Perhaps you could show us all the letters to the editor and legislation you’ve proposed that outlaws cars or even leaving the house, since all those things result in dead children. Of course, you’d have to outlaw staying in the house, too, because that results in dead children also.

Sheesh. What a clown.

Now try it with a booster. The lap belt fits, oddly enough, across the lap. The shoulder belt (with an adjustment) fits, again, oddly enough, across the shoulder. This is how it works for adults, and why seat belts are safe…for adults. The belts fit across some of the strongest bones in the body, not across soft tissue.

Jo, the idea that there is some difference between the type of research done by Levitt and the type of research done by those who disagree with them seems erroneous. Public health researchers look at statistics (although there is research that relies on booster seat tests; Levitt has done some of this, too, however).

Furthermore, to say that Levitt only looks at data dealing with fatalities is false. As he says (http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2005/07/24/levitt-replies-to-the-critical-letter-published-in-ny-times-today/): “I have looked at three other data sets (one with all reported crashes in New Jersey, another with all reported crashes in Wisconsin, and one that is a nationally representative sample of all crashes in the United States). All three of these data sets cover a full set of accidents, not just crashes with fatalities. And in all three data sets the results obtained are virtually identical to the results using the fatal crashes.”

In that same link, Levitt raises some serious questions about the methodology of the data touted by the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, upon which much of the pro-booster seat agenda is based.

And the questions raised by Levitt is not about economics vs. dead children. It’s about whether or not the research done in support of booster seat usage for older children actually says what advocates claim. To try and say that since he’s an economist or a statitician that his research is invalid is ridiculous. He evaluates data. Dismissing him because you think economic methodology doesn’t apply in this instance won’t do anything to convince me he’s wrong.

Unfortunately Marc, you read a really abbreviated synopsis of what the Committee heard (I read the same Gongwer Report). What did you think Drs. Crow and Cotton were saying in their testimony? Dr. Crow is not an economist, he’s a pediatric trauma surgeon. Dr. Cotton is also not an economist but rather he is a pediatric emergency medicine physician. They have performed a lot of scientific research into pediatric illness and injury. They have read with a critical eye extensive amounts of scientific research that has passed peer-review. They are true experts in injury causes and control. It was from this extensive experience that they gave their testimony. What is generating the frustrated responses to your initial post is that the testimony of true experts in the field of injury prevention is being IGNORED.

If you want to find all the scientific literature on this topic to bring yourself up-to-speed, go to http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ and search the PubMed database for “booster seat”. Disregard the returns that are studies of booster seat implementation plans and what you will find is that there is, contrary to your assertions, a lot of peer-reviewed, scientific evidence supporting the efficacy of booster seats. These are studies performed by respected automotive safety engineers, respected physicians and respected epidemiologists, not respected economists.

Let me end with this perspective: I have read the science, almost all of it, and I have read Freakonomics. It appears that Lisa and Jo have, as well. We do not view the booster seat issue as an issue of economics; We view it as an issue of dead children.

Here’s a simple source for why booster seats are effective. It also happens to be from experts–in safety, not economics. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/duip/research/boosterseat.htm

Here’s a simple source for why booster seats are better than seat belts for children 4-8. While it doesn’t source its information, the paragraph “Why use a booster seat instead of a safety belt?” sums it up: seat belts are designed for adults, not children.

http://pediatrics.about.com/library/car_seats/blbooster_seats.htm

Simply put, the authors of Freakonomics are statisticians, not public health researchers. Their argument makes some valid points, but only chose from sources where children died in crashes (unrestrained, restrained-seat belt only, restrained-booster seat). This ignores the fact that children 4-8 who only wear a seat belt are 3.5 times as likely to suffer significant injury and 4 times more likely to suffer significant brain/head injury (http://www.saferoads.org/issues/fs-boosterseat.htm; source: Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, 2003). These types of injury cost an incredible amount of money to treat, very often over the lifetime of the victim. And we’re paying for it through our insurance premiums (automobile and medical).

There is no debate among health professionals. Booster seats save children 4-8 from death and significant injury. The only ones debating are economists and bloggers outside their comfort zone.