If they do then I hope there is an additional rule forcing the guardian to purchase an adjacent seat, so there's no risk of someone (me) being guilt tripped into swapping seats.
This is addressed in the first paragraph of the article.
> The FAA has one of my favorite examples of thoughtful rulemaking. They haven't banned flying with a baby on your lap, because the extra cost would mean many parents would drive instead. Since driving is far less safe than flying, a ban would lead to more deaths. I'd love to see more of this "all things considered" thinking around bans.
You can depends on the cohorts sizes. Order of magnitude is probably large here tho.
I somehow doubt when correct in absolute numbers lap infants are saving any lives.
Run the model in AI on real cohorts and absolute numbers it’s a wash at best and an urban legend at worse. 5 lives saved over a decade. Toothpicks on a plane likely killed more people than that.
To be clear but the NTSB and the American society of pediatrics have both said the FAAs math here is totally bunk.
cyberrock · · focus · HN ↗
buzzy_hacker · · focus · HN ↗
> The FAA has one of my favorite examples of thoughtful rulemaking. They haven't banned flying with a baby on your lap, because the extra cost would mean many parents would drive instead. Since driving is far less safe than flying, a ban would lead to more deaths. I'd love to see more of this "all things considered" thinking around bans.
tsunamifury · · focus · HN ↗
Vast majority of accidents happen on regular driven known routes not road trips.
I would expect far better from the FAA.
vablings · · focus · HN ↗
tsunamifury · · focus · HN ↗
I somehow doubt when correct in absolute numbers lap infants are saving any lives.
Run the model in AI on real cohorts and absolute numbers it’s a wash at best and an urban legend at worse. 5 lives saved over a decade. Toothpicks on a plane likely killed more people than that.
To be clear but the NTSB and the American society of pediatrics have both said the FAAs math here is totally bunk.