You're letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. Most of your "reasons" are easily avoided (srsly: "may force both parents to change phone, just to install that app, if it’s not compatible with the ones they already have"?? So maybe...they buy a solution that works for their phones? And how many apps are phone-specific these days, anyway??).
This isn't a *required* solution. It's not like every kid in a car seat is going to die if any of the failure modes you list come to pass. In fact, what you're describing is ANY such system: by your logic, smoke detectors are stupid and bad because batteries can run out, or electronics can fail. Or any other technology that's imperfect (as, indeed, all are).
"how many apps are phone-specific these days": phone-specific means also OS-version specific. If the app requires (making numbers up, exact ones don't matter) Android 10 and my smartphone is not upgradable to that version, I have to replace it
"It's not like every kid in a car seat is going to die": HUH? Who ever wrote anything like that? The post only says that one way to implement a certain safety system is intrinsically weak for no good reason
"by your logic, smoke detectors are stupid and bad because batteries can run out, or electronics can fail." No, sorry, you totally missed the point here.
If you were right, why on Earth would I recommend another equally battery powered device? That would be enough to prove that you missed the point.
Using your analogy, I'm NOT saying that smoke detectors are stupid. I am ONLY saying that smoke detectors that made a smartphone ring, instead of ringing themselves, would be stupid, for all the same reasons. Or, if you prefer, any lifesaving system that needs TWO battery-operated devices when one would be more than enough should never be used because it is, by design, intrinsically weaker, that is more dangerous, than the other.
And you're asserting that imperfect=bad. Which you have not proven in any way. Why would such an app be OS-version specific? Again, that isn't common. It could also only work on Tuesdays, but I don't think that's a significant risk, either.
How is it going to ring remotely for the parent if there's only one device, anyway?
You seem to have some serious dislike of this solution, but it's not clear why.
It's not even clear that this is a problem that needs this kind of solution: I haven't done the math, but there are a lot of low-risk dangers that simply aren't worth the investment. I've done BOTECs on airport security, and assuming even moderately low per-passenger increased wait times means that you'd need to lose a plane per year just to save net lives. E.g., wasting 15 minutes x 600M pax/year = 17,000 man-years/year just in wasted passenger time. Figuring saved lifetime per pax saved from terrorism, that's about 350 lives. That's a jumbo, or two 737s. Per year. For a one-time problem that was at least 99% solved by reinforced cockpit doors and a change in attitude on the part of pax.
It's just math...not tricky.
So let's get back to this problem. Per NSC, on average, 38 children under the age of 15 die each year from heatstroke after being left in a vehicle. ("under the age of 15"? 14-year-olds are sitting in car until they die? Heck, 8-year-olds??)
If I'm doing the math right, if this app costs the parents who use it 5 minutes/year, and a million parents adopt it, they're wasting lives. That might be an argument against such an app--but not against this specific technology.
NO, I am asserting that USELESSLY imperfect is bad. And am frankly puzzled that I need to repeat it.
Ditto for the whole "there are a lot of low-risk dangers that simply aren't worth the investment" thing. In principle, I DO agree with you here. But what has this to do with the post? What I am saying is only that, if the problem of leaving babies in the car needs a solution, the "smartphone-based" solution is much stupider than the other.
"How is it going to ring remotely.." ? Alarms like these must ring THERE, right outside the car, the moment one closes the door. They don't need to "ring remotely".
"You seem to have some serious dislike of this solution, but it's not clear why."
Aren't the five bullets starting with "will just fail" not readable on your device? Seriously, even if they were all wrong, how could I make them more clear? On the other hand, you seem to have some serious dislike of the simpler but equally effective solution. That is not clear to me.
First, if your original point was that it should ring "the moment one closes the door", that wasn't at all clear.
Second, that's hardly simpler: how will it know the door has closed? Are you adding an interlock to the door? Which door(s)? What about when I park, get out to get the baby out, and close my door? Does the alarm go off then? Or is there a delay? Even then, if I go to get another kid out of the other side, or something out of the trunk, it's likely to time out.
I don't see that as a simpler or better solution at all. It's a lot more complex--many more moving parts to fail--and still unclear how it would even work. I assume the systems that exist connect to the phone via Bluetooth, and if they lose the connection for more than some specified period (a minute?), ring the alarm. Those are all proven technologies. Your reasons why it might not work are all minimal risks, and seem aimed at some basic dislike of apps. So don't use it. This solution will make many parents happier, even if it--like all such--is imperfect. It's hardly the evil that you assert.
if the fact that notification that you're leaving a baby alone in a car should happen the second you close the car door wasn't at all clear to you before even reading this post, I really don't know what to say.
"how will it know the door has closed? Are you adding an interlock to the door?" No, because I've already added a link to the page that explains how it works, AND said explicitly that there may be better solution of the same type. Ask them how it works, if that link isn't enough.
About "hardly simpler", a clarification is needed:
Stuff like Ride&Remind is simpler for the end user, because after the initial professional installation they have nothing to do or remind anymore, can ask others to drive the baby somewhere with the car etc..
Many moving parts... Yes, but the system is not more complex than the billions of already well-proven systems that honk the horn when one forgets the lights on.
Ah, I'd missed that the link below the photo was a link. It does integrate into the doors and ignition.
Since this is going to BONG a lot more often than the app-based version--every time you carry something in the back seat, which is basically every time I use the car these days (and with no kids!)--it will be less effective overall because folks will learn to ignore it, or just hit the button reflexively to shut it up. This is a chronic problem with alert systems of any type: they need to find the sweet spot between too many alerts and too few. Those of us in security have seen this proven again and again (cf. 2013 Target breach!).
Add in the cost for installation and this is a big nope for most people. Also part of the equation: making it affordable and practical.
Once you've filtered those problems vs. your "maybe the phone breaks/gets forgotten/etc.", this kind of approach is guaranteed to be less effective, sorry.
Yes, it has slightly better coverage in cases like a non-usual driver. That's not the normal risk: those people are driving a strange car with a strange kid, are not the ones who forget the kid!
As the inventor of the Ride N Remind System, allow me to jump in here! I agree in some ways with both sides. On one hand, any solution is better than none - even if it's with an app. On the other hand, someone who wants the most reliable solution available would be wise not to choose a system that is likely to rely on some point on the responsibility of the driver. Keep in mind that most of the people purchasing this system have already (themselves or their spouse) forgotten a child. As such, they are looking for one thing and one thing only - Peace of Mind. The facts speak for themselves that the concerened parents who have purchased it over the past 13 years are unanimous on its value in providing that. There is no need to analyze exactly how the system works. The system has many anti-nuissance features and on the rare occasion that the driver has to reopen the back door for no reason, the parents are thrilled that it has their back!
You're letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. Most of your "reasons" are easily avoided (srsly: "may force both parents to change phone, just to install that app, if it’s not compatible with the ones they already have"?? So maybe...they buy a solution that works for their phones? And how many apps are phone-specific these days, anyway??).
This isn't a *required* solution. It's not like every kid in a car seat is going to die if any of the failure modes you list come to pass. In fact, what you're describing is ANY such system: by your logic, smoke detectors are stupid and bad because batteries can run out, or electronics can fail. Or any other technology that's imperfect (as, indeed, all are).
Sorry, your rant is illogical and harmful.
OK, one piece at a time:
"how many apps are phone-specific these days": phone-specific means also OS-version specific. If the app requires (making numbers up, exact ones don't matter) Android 10 and my smartphone is not upgradable to that version, I have to replace it
"It's not like every kid in a car seat is going to die": HUH? Who ever wrote anything like that? The post only says that one way to implement a certain safety system is intrinsically weak for no good reason
"by your logic, smoke detectors are stupid and bad because batteries can run out, or electronics can fail." No, sorry, you totally missed the point here.
If you were right, why on Earth would I recommend another equally battery powered device? That would be enough to prove that you missed the point.
Using your analogy, I'm NOT saying that smoke detectors are stupid. I am ONLY saying that smoke detectors that made a smartphone ring, instead of ringing themselves, would be stupid, for all the same reasons. Or, if you prefer, any lifesaving system that needs TWO battery-operated devices when one would be more than enough should never be used because it is, by design, intrinsically weaker, that is more dangerous, than the other.
And you're asserting that imperfect=bad. Which you have not proven in any way. Why would such an app be OS-version specific? Again, that isn't common. It could also only work on Tuesdays, but I don't think that's a significant risk, either.
How is it going to ring remotely for the parent if there's only one device, anyway?
You seem to have some serious dislike of this solution, but it's not clear why.
It's not even clear that this is a problem that needs this kind of solution: I haven't done the math, but there are a lot of low-risk dangers that simply aren't worth the investment. I've done BOTECs on airport security, and assuming even moderately low per-passenger increased wait times means that you'd need to lose a plane per year just to save net lives. E.g., wasting 15 minutes x 600M pax/year = 17,000 man-years/year just in wasted passenger time. Figuring saved lifetime per pax saved from terrorism, that's about 350 lives. That's a jumbo, or two 737s. Per year. For a one-time problem that was at least 99% solved by reinforced cockpit doors and a change in attitude on the part of pax.
It's just math...not tricky.
So let's get back to this problem. Per NSC, on average, 38 children under the age of 15 die each year from heatstroke after being left in a vehicle. ("under the age of 15"? 14-year-olds are sitting in car until they die? Heck, 8-year-olds??)
If I'm doing the math right, if this app costs the parents who use it 5 minutes/year, and a million parents adopt it, they're wasting lives. That might be an argument against such an app--but not against this specific technology.
NO, I am asserting that USELESSLY imperfect is bad. And am frankly puzzled that I need to repeat it.
Ditto for the whole "there are a lot of low-risk dangers that simply aren't worth the investment" thing. In principle, I DO agree with you here. But what has this to do with the post? What I am saying is only that, if the problem of leaving babies in the car needs a solution, the "smartphone-based" solution is much stupider than the other.
"How is it going to ring remotely.." ? Alarms like these must ring THERE, right outside the car, the moment one closes the door. They don't need to "ring remotely".
"You seem to have some serious dislike of this solution, but it's not clear why."
Aren't the five bullets starting with "will just fail" not readable on your device? Seriously, even if they were all wrong, how could I make them more clear? On the other hand, you seem to have some serious dislike of the simpler but equally effective solution. That is not clear to me.
First, if your original point was that it should ring "the moment one closes the door", that wasn't at all clear.
Second, that's hardly simpler: how will it know the door has closed? Are you adding an interlock to the door? Which door(s)? What about when I park, get out to get the baby out, and close my door? Does the alarm go off then? Or is there a delay? Even then, if I go to get another kid out of the other side, or something out of the trunk, it's likely to time out.
I don't see that as a simpler or better solution at all. It's a lot more complex--many more moving parts to fail--and still unclear how it would even work. I assume the systems that exist connect to the phone via Bluetooth, and if they lose the connection for more than some specified period (a minute?), ring the alarm. Those are all proven technologies. Your reasons why it might not work are all minimal risks, and seem aimed at some basic dislike of apps. So don't use it. This solution will make many parents happier, even if it--like all such--is imperfect. It's hardly the evil that you assert.
if the fact that notification that you're leaving a baby alone in a car should happen the second you close the car door wasn't at all clear to you before even reading this post, I really don't know what to say.
"how will it know the door has closed? Are you adding an interlock to the door?" No, because I've already added a link to the page that explains how it works, AND said explicitly that there may be better solution of the same type. Ask them how it works, if that link isn't enough.
About "hardly simpler", a clarification is needed:
Stuff like Ride&Remind is simpler for the end user, because after the initial professional installation they have nothing to do or remind anymore, can ask others to drive the baby somewhere with the car etc..
Many moving parts... Yes, but the system is not more complex than the billions of already well-proven systems that honk the horn when one forgets the lights on.
Ah, I'd missed that the link below the photo was a link. It does integrate into the doors and ignition.
Since this is going to BONG a lot more often than the app-based version--every time you carry something in the back seat, which is basically every time I use the car these days (and with no kids!)--it will be less effective overall because folks will learn to ignore it, or just hit the button reflexively to shut it up. This is a chronic problem with alert systems of any type: they need to find the sweet spot between too many alerts and too few. Those of us in security have seen this proven again and again (cf. 2013 Target breach!).
Add in the cost for installation and this is a big nope for most people. Also part of the equation: making it affordable and practical.
Once you've filtered those problems vs. your "maybe the phone breaks/gets forgotten/etc.", this kind of approach is guaranteed to be less effective, sorry.
Yes, it has slightly better coverage in cases like a non-usual driver. That's not the normal risk: those people are driving a strange car with a strange kid, are not the ones who forget the kid!
As the inventor of the Ride N Remind System, allow me to jump in here! I agree in some ways with both sides. On one hand, any solution is better than none - even if it's with an app. On the other hand, someone who wants the most reliable solution available would be wise not to choose a system that is likely to rely on some point on the responsibility of the driver. Keep in mind that most of the people purchasing this system have already (themselves or their spouse) forgotten a child. As such, they are looking for one thing and one thing only - Peace of Mind. The facts speak for themselves that the concerened parents who have purchased it over the past 13 years are unanimous on its value in providing that. There is no need to analyze exactly how the system works. The system has many anti-nuissance features and on the rare occasion that the driver has to reopen the back door for no reason, the parents are thrilled that it has their back!