"nhurst" wrote .
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Martin H. Eastburn wrote:
> > Mommy regulations again. Give me a break.
>
> > Many people can't reach over and then down for some time after
> > delivery or if just short.
>
> A problem which our society is going to have to learn to deal with is
> excessively complete communications.
>
> We're starting to see regulations to address one-in-a-million events.
> Literally--did you see the numbers they quoted in the link that was
> provided--3 deaths out of 3 million cribs?
It's all about risk management, though. If you're big enough to sell
one million cribs, then your chances of your product killing someone,
anyone, goes up to unacceptable levels. Changing something like this
is a no-brainer, all things considered.
Sure, some of the failures were because of incorrect assembly or
faulty materials that can crop of from time to time. It's not always
someone's fault, but that won't prevent an angry family from hiring a
lawyer and suing the company, costing them more money than it's worth
to just not manufacture the things in the first place.
I have a 2 year old and own a drop-side crib, and those drop down
sides are heavy, and can be tricky to get to work when you're trying
to be quiet. Honestly, I think the replacement of the drop side with a
fold-down rail is better for everyone involved. It accomplishes the
same goal of making allowances for shorter folks or those with back
problems, but reduces the risk of a guillotine-type failure or unsafe
gaps that the little squirmers can wiggle into. I bet assembly
wouldn't be any more difficult, and it would be pretty obvious if the
thing is backwards or upside down.
Also, this isn't the Federal Congress making the ruling, but a trade
organization issuing voluntary guidelines. Though the CPSC may adopt
them as their rules if they're put in place before the CPSC meets
about the situation.
=============================
My take on it is that the manufactureres don't want to lose money if they
don't offer the drop down model when others do. So to level the playing
field, they mandate that nobody offers it. I really think that safety is
not the major issue. Competitiveness is. And liability, of course.
And it is a good PR move. We care about babies. Buy our products. Of course,
this would render almost all present cribs obsolete. So everybody has to
buy new cribs. Wanna bet that there will be a brisk black market for the
drop down cribs for awhile?
On Mar 20, 9:40=A0am, "Lee Michaels" <leemichaels*[email protected]>
wrote:
> "nhurst" =A0wrote .
> =A0"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Martin H. Eastburn wrote:
> > > Mommy regulations again. Give me a break.
>
> > > Many people can't reach over and then down for some time after
> > > delivery or if just short.
>
> > A problem which our society is going to have to learn to deal with is
> > excessively complete communications.
>
> > We're starting to see regulations to address one-in-a-million events.
> > Literally--did you see the numbers they quoted in the link that was
> > provided--3 deaths out of 3 million cribs?
>
> It's all about risk management, though. If you're big enough to sell
> one million cribs, then your chances of your product killing someone,
> anyone, goes up to unacceptable levels. Changing something like this
> is a no-brainer, all things considered.
>
> Sure, some of the failures were because of incorrect assembly or
> faulty materials that can crop of from time to time. It's not always
> someone's fault, but that won't prevent an angry family from hiring a
> lawyer and suing the company, costing them more money than it's worth
> to just not manufacture the things in the first place.
>
> I have a 2 year old and own a drop-side crib, and those drop down
> sides are heavy, and can be tricky to get to work when you're trying
> to be quiet. Honestly, I think the replacement of the drop side with a
> fold-down rail is better for everyone involved. It accomplishes the
> same goal of making allowances for shorter folks or those with back
> problems, but reduces the risk of a guillotine-type failure or unsafe
> gaps that the little squirmers can wiggle into. I bet assembly
> wouldn't be any more difficult, and it would be pretty obvious if the
> thing is backwards or upside down.
>
> Also, this isn't the Federal Congress making the ruling, but a trade
> organization issuing voluntary guidelines. Though the CPSC may adopt
> them as their rules if they're put in place before the CPSC meets
> about the situation.
>
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
> My take on it is that the manufactureres don't want to lose money if they
> don't offer the drop down model when others do. =A0So to level the playin=
g
> field, they mandate that nobody offers it. =A0I really think that safety =
is
> not the major issue. =A0Competitiveness is. =A0And liability, of course.
>
> And it is a good PR move. We care about babies. Buy our products. Of cour=
se,
> this would render almost all present cribs obsolete. =A0So everybody has =
to
> buy new cribs. =A0Wanna bet that there will be a brisk black market for t=
he
> drop down cribs for awhile?
While that's certainly possible, I would have liked the option of the
flip down rail. You lose a lot of rigidity in the crib when an entire
side is mobile. I would have been happier had just the part that
needed to move was movable.
The current cribs will be around for a while, simply because of
secondhand sales and family gifting and whatnot, and it's not like
they're DANGEROUS, just that they can be safer.
I think the major innovation, that of the side being able to be made
shorter, was enough to redefine what people expect in a crib, and now
the market is working on the best implementation.
-Nathan
"Lee Michaels" <leemichaels*nadaspam*@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> There was a discussion here lately concerning the liability isues with
> high chairs, cribs, etc. I saw this today and thought I would pass it on.
> If anybody here wants to make a crib, it may be a good idea to NOT have a
> drop down side.
>
> http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2009/03/18/america/Crib-Ban.php
>
>
I built our crib in 1968 for first born. At that time cribs had wide space
between up rights that allowed small babies to slide through but catch their
head and strangle them. I built our crib with narrow spacing. Made a half
side drop down for ease of use. All oak and mortise and tenion joints.
Drop down was latched at either end with spring loaded slide latches. So
that required both latches to be pulled at same time. Child not big enough
to reach both at same time. However the boy found that if he pulled one
latch and shove it a bit then pushed other latch the side would open. Guess
what . He is now a mechanical engineer. His 2 children also used same crib.
Warren
David G. Nagel wrote:
> I think that I can almost guarantee that someone will find a way to
> injure them self or their little one with a fold down crib side. Most
> likely pinch a small finger in the fold when the side is returned to
> it's upright and locked position.
The obvious solution to that particular issue would be something like a
rule joint, where there is no gap for fingers to get pinched in.
Chris
On Mar 19, 11:38=A0pm, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Martin H. Eastburn wrote:
> > Mommy regulations again. =A0Give me a break.
>
> > Many people can't reach over and then down for some time after
> > delivery or if just short.
>
> A problem which our society is going to have to learn to deal with is
> excessively complete communications.
>
> We're starting to see regulations to address one-in-a-million events.
> Literally--did you see the numbers they quoted in the link that was
> provided--3 deaths out of 3 million cribs?
It's all about risk management, though. If you're big enough to sell
one million cribs, then your chances of your product killing someone,
anyone, goes up to unacceptable levels. Changing something like this
is a no-brainer, all things considered.
Sure, some of the failures were because of incorrect assembly or
faulty materials that can crop of from time to time. It's not always
someone's fault, but that won't prevent an angry family from hiring a
lawyer and suing the company, costing them more money than it's worth
to just not manufacture the things in the first place.
I have a 2 year old and own a drop-side crib, and those drop down
sides are heavy, and can be tricky to get to work when you're trying
to be quiet. Honestly, I think the replacement of the drop side with a
fold-down rail is better for everyone involved. It accomplishes the
same goal of making allowances for shorter folks or those with back
problems, but reduces the risk of a guillotine-type failure or unsafe
gaps that the little squirmers can wiggle into. I bet assembly
wouldn't be any more difficult, and it would be pretty obvious if the
thing is backwards or upside down.
Also, this isn't the Federal Congress making the ruling, but a trade
organization issuing voluntary guidelines. Though the CPSC may adopt
them as their rules if they're put in place before the CPSC meets
about the situation.
-Nathan
Martin H. Eastburn wrote:
> Mommy regulations again. Give me a break.
>
> Many people can't reach over and then down for some time after
> delivery or if just short.
A problem which our society is going to have to learn to deal with is
excessively complete communications.
We're starting to see regulations to address one-in-a-million events.
Literally--did you see the numbers they quoted in the link that was
provided--3 deaths out of 3 million cribs?
Lee Michaels wrote:
> "nhurst" wrote .
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Martin H. Eastburn wrote:
>>> Mommy regulations again. Give me a break.
>>
>>> Many people can't reach over and then down for some time after
>>> delivery or if just short.
>>
>> A problem which our society is going to have to learn to deal with is
>> excessively complete communications.
>>
>> We're starting to see regulations to address one-in-a-million events.
>> Literally--did you see the numbers they quoted in the link that was
>> provided--3 deaths out of 3 million cribs?
>
> It's all about risk management, though. If you're big enough to sell
> one million cribs, then your chances of your product killing someone,
> anyone, goes up to unacceptable levels. Changing something like this
> is a no-brainer, all things considered.
No matter what you do a few idiots are going to manage to hurt themselves or
someone else with it. At what point do we decide that it's time to accept
that nothing can be made completely idiot-proof?
> Sure, some of the failures were because of incorrect assembly or
> faulty materials that can crop of from time to time. It's not always
> someone's fault, but that won't prevent an angry family from hiring a
> lawyer and suing the company, costing them more money than it's worth
> to just not manufacture the things in the first place.
The solution to that is to make it more difficult to bring lawsuits or make
the suits higher risk for the plaintiff.
> I have a 2 year old and own a drop-side crib, and those drop down
> sides are heavy, and can be tricky to get to work when you're trying
> to be quiet. Honestly, I think the replacement of the drop side with a
> fold-down rail is better for everyone involved. It accomplishes the
> same goal of making allowances for shorter folks or those with back
> problems, but reduces the risk of a guillotine-type failure or unsafe
> gaps that the little squirmers can wiggle into. I bet assembly
> wouldn't be any more difficult, and it would be pretty obvious if the
> thing is backwards or upside down.
And no doubt the fold-down rail will have its own set of risks.
> Also, this isn't the Federal Congress making the ruling, but a trade
> organization issuing voluntary guidelines. Though the CPSC may adopt
> them as their rules if they're put in place before the CPSC meets
> about the situation.
Doesn't matter how it's coming to pass.
> =============================
>
> My take on it is that the manufactureres don't want to lose money if
> they don't offer the drop down model when others do. So to level the
> playing field, they mandate that nobody offers it. I really think
> that safety is not the major issue. Competitiveness is. And
> liability, of course.
Which doesn't alter the fact that they're addressing one-in-a-million
problems.
> And it is a good PR move. We care about babies. Buy our products. Of
> course, this would render almost all present cribs obsolete. So
> everybody has to buy new cribs. Wanna bet that there will be a brisk
> black market for the drop down cribs for awhile?
Not if the government decides to outlaw them, which it may.
WW <[email protected]> wrote:
> Drop down was latched at either end with spring loaded slide latches. So
> that required both latches to be pulled at same time. Child not big enough
> to reach both at same time. However the boy found that if he pulled one
> latch and shove it a bit then pushed other latch the side would open. Guess
> what . He is now a mechanical engineer. His 2 children also used same crib.
Isn't that always the way? I remember putting a lock on the under-sink
doors in my kitchen when my first born was just old enough to walk. When
I finished up, she toddled over and unlocked and locked it a couple times,
just like she saw me do when I tested it a minute before . . . sigh.
As for drop side cribs, I helped that same daughter's husband assemble
one a few weeks ago. A family hand down. Same basic design that's
been around at least 50 or 60 years because I slept in one like it.
New ones are different, apparently.
Bill Ranck
Blacksburg, Va.
nhurst wrote:
> On Mar 19, 11:38 pm, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Martin H. Eastburn wrote:
>>> Mommy regulations again. Give me a break.
>>> Many people can't reach over and then down for some time after
>>> delivery or if just short.
>> A problem which our society is going to have to learn to deal with is
>> excessively complete communications.
>>
>> We're starting to see regulations to address one-in-a-million events.
>> Literally--did you see the numbers they quoted in the link that was
>> provided--3 deaths out of 3 million cribs?
>
> It's all about risk management, though. If you're big enough to sell
> one million cribs, then your chances of your product killing someone,
> anyone, goes up to unacceptable levels. Changing something like this
> is a no-brainer, all things considered.
>
> Sure, some of the failures were because of incorrect assembly or
> faulty materials that can crop of from time to time. It's not always
> someone's fault, but that won't prevent an angry family from hiring a
> lawyer and suing the company, costing them more money than it's worth
> to just not manufacture the things in the first place.
>
> I have a 2 year old and own a drop-side crib, and those drop down
> sides are heavy, and can be tricky to get to work when you're trying
> to be quiet. Honestly, I think the replacement of the drop side with a
> fold-down rail is better for everyone involved. It accomplishes the
> same goal of making allowances for shorter folks or those with back
> problems, but reduces the risk of a guillotine-type failure or unsafe
> gaps that the little squirmers can wiggle into. I bet assembly
> wouldn't be any more difficult, and it would be pretty obvious if the
> thing is backwards or upside down.
>
> Also, this isn't the Federal Congress making the ruling, but a trade
> organization issuing voluntary guidelines. Though the CPSC may adopt
> them as their rules if they're put in place before the CPSC meets
> about the situation.
>
> -Nathan
Nathan;
I think that I can almost guarantee that someone will find a way to
injure them self or their little one with a fold down crib side. Most
likely pinch a small finger in the fold when the side is returned to
it's upright and locked position.
I managed to survive sleeping in a drop side crib, so did my wife, three
children and three grandchildren. This was all during the pre-crib
standards era.
Dave N
Mommy regulations again. Give me a break.
Many people can't reach over and then down for some time after delivery
or if just short.
Martin
Lee Michaels wrote:
> There was a discussion here lately concerning the liability isues with high
> chairs, cribs, etc. I saw this today and thought I would pass it on. If
> anybody here wants to make a crib, it may be a good idea to NOT have a drop
> down side.
>
> http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2009/03/18/america/Crib-Ban.php
>
>
>