so tex's status message about the toy recall got me thinking...
about bpa-free stuff, this toy recall and probably plenty other minor 'dangers' that become a huge issue and (i think) totally unnecessary cause of concern, relative to the actual risk/outcome.
the toy recall for instance. so in the article i read, there were 24 injuries reported over the course of 13 years which has now lead to a recall of 11 million toys. while i guess i can understand the manufacturer's motive in recalling these items, based on whats in the article none of these injuries were fatal. most injuries were minor and kids hurting their genitals by falling onto something is terribly terribly unfortunate but certainly NOT limited to a toy.
there is no such thing as zero-risk for adults or children and i feel like people tend to have a knee-jerk reaction to things the media tells them to worry about without considering the likely outcome.
surely i can't be the only person that feels this way?
a kid could just as easily have fallen in the vicinity of said trike and impaled their eyeball on the key and lose that eye and possibly sustain some serious brain injury. but idt thats bcuz the toy is poorly manufactured, kwim? accidents happen and sometimes accidents are bad, bad, bad.
i highly doubt even the genital lacerations were serious in the long run. don't get me wrong- its very distressing and i would most likely chuck any toy that caused that regardless of how it happened.
at what point does limiting risk become irrational? <-- there is probably a better way to pose that question, but it escapes me at the moment.
The key on the trike issue it is ridiculous. also the nap nanny being recalled because a baby suffocated between it and the crib. I mean its not even supposed to be used in that manner so imo, thats parental fault not product issues.
I did however send the thing to get new cars for the speedway wheelies ramp we bought for scott for christmas. I guess the wheels come off and pose a choking hazard. I thought it was a brand new toy too ( I hadnt seen wheelies before)
so tex's status message about the toy recall got me thinking...
about bpa-free stuff, this toy recall and probably plenty other minor 'dangers' that become a huge issue and (i think) totally unnecessary cause of concern, relative to the actual risk/outcome.
the toy recall for instance. so in the article i read, there were 24 injuries reported over the course of 13 years which has now lead to a recall of 11 million toys. while i guess i can understand the manufacturer's motive in recalling these items, based on whats in the article none of these injuries were fatal. most injuries were minor and kids hurting their genitals by falling onto something is terribly terribly unfortunate but certainly NOT limited to a toy.
there is no such thing as zero-risk for adults or children and i feel like people tend to have a knee-jerk reaction to things the media tells them to worry about without considering the likely outcome.
surely i can't be the only person that feels this way?
a kid could just as easily have fallen in the vicinity of said trike and impaled their eyeball on the key and lose that eye and possibly sustain some serious brain injury. but idt thats bcuz the toy is poorly manufactured, kwim? accidents happen and sometimes accidents are bad, bad, bad.
i highly doubt even the genital lacerations were serious in the long run. don't get me wrong- its very distressing and i would most likely chuck any toy that caused that regardless of how it happened.
at what point does limiting risk become irrational? <-- there is probably a better way to pose that question, but it escapes me at the moment.
I'm not sure it is irrational... my guess is that they have lawyers and finance guys working probabilities and decision trees to put a valuation on the possible outcomes, and when the net present value of the cost of NOT recalling something is greater than recalling it, they recall it. (Financial guys are really sophisticated in their methodology of quantifying risk in $$$ terms.)
One would like to think it wouldn't be such a... financial... decision, but as you implicitly suggested, they can't recall *everything* that could potentially cause harm, or there would never be any products.
I'm guessing juries would throw a lot of cash at a little girl with a bleeding hoo ha.
2. They must have made bank on selling consumers over priced plastic stuff to be able to recall millions of toys like this.
On a side note... I have a memory from when I was a preschooler that my mom had a friend and her daughter over and this girl jumped on my wooden rocking horse and made her hoo-ha bleed. See, this happened 40 years ago!
I think about all the dangerous things we did with our wagons when we were kids and all the dangerous things other kids were doing in wagons, downhill races without helmuts oh my, and how many nutsacs were probably injured over the years but I have yet to see radio flyer recall all of their wagons.
Our highchair was on the recall list . It has little pegs on the back on the legs that you can hook the tray onto. Some kids were banging into these and hurting themselves.
Seriously.
So I am now going around my house and taking off all cabinet hardware and door knobs. Heck, I may even take the walls down while I'm at it since Abby banged her head into one yesterday.
I am so glad I'm not the only one that thinks this is getting out of hand.
I seriously thought I might be the only rational thinking person left.
I am also not someone to look at a toy when my kid gets hurt and blame the toy, nor am I someone that would take advantage of an opportunity and sue someone.
I think Fisher Price should do a study (which I am SURE they keep track of) with some numbers comparing the millions of toys sold/recalled vs the number actually returned/replacement parts requested. I bet the number is pretty low comparitively yet the world goes in an uproar.
for example, we have the fisher price ocean wonders highchair that was included.
prior to visiting the website i am thinking it is going to be that the highchair has collapsed, etc...
after reading the recall info i discover that they are recalling (well, essentially sending a fix it kit) the highchair because there are 2 knobs on the back that stick out (a teeny bit) on which you can store the tray when not in use. apparently kids have been scraped and cut on them.
okay, seriously, these are not daggers jutting out...they are little round knobs. unless we wrap our children and ourselves in bubble wrap we will get scraped from things in our house from time to time.
now, on the other hand the trykes with that key sticking up from the seat i can see. the children who are intended to use a tryke of that size are young, unsteady walkers and i can definitely see where the placement of that key could cause, ahem, internal abrasions from a young child misjudging where they are sitting. that recall is understandable in my opinion.
i am editing my post to clarify that when i say that the tryke recall is understandable i mean understandable from the perspective of fisher price. i can certainly see where the placement of the key could cause similar injuries in enough kids to make it financially unsound for fp to keep it on the market and like tx said a jury is going to be a whole lot more sympathetic to someone with genital lacerations than little jimmy who scraped his leg on the highchair. i think as parents we need to realize many times recalls are more business/financial decisions rather than serious safety concerns such as drop side cribs or lead paint.
-- Edited by Corey on Friday 1st of October 2010 08:51:44 AM
Raven has the Diego trike for 3 years(I think). I had to go out and look at the "problem" to see what they are talking about. Raven will continue to use it as is and I'm not worried about her genitals. I think it is too easy to sue and everyone is in CYA mode.
