to say nothing of Socks and Fifi

[cellio]

A CNN story today talks about alarms to alert drivers before they leave kids unattended in potentially-hot cars. As of this writing 61% of responders to their poll think such warning devices should be required in all new cars. The article quotes someone saying that, hey, your car will tell you about your headlights being on, and isn't this more important?

We can take as given the riff on parental responsibility, right? It's not Toyota's fault if your kid gets left in the car, but that's clearly where the suits will be directed when one of these systems fails. That's not what this post is about.

I suspect that most of those 61% don't care about the difference between worst-case cost and expected cost. While leaving a kid in a hot car for an hour is much much worse than leaving your headlights on for an hour, I submit that the probability is much much lower, or there'd be a lot more news stories about it and a lot fewer calls to AAA. The expected cost of the headlights is higher and carbuyers care, and that's why that alarm is standard equipment. No one but the market requires that makers put it there.

Speaking personally, the expected cost over, say, the next decade of my leaving a kid in my unattended hot car is 0. The expected cost of my leaving my headlights on is some positive fraction of $100 for a new battery and several hours of my time, at least one of which comes at a time when I, demonstrably, wanted to be somewhere else. 61% of poll responders would say "tough noogies" to me and wouldn't care if adding this device costs me hundreds of dollars. (I don't know what it costs.)

If that's what those voters truly believe, then they do not go far enough. If the goal is to prevent the deaths of those who can't see the danger or get out of the car themselves, then clearly it's not just about kids. Some adult passengers are unable to care for themselves and could die in hot cars too. I think it's actually more likely that an adult suffering from dementia would be ignored by passersby than that a kid would be. We don't think it's unusual for adults to sit in parked cars. Isn't gramps at least as important as an infant?

I predict that I'll get few takers from among the 61%; they would rightly say "you can't prevent everything". Yes, exactly. And given that, you have to cost-justify, and not just emotionally justify, the burden you would place on everyone else. Here's an idea: if you want a requirement, require that the device be built into the car seat, not the car. It'll be more expensive to do right (and be amortized over fewer buyers), but, well, it's the price we pay for safety, right?

Am I missing a sound argument in favor of requiring unattended-child alarms in all cars, or do all arguments boil down to "a possibility of one child's death is worth the certainty of $X in increased cost for everyone"?

Comments

[loosecanon.livejournal.com]

When we were that little, we were in the front seat. My parents were less likely to forget me because I was right in front of them.
An adult is less likely to be forgotten because they are more visible, more present, and more likely to make themselves known.

I can see an argument for the car seats themselves to have an alarm, but not the cars.

[cellio]

When we were little, my sister and I rode in the back seat even if there was only one parent up front. It resolved the fights over who got to ride up front.

I guess I'm just a little boggled by the idea of forgetting the kid in the back. It does seem that putting them in the back to avoid the airbag problem has made things worse.

I haven't been paying attention; are front airbags still a problem? For some makes of cars they advertise a feature where the passenger airbag only goes off if weight is detected on the seat (to save you the cost of repacking it if it wasn't needed); if they can do that, can't they set the threshold at, say, 75 pounds? Would that allow kids to ride up front again? Or are car seats incompatable with front passenger seats?

[estherchaya.livejournal.com]

so far as I understand it, studies still show that regardless of the air bag issue it's safer for kids to be in the back, period. Most (all?) states REQUIRE that children be seated in the back seat if there is one (if you have, say a pick up truck without a back seat, obviously you're exempt from the rule).

[cellio]

Not necessarily obvious; I can imagine some state ruling "no back seat? that's rough; you'll need a new vehicle before you can transport kids".

Thanks for the information. Airbags aside, I didn't know that people in the back did better in accidents.

[estherchaya.livejournal.com]

children in the back seat, not people. I don't know about general population statistics. And of course, this is all assuming proper car seat installation and seat belt usage, etc. I do know that according to at least SOME even with children who have outgrown car seats, if they are below a certain height/weight, they are safer in the back. Though I'm sure there's some other contradictory study elsewhere that says something different.