Mining The Data Behind Toy Safety
chartio.com
chartio.com
It seems that as the tools have gotten strong, the focus has been on creating prettier graphs, not making sure the units are chosen to be most meaningful.
The better the tools are, the more people use them. The more people use them, the higher the ratio of junk. The higher the ratio of junk, the more people feel the need to set themselves apart. The more people feel the need to set themselves apart, the prettier they will make something, regardless of how useful, functional or interesting the actual content happens to be.
I call it the 3D-Movie Theory of Attrition.
It strikes me that the largest manufacturers with the most mature design and fabrication processes at least have all the tools to outperform smaller manufacturers in this regard, and so the article may well be nudging readers to manufacturers with higher recall rates.
I mean, one of the principal challenges of empirical data analysis is putting together data from disparate sources in order to come to actionable analysis. One doesn't just publish the data that's easy to come by and then call it a day. And the poor analysis presented in this article is a good illustration of why.
I thought it was curious how the most dangerous "toy" is the bicycle. I suppose that's not surprising, but other charts indicate that the greatest hazard to children is choking. I'd wager it's difficult to choke on a bicycle save for disassembling it and ravenously ingesting the smaller parts.
Given the CPSC's recent history (think Buckyballs), I also wonder if the relative number of product recalls has increased due to changes in regulation, changes specific to the CPSC itself (organizational, leadership, mission, etc), or increased pressure from consumer/physician groups.
Products containing lead appear to be responsible for a sizable portion of the recalls, but I'm not completely sure I agree with the implicit suggestion that modern toys are somehow more dangerous based on recalls alone. The US is a litigocracy (and increasingly so) after all.
Otherwise it's essentially the same as a popularity chart.
I cannot fathom how this simple understanding was missed.
High-risk implies that for every toy released, there is a high probability that it will be recalled. The post fails to provide any data indicating this is true for Fisher Price. It is most likely that Fisher Price and Mattel simply sell a significantly wider array of toys.
For all we know, based on this data, Fisher Price could just as possibly be the lowest-risk manufacturer.