Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | jefftk's commentslogin

Rigid carriers are allowed today, and get belted in. The post is about allowing soft babywearing carriers.

>I wouldn't want a third kid just because I don't want to deal with carseats anymore.

By the time you had your third, would the oldest still even be in a carseat?

But even then, three car seats is doable even in small cars: https://www.jefftk.com/p/three-car-seats


Most likely still in a backless booster which means you need a bigger back seat.

You can easily get backless boosters in the 15" width range, which will go three-across without issue in any car that has three rear seats.

I meant that I do not want to deal with taking a kid in and out of car seats, or traveling with car seats, or taking them in and out of cars, for more years of my life.

> I think essentially every flight attendant would just let it go.

I predict they will not let it go, and it will escalate to escorting you off the plane. It's a violation of federal law to allow you to keep your child strapped in, and the attendant risks losing their job.


Maybe you're right, but I'm skeptical. I've forgotten to buckle my seat belt plenty of times and nobody is standing there to make sure I do it or escorting me off the plane if I don't.

The missing comparison is to a parent holding the baby in their arms, which I expect would also fail a 9G test. We're not making babies safer by requiring parents to take them out of babywearing carriers.

Exactly. There is no way most parents could keep ahold of a child during 9Gs, unless they have the grip strength to lift several tons.

I'd read the report. It had more to say on how carriers could cause worse injuries due to vertical orientation of the child.


> a poorly secured rigid baby carrier seat becomes a potentially lethal projectile

Rigid carriers are already permitted on planes, as long as they're FAA approved (which many are). You attach them with the seatbelt, and the flight attendants check.

What I'm proposing in this post is that the FAA not require parents to remove lab infants from babywearing carriers.


From the comments here, many people don’t get the difference. If you’ve never flown with a kid, there is a nuance that is easy to miss.

I was going to make a comment earlier about how my kids travelled in car seats years ago before I realized you were talking about lap kids without their own seat.


Any suggestions on how I might clean up the wording? Currently I have: "In fact, one specific place where I'd like to see this thinking applied is adjacent to this rule: babywearing carriers on planes."

This. The web page title should be "Allow Babywearing on Planes"

Good idea! Changed "Carriers" to "Babywearing Carriers"

Maybe just include an example picture/diagram?

I'm surprised at the amount of people here confusing carriers with car seats. It seemed obvious enough to me in the article. It's about wearing babies on the plane, not babies sitting in their own seat.

There indeed seem to be a lot of folks commenting who think being able to safely have a car seat on a plane would be a revolutionary change, when that's the part that's a solved problem.

It isn't that surprising given that hackernews tends to skew tin demographics towards young men. And people who don't read articles but have strong opinions on everything.

I've updated the title to include "babywearing" to try to make it clearer.

The main question is whether to count the Corolla at all, given that it's changed so much over the years. The original VW Beetle at ~21M and minimally changed from 1938 to 2003 has a strong claim.

AI;DR

[author]

Human extinction, mass starvation, and terrible jobs are all outcomes I think we should try hard to avoid. But I do think I have them in the right order!

(The post is also not about something I'm working on.)


[author]

FYI, I don't think this is desirable. See the section of the post starting with "Is it a good thing? I think mostly no..."


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: