D
daltonr
Guest
Ronan, if it's any comfort I agree with you. Glad to hear you're reading Freakonomics by the way. Excellent book.
You're on to a loser here though if you try to make the case you're making. Life is priceless, no amount of money should be too much to save the life of a child yada yada yada.
It's a nonsense of course. Let's imagine that the NSC have to decide how to spend their money and they have to choose between....
A Campaign to tell parents about the importance of properly restraining children.
or
A Campaign about driving safely in bad weather conditions.
We'll come to the possibility that they have enough for both in a minute.
You have the statistics, I believe they are published annualy. If as you say there have been 0, NONE, NADA, ZIP deaths of children under 10 due to being incorrectly restrained, then what does that suggest?
Either Parents are already restraining their children properly, or parents with children in the car adopt a different driving style to adults driving alone, or to young male drivers.
It's quite possible both are true, either way it's working. Kids aren't dying due to bad restraints.
People are dying because of driving inappropriately on bad roads or in bad weather conditions. People are dying because of Falling asleep. The NSC have done some work in these areas, but people are still dying, so my opinion is similar to your, take the money from the Restraining Children budget and put it into areas where people are DYING.
Next question..... Is it ever a good idea to have a campaign about something that isn't a current problem. Yes, but only if three things hold true
1. It's about to become a problem, and you want to head it off before someone dies.
2. It's the most pressing potential problem, i.e. the one most likely to start happening.
There is no more pressing problem that should be funded first.
3. The NSC has so much extra cash that it is already doing all it can about the areas in
which people are currently dying.
I don't know if 1 is true. I doubt that 2 is true, and unless the NSC is the only
over funded organisation in Ireland 3 defintiely isn't true.
If we want to save the lives of toddlers. And if the NSC IS over funded. What should be do?????
Do we have figures for how many children died on Farms last year? I know it was more than 0 because I heard something on the radio before I left.
Do we have figures for how many children died on building sites?
Died in falls around the house?
Died in household accidents, poisonings, burns etc.
I think your point is that we should be putting the funds into areas where they are likely to have the best effect. Just because something is a good idea doesn't mean it's the best idea.
-Rd
You're on to a loser here though if you try to make the case you're making. Life is priceless, no amount of money should be too much to save the life of a child yada yada yada.
It's a nonsense of course. Let's imagine that the NSC have to decide how to spend their money and they have to choose between....
A Campaign to tell parents about the importance of properly restraining children.
or
A Campaign about driving safely in bad weather conditions.
We'll come to the possibility that they have enough for both in a minute.
You have the statistics, I believe they are published annualy. If as you say there have been 0, NONE, NADA, ZIP deaths of children under 10 due to being incorrectly restrained, then what does that suggest?
Either Parents are already restraining their children properly, or parents with children in the car adopt a different driving style to adults driving alone, or to young male drivers.
It's quite possible both are true, either way it's working. Kids aren't dying due to bad restraints.
People are dying because of driving inappropriately on bad roads or in bad weather conditions. People are dying because of Falling asleep. The NSC have done some work in these areas, but people are still dying, so my opinion is similar to your, take the money from the Restraining Children budget and put it into areas where people are DYING.
Next question..... Is it ever a good idea to have a campaign about something that isn't a current problem. Yes, but only if three things hold true
1. It's about to become a problem, and you want to head it off before someone dies.
2. It's the most pressing potential problem, i.e. the one most likely to start happening.
There is no more pressing problem that should be funded first.
3. The NSC has so much extra cash that it is already doing all it can about the areas in
which people are currently dying.
I don't know if 1 is true. I doubt that 2 is true, and unless the NSC is the only
over funded organisation in Ireland 3 defintiely isn't true.
If we want to save the lives of toddlers. And if the NSC IS over funded. What should be do?????
Do we have figures for how many children died on Farms last year? I know it was more than 0 because I heard something on the radio before I left.
Do we have figures for how many children died on building sites?
Died in falls around the house?
Died in household accidents, poisonings, burns etc.
I think your point is that we should be putting the funds into areas where they are likely to have the best effect. Just because something is a good idea doesn't mean it's the best idea.
-Rd