My kids never shut up back there. Chattered all the way.
But I can see how it could happen.
Scary stuff.
I’ve been a stoner since I was 16 and understand I have the short term memory of a senile goldfish. My cell phone lives in my front left pocket when I am awake and on the charger at night. If I have something in the back of my car that can’t be left out in the Arizona heat for hours, I put my phone in the back seat as well. I don’t get very far without noticing that my security device isn’t safely in my pocket which reminds me to get whatever out of my back seat.
I once killed a phone by remembering to get the ice cream cake out of my back seat, but forgot the phone that was sitting right next to it.
Teslas have cabin overheat protection: within limits, they won’t let the cabin get above 40 C, which is hot but not fatal. It’s not a perfect solution (the battery can die, the A/C can fail, etc.) but it’s undoubtedly better than nothing. Really, all EVs should have the feature.
One of the dangers of technological solutions to this problem is that “very good” does NOT equal “good enough to be of help.”
Sources vary, and of course the numbers vary from year to year, but about 40 children die each year from being in a hot car.
Here’s the catch–there are about 23 MILLION children under the age of 6 in the US.
A few dozen children out of several million – let that percentage sink in.
It also means that any technology that is merely 99.9% reliable is going to kill far more children than it saves.
Whatthefuckno.
Yeah, I seriously doubt that any parent who has some kind of technological “remember to take the kid out of the back seat” reminder enabled is therefore going to just totally stop being consciously aware of their kid’s presence.
A “don’t forget your kid” reminder is not like an oven timer, where you deliberately go off and attend to something else while the cookies are baking, secure in the knowledge that the timer’s BEEP BEEP BEEP will recapture your attention before the cookies get burnt. The vast, vast majority of parents who are driving their kid somewhere are going to remain very aware of where the kid is, tech or no tech.
So, as you note, it’s ridiculous to use the error rate of the technology as any kind of statistical proxy for predicting the relative numbers of hot-car child deaths among the technology’s users.
If the technology only works in 30% of all cases, it will save 30%.
This is a perfect example of perfect being the enemy of good enough. Helmets do not save everybody, seatbelts don’t, airbags don’t. Still they are worthwhile.
And the way to get people to use safety devices is to make it unlawful not to.
I don’t drive the speed limit (or at least close to it) because I think it’s unsafe for me to exceed the posted speed, I do it because I don’t want to get an expensive ticket that could raise my insurance rate.
Many people have an it-will-never-happen-to-me attitude. And people are generally poor at assessing risk.
So, if the safety device isn’t automatic and involves some expense, or some action to deploy, a lot of people won’t use it, unless the risk of not using it is obvious.
It’s not that parents care more about getting a ticket than they do about the death of their kids, it’s that they believe getting a ticket is a real possibility, but the death of their kid from heatstroke in cars is too remote to consider. About 40-50 people make that mistake every year in the US.
And, if 40-50 deaths isn’t enough to motivate the enactment of a hot-car safety device law, then we should expand the tech (and law) to include pets. More dogs die from heatstroke in cars than kids each year.
New (paywalled) New York Times article out just today:
The reminder lights and chimes installed in many newer vehicles advise drivers to check the back seat when the car is turned off. Those systems are usually triggered by a rear door being opened before or during a trip, but they cannot actually detect whether a child is in the car.
Ultrasonic sensors, found in some Kia and Hyundai vehicles, can detect a child (or a pet) moving in the back seat after a vehicle has been locked and then blow the horn and send text messages to the driver. But ultrasonic sensors may not detect a child sleeping in a rear-facing car seat, Dr. Thomas said.
Radar-based systems can purportedly detect even slight movements like the rise and fall of the chest of a child sleeping in a car seat. At least one vehicle, the Genesis GV70, features that technology.
In March, the Federal Communications Commission approved a specific frequency for short-range radar, which automakers say will make it much easier to deploy child-detecting radar inside cars. Before that, companies had to seek waivers from the F.C.C.
Dozens of Children Die Every Year in Hot Cars. Could Technology Save Them? A moment of forgetfulness by a distracted or sleep-deprived parent can be devastating. Experts and child-safety advocates have called for interior motion sensors in all vehicles.
What is the answer to this problem (this is a rhetorical question)?
347
x782
?
If your thought process involved the thought a using a calculator, instead of working it out on paper, then you have invalidated your responses to me and proved me right instead.
It is human nature to become dependent on new technology.
If these new devices were used as an adjunct to human watchfulness and carefulness, then yes, even a marginal improvement might be worthwhile. But the overwhelming majority of people are going to have the attitude, “no alarm = no problem.”
And WHEN the technology fails (not “if” but “when,” because nothing man-made is perfect), that attitude is going to kill children.
If your thought process involves a piece of paper you might be a Luddite.
“Let’s not use technology to save children’s lives” is the weirdest pitch I heard in a while.
Do you also not use ABS?
Smoke alarms?
It’s astounding that you think this is a coherent argument.
join date 27-7
I’ve been feeding the dumb trock like an idiot. Shame on me.
Do you have smoke detectors in your home?
Maybe smoke detectors aren’t the best comparison to bolster an otherwise good point.
A large number of Americans don’t test them regularly (or at all) or ignore them when they do go off or outright disconnect them or neglect to change the batteries regularly at the recommended 6 month intervals. And they’re supposed to be replaced every 10 years but many people don’t or forget to (even if they test good that doesn’t mean the unit is actually trustworthy after a decade). It’s definitely much better to have them, but for people who do have them and die in fires, a majority of deaths occur in households where they aren’t properly maintained and regularly tested.
I agree car devices are generally a good idea. But I’m still against throwing the book at parents whose kids still die. There’s a huge streak of meanness in the OP and in some of the subsequent posts where we seem more interested in punishing parents (with the concomitant feelings of retribution and righteousness despite the horrible circumstances) than in protecting children. That’s human nature, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t fight against those urges.
Since this is the Pit, I feel free to openly wonder what other usernames Digger11 has previously used on this board.
No, it’s totally on point. The argument that’s being rebutted is that an automatic safety feature will make people more likely to act carelessly, because they’ll learn to count on the automatic system to catch their error before it becomes serious, so automatic systems are bad. Smoke detectors are a good counter to this argument, because nobody is out there thinking, “I don’t need to turn the stove off. If it causes a fire, the smoke detector will alert me, and everything will be fine.”
Interesting to note that the OP of this thread never did return to it.
She’s active on the board, though.
Maybe she just needed to vent and then walk away. Not everything has to be a conversation (weird as it sounds in a place like this).