Not that I put much stock anymore in what the NYT says but I seem to have used up my free articles so can’t see what the article says.
@bing you’re not missing too much. Rather vague study, boiled down seat belts do help reduce child fatalities when used correctly. Ton of other variables too…also some states do far better than others (considering Mississippi had a far higher rate of child death due to lack or improper use of seat belts I would surmise that education has a lot to do with it as well…)
I guess you like the Fake News from Fox.
Long before the days of child safety seats, when my nephew was very young, his mother (my brother’s first wife) used to allow him to stand on the front passenger seat of her Barracuda while she drove. 
When I pointed out to her that this was potentially very dangerous, she informed me that, “If I’m going to hit something, I’ll just reach over and hold him back”. Thank God that my nephew survived his mother’s idiocy.
I still see that today. Especially in Manchester NH. I guess the police don’t enforce it there because I see it every time I drive up there.
Oh, Mike, you don’t have to take the bait every time Bing trolls, do you?
Here is the first few paragraphs of the story:
The most common cause of death in children under the age of 15 is unintentional injury, and the most common cause of unintentional injury is car accidents.
Between 2010 and 2014, 2,885 children died in motor vehicle accidents nationwide — an average of 11 children a week. That number excludes pedestrians, those who died in motorcycle or bicycle accidents, and those who died riding in an unenclosed cargo area or trailer.
Most of the children who died were not wearing seatbelts — nationwide, 43 percent were unrestrained or improperly restrained. Another 15 percent were sitting inappropriately in the front seat, and 13 percent were riding in cars driven by somebody under the influence of alcohol.
Researchers at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston and at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas carried out the analysis, which was published in The Journal of Pediatrics. The primary source of the data was the Fatality Analysis Reporting System, maintained by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
The researchers found considerable variations in children’s deaths from state to state. In New Hampshire, for example, all of the five children who died during the study period were properly belted in. But in Mississippi, 56 of the 99 who died were not wearing seatbelts, or were not wearing them properly.
There were 0.25 deaths per 100,000 children in Massachusetts, compared with 3.23 per 100,000 in Mississippi.
Yeah, a newspaper headquartered in NYC writing about cars whose authors likely don’t own a car and may not have a driver’s license. Yeah, that not a source of “news” now is it?
Not to mention the plagiarism and “made-up” stories that’s plagued the NYT a number of times over the years.
It’s probably happened to ALL news organizations at some time. At least when the NYT’s discovered it, they wrote a retraction and usually disciplined the writer. Companies like Fox embrace fake news. If the fake news story gets a lot of viewers the Fox news reporter gets a bonus. Do it many many times (Hannity) - they get promoted and make millions.
I see nothing in the NYT story that makes me doubt the information presented. Reporting the results of a study is pretty straight forward, it seems to me.
Yes, we understand your bias against Fox News. Beat that drum all you wish.
If you really want to understand news bias, look to what your favorite news outlet refuses or minimizes its coverage. The bias of omission. News consumers need a variety of sources to recognize that.
BIAS??? Try again. Not one thing I said about Fox is false. They’ve time and time again reported verifiable FAKE NEWS. They either completely LIED or in many cases even made up news. I use to watch Fox…but after the continuing reporting of FAKE NEWS I couldn’t take it anymore. If you want to blindly watch them and not question anything they say - good for you.
In fairness, when I was a journalist I wrote about lots of things that I don’t own or have experience with. I remember one story I did about EAA’s B-17 bomber. I sadly do not own one, but I wrote the story anyway! 
You just reinforced my point with the rant. Thanks.
Sorry Mustang - Now you’re like Fox and just making things up. Where did I ever say what my favorite news outlet is? Where did I ever hint at it? I like MANY news outlets. I don’t have a favorite. Unlike you I don’t blindly follow a news org because it’s how I believe.
As for bias of omission…that’s a joke right?
People who listen to Fox
. never new of Fox’s CIA consultant who is now serving 10 years for posing as a CIA agent.
. never saw the video of Trump mocking the Journalist who had Cerebral Palsy.
. never heard of the multiple sexual harassment lawsuits.
. never saw the video of O’Rielly talking about his combat role in Falkland islands - which he denies ever saying.
The list goes on and on and on and on.
The partisan agenda driven media and press have overwhelmed the 4th estate which has become the 5th column. That statement was aimed at the prior administration specifically by an AM radio pundit but it is true for both sides of the aisle. And it’s a shame. Al Jazeera was more objective than any American cable network.
Just a few comments. If overall 43% were unrestrained and died, that means that 57% were restrained and died anyway. No? And in Mississippi 56 of the 99 who died were not wearing belts but that means that 43 of the 99 were wearing belts but died anyway. So just in general, kids wearing seat belts only gave a slightly better chance of 50-50 to survive a crash? So what’s the point of the article? Kids dying on the highways no matter what we do?
So I guess there are so many other variables like speed, age or type of vehicle, drinking, road conditions, type of road, and so on that maybe were or maybe weren’t discussed in the article. So injuries are the major cause of death of youth? No kidding Captain Obvious, like heart attacks are a major cause of death of those over 65 whether wearing belts or not.
Obviously though if I was beyond my quota of reading NYT articles and got locked out I’m not blindly just looking at one media outlet. I’m locked out of the WP too and others since I’m over my quota. Looking at local papers, I check the by-line and a lot of the articles are just from the Post, AP, TNS, and its the same stuff just pulled off the wire, over and over. Anyone that does not believe there is a huge problem in the media is just not paying attention. I want diversity of opinions but that’s not what we’re getting and the major consolidation allowed by DC has been a major reason in the lack of diverse opinions. Just in my view but i’d love to be proved wrong.
Nope. Missing is the percent of belted vs. unbelted kids overall. I bet (but don’t know) that most kids are belted, so the odds of a belted kid dying are much lower than a non-belted kid. If 80% are belted, and 20% not belted, but 50% of the deaths are not belted, it’s much more dangerous, right?
Well I did read the article. It said first “most kids that died were unbelted” then “43% of the kids who died were unrestrained” (not exact quotes but from memory). First of all 43% is not most. 51% would be most but one would expect more like 60% or 70% to qualify as “most”. True it doesn’t say how many drivers belt their kids but on the other hand we are talking about the small percentage of people who actually get involved in fatal crashes compared to everyone else on the road.
I guess I just see the article as fairly useless and the study somewhat flawed. I just don’t see the point in the article. Of course people die in accidents and of course people who are not belted in tend to die more, so again back to Captain Obvious. Not to be too negative on the whole thing but I suspect someone got a grant to compile the data and I suspect that someone had some space to fill in the newspaper.