Safety First?

Dear New York Times Science Editor:

I was dismayed by Madonna Behen's article,"Keep Facing Backward for Child Safety" about the American Academy of Pediatrics's new recommendation that parents keep children in rear-facing carseats until they are two, instead of one, as previously advised.

My parents always told me, "The safest place for a child is strapped in a car seat with a five-point harness, in the basement." To which I guess we now have to add, "Facing backwards."

Child safety is important, obviously -- a parent's primary responsibility. Infants should be in car seats. Football players should wear helmets. But marginal increases in safety must be weighed against their (often significant) costs.  Honestly, how many deaths are prevented by the expense and effort and constant inconvenience of making sure every child under twelve is riding in a booster? Strained backs aside, I have had parents regretfully decline a playdate because it was illegal for their eight-year-old son to ride boosterless for a half-mile to get to my house. There is a real cost here.

My stepfather (a health policy researcher) once sent me an article describing a decline in child pedestrian fatalities in England. The authors were ambivalent about this news: they attributed it to the fact that children hardly ever walk anywhere alone anymore. Sure, they're not getting hit by cars -- but is it really better that we're driving them to school every morning, and delivering them home again in the afternoon? What about all the interesting things they might see, think, or do if we let them explore the neighborhood off-leash instead? Are they better off sitting on the couch playing video games than running around in the street playing stickball? I'm not so sure.

When I turned my daughter's car seat around to face front, I wasn't celebrating some hyped-up phony developmental milestone. I was overjoyed that I would no longer have to drive down the road with a screaming baby who couldn't see her mother. (Has anyone compiled the safety stats on parent drivers distracted by wailing infants?) Even if I'd known then that she was slightly more likely to be injured in an accident, I might well have chosen to turn her around, simply so I'd be able to talk to her.

Other people might prioritize that marginal safety gain -- and I totally respect that. But parents like me who choose to expose their children to slight safety risks in order to gain other benefits -- independence, exercise, social opportunities, and other valuable experiences -- should not be berated for making "stupid decisions."

Sincerely,

Mikala Woodward