I don’t think your analysis is fair, but pointing out details I disagree with misses the forest for the trees.
Look at what lengths you went to in order to justify and defend what is, by your own arguments, the demonstrably less safe option.
Look at what lengths you went to in order to justify and defend what is, by your own arguments, the demonstrably less safe option.
- a small reduction in minor injuries,
- worse childhoods and parenting experiences (difficult to quantify, but real),
- and a few hundred thousand fewer children being born in the first place,
- very few, if any, lives saved?
If yes, then cool - but I strongly disagree.
If no - then I think the evidence and details very much matter, and that's why I was happy to invest my time in them.
There is a difference between cherry picking studies that back up your view point and how medical experts set policy though.
Experts review all of the data, and ignore outliers like a paper published in a law journal that suggests car seats are the primary reason families have shrunk from having three to two kids since the 80’s
There is a non-zero amount of deaths the car seat law would prevent. The burden will discourage larger families and will contribute to population decline far larger than the lives saved.
You’re not only arguing for it, you’re doing it in a way as if preventing death is such an obvious single dimension to optimize that you’re calling people irrational because they are against something that reduces fatalities.
Your same argument is what leads to prohibition and a long list of other things that suck the color out of life in the interest of “safety”.
- the experts have told people to use car seats
- experts wisely base policy on "all of the data"
- therefore, "all of the data" must support the claim that car seats save lives
If we're going to discuss the question of whether experts have set policy well or poorly in a particular case, then such a strong prior on "experts always set policy well and based on the best available evidence" kind of assumes the conclusion, doesn't it?
Experts almost always set policy better than non-experts doing their own research. Especially on complex topics.
There is no point in two amateurs arguing over a topic they don't understand.
All I can do is refer to the publicly available reasoning and studies of experts, which have evidence and conclusions opposite of the amateur conclusion above.
I'm not arguing all laws are good or make sense. In this specific case, the law lines of up with the recommendation of experts studying the topic.
Competent experts could tell you how much safer you would be if you wore a helmet to drive your car. They can't tell you how much you should value that extra bit of safety.
Can you point to a single competent expert who recommends the average driver should wear a helmet while driving? Again, there is a difference between one study showing helmets reduce injury in crashes, and an expert reviewing the problem as a whole and making a recommendation.