Does the nanny state know best when it comes to car seats?

This superb review of the empirical proof regarding the value of child safety seats versus seat belts illustrates the point that when government gets involved in regulation it often goes too far- so far that it can become counterproductive.

Dr. Steve Levitt, of "Freakonomics" fame, reviewed data from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System, a federal Department of Transportation database, concerning children, safety seats, and car accidents. He determined that kids over two are pretty much as safe using regular safety belts as they are in one of those uber-expensive child seats. You know the kind- the ones parents are compelled to buy thanks to legislation in all fifty states (which was, of course, encouraged by the USG originally).

Levitt reports that the ubiquitousness of car seats has been "....fueled by well publicized information campaigns and legal mandates" and that "....there is relatively little empirical evidence regarding the efficacy of child safety seats relative to the much cheaper alternative of seat belts."

Seat belts: okay. Child safety seats: too much. Overregulation can become counterproductive.

Here we have safety belts, an already mandated precaution, filling a regulatory vacuum (I would argue that the auto industry- if it still exists- should self-regulate, but for the sake of the example we will assume safety belts are within the USG's authority and should be regulated by the federal government). However, the union of corporate sponsored "information campaigns" and "legal mandates" have now attached to this limited requirement the order that car seats must be used for all children- despite the evidence which shows such devices are unneeded for little tikes over a certain size, generally reached at about two years of age.

Why?

Maybe it is because, as Levitt notes, in 1997 Americans spent about $300 million on car seats. (Something tells me the number is markedly higher today; the economy might be down but those seats are surely imported and the dollar, for some reason, is down quite a bit).

On the one hand, I like this approach because unlike seat belts, which all cars are required to have, car seats are bought after market. I do not like the idea of, every time I buy a car, paying for someone else's idea of safety. Presently over protective parents are on the hook if they are purchasing $500 car seats for their little snowflakes. But Levitt raises an excellent point later when he notes that if those consumers were not wasting money on car seats, perhaps they would encourage the car companies, with some of their $300 million behind them, to create new and better ways to protect kids- ways that actually work. Innovation that saves children- the market seems almost humane!

Even if this result did not come about though, I am still laughing at the idea that the feds via the states are requiring car seats. Consumers wasting money on products which do not work is not the exactly world's worst market inefficiency- but should the government be encouraging it? Under the existing system someone who agreed with Levitt's numbers is precluded, by law, with employing a more affordable way to provide their child with equal safety. Since most families today are pinching pennies (be careful, the new ones are so cheaply made if you pinch them too hard they fuse together) this is simply forcing people to waste money which might otherwise be used for the benefit of their child.

Should we buy little Suzy new socks or a car seat for her third birthday? Well, there is no law against not putting socks on her feet.....

One final point on this one, and it is very important: adhere to your state and the federal government's laws and regulations on this issue. Do not say you read that it is okay to do this or safe to do that and blame me. There is a difference between theoretical debate and practical application. Put simply: follow the law, even if you do not like it or agree with it.