The answer to the young couple who used their car to put the kids to sleep raised some questions for me. Isn't the real problem how to get the baby to sleep rather than how to minimize the CO level in the vehicle? Shutting off the engine occasionally might help improve the safety issue, but not solve the problem. The somnifying effect of cars - and trains and planes and boats - comes from a combination of the sound, vibration, and movement in the environment. Turn off the engine and you might as well strap the child in a car seat in its bedroom. Driving around the neighborhood would be more effective at sedating the kid, but the risk of a collision might exceed that of CO poisoning in a parked vehicle. Check that with your statistician.
On a more basic level, the problem is related to the Generation ME parents unwillingness to put up with a few days of whining. It's not going to permanently damage a kid to miss his scheduled nap a couple of times. He will sleep when he's tired enough, and achieve a significantly lower maintenance level with less mollycoddling. Where but in America (and maybe Abu Dhabi) would people run a 400 horsepower gasoline engine for hours to avoid the trouble of humming a lullaby? All the while consuming irreplaceable fossil fuel, polluting the air I and my kids and grandkids have to breathe, increasing global warming, and possibly damaging their car's engine?
Comments
- Spam
- Abuse
- Troll
Off Topic Disagree Agree Like- Spam
- Abuse
- Troll
Off Topic Disagree Agree Like- Spam
- Abuse
- Troll
Off Topic Disagree Agree Like- Spam
- Abuse
- Troll
Off Topic Disagree Agree Like