 50%.

[http://www.jpedsurg.org/article/S0022-3468(00)15165-6/abstra...](http://www.jpedsurg.org/article/S0022-3468\(00\)15165-6/abstract)

And a paper that speaks directly on your topic, the effects of legislation
mandating helmet use:

> The rate of helmet use rose dramatically after legislation was enacted, from
> 36% in 1995 and 38% in 1996, to 75% in 1997, 86% in 1998 and 84% in 1999.
> The proportion of injured cyclists with head injuries in 1998/99 was half
> that in 1995/96 (7/443 [1.6%] v. 15/416 [3.6%]) (p = 0.06).

[http://www.cmaj.ca/content/166/5/592.short](http://www.cmaj.ca/content/166/5/592.short)

~~~
Symbiote
I'd bet you could find similar improvements to occupant safety if car drivers
and passengers wore helmets, and racing style harnesses. Would it be
reasonable to mandate them?

~~~
ceejayoz
Bikes don't have airbags, crumple zones, and seatbelts already in place.
Helmets are likely to move the needle a lot more there than in a car.

------
Hydraulix989
Yet still things like Harambe happen, where the Mom was clearly negligent, not
noticing her child climbing a three foot fence into a gorilla cage the entire
time she was right there in front of it.

It's a shame, the outcome ended up costing the innocent gorilla's life instead
of the Mom's:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Py_1aCt2c0s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Py_1aCt2c0s)

~~~
manyxcxi
I have 3 kids under 3.5. It only takes seconds to have stuff happen.

The three year old throws his sunglasses on the ground and starts fussing for
something and you turn to deal with that and then boom your 2 year old is 15
feet away and running the other direction or making national news headlines.

If you don't have multiple kids you literally have no clue what it's like,
especially if you happen to be outnumbered at the time.

Now, I'm not saying she wasn't negligent because I wasn't there- but I also
know that you can be on point 99.99999% of the time and still wind up with a
serious problem or worse.

And, frankly, why is the gorilla's life worth more than the mom's? Why is his
life worth more than the child's? Was Harambe going to cure cancer, lower the
world's greenhouse gas emissions, or become an astrophysicist that could help
us colonize other planets? Was Harambe going to lead the charge on saving all
the other gorillas in the world?

It sucks that he had to get killed because of an accident, but what kind of
person actually thinks that in a decision between a fucking kid and a gorilla
that the gorilla should win? That kid literally represents the continuation of
humanity.

~~~
Asooka
Most people value (some) animal life above human life. Could be because nature
is sold as an innocent paradise free from sin, or that every animal is the
noblest creature on Earth or just because we all have experience with
assholes, while our only experiences with animals are them being majestic on
the National Geographic Channel. Try giving people the trolley problem with 5
golden retrievers and one adult human male.

Edit: or as one internet meme put it:

A child has fallen in the gorilla enclosure. You hold a gun with one bullet
and you can choose to shoot the gorilla to save the child. If you do so, he
will make national headlines and lead to discussions that question our
morality. If you don't, the child might will be rescued and the gorilla will
live out his days in peace in the gorilla enclosure, completely unknown to the
world. He will not be as famous. In the end, what do we value more: Harambe or
the _idea_ of Harambe?

~~~
bostik
> _Most people value (some) animal life above human life._

 _/ me puts on flameproof gear_

Since this started with a gorilla... From a purely numbers-based point of
view, it actually makes sense. Death of a single member of near-extinct
species has a negative impact on the viability of that species. A death of a
single human (or even few of them) will not make a difference. Not on a planet
where human overpopulation is an increasingly pressing problem.

Even if you disagree with the idea of conservation, at least have some
sympathy for the future Epicureans. By driving species into extinction, we are
depriving those future society members of experiences they might otherwise
have.

[insert end-of-sarcasm tag here]

~~~
manyxcxi
I get that you're making a sarcastic comic but the funny thing is that I don't
even hear people making as eloquent a point as your joke is pretending to
make. Most of them are just "because animals and horrible mom".

