Drop-side cribs banned!

[SAHDad]

I believe it was 30 deaths in the last decade not per year.

Correct. 32 since 2000 (per the article), which means about 1 infant per 1.4 million children. (Roughly - there are something like 4.2 to 4.4 million live childbirths per year in the United States.)

 

[msjprincess]

This seems to tie the issue up w/ a nice bow, however the problem wasn't related to parents negligently leaving the sides down. The problem stemmed from the sides coming loose over time, allowing babies to push the side away from the bed and become trapped in between the side and the mattress.

The side of my crib fell off twice because the piece that held it on the track broke off. And it wasn't a cheap crib.

 

[bicker]

I purchased the crib second hand in 1992. Two children have used it, and the sides are tight as the day I first purchased it. It makes me wonder if the crib companies along the years decided to save some money and the cribs are made in a less than desirable way now.

I just found a Stork Craft crib (not a bassinet; not nursery bed - a crib) advertised for $69. That's $46 in 1992 money. Were there any cribs made in 1992 that sold, new, at retail for that amount? I seem to remember cribs costing a lot more back then. So I wonder if parents along the years decided to save some money and prompt crib manufacturers to offer for sale lesser-quality cribs, so that the parents could save money.

 

[Colleen27]

JMO, but I believe that the design banned didn't cause any deaths - the poor maintenance and carelessness of the owners might have, but not the design.

Maybe we were just lucky with our infants, but we were neurotic about making their sleeping arrangements very safe, no matter where we were.

I agree. Any furniture subject to daily wear and tear is apt to develop loose parts, particularly when that furniture is of the assemble-it-yourself variety. All three of my kids slept/sleep in the same drop-side crib my brother and I slept in and I have no doubts about its safety. Why? Because on each assembly we've replaced any worn or bent bolts, all the fasteners are metal, and I take a couple seconds to make sure everything is tight when I change the bedding. I'm sure it could develop problems if I was still using the original hardware and just throwing it together and never checking it over, but I don't think it is reasonable to hold products to that standard.

 

[bicker]

I'm sure it could develop problems if I was still using the original hardware and just throwing it together and never checking it over, but I don't think it is reasonable to hold products to that standard.

Yet people still do, and our society doesn't condemn grieving parents for doing so. I doubt any of us here would stand up and say that those parents should be condemned.

 

[The Mystery Machine]

I have mine packed away nicely. Good thing I kept it. I'm short 5'1'" plus I have a back problem. I want to be able to enjoy any Grandchildren we are blessed with and the ability to watch them they are little.

Same here. I have a very nice crib packed away for grandbabies.

 

[Colleen27]

Yet people still do, and our society doesn't condemn grieving parents for doing so. I doubt any of us here would stand up and say that those parents should be condemned.

No one wants to add insult to injury by pointing out the ways these tragedies could have been avoided, of course, but I think it would do more good to do so (not directed at the parents, but more in a PSA sort of way) than to ban useful products outright because of the careless few.

 

[Tinker'n'Fun]

I have mine packed away nicely. Good thing I kept it. I'm short 5'1'" plus I have a back problem. I want to be able to enjoy any Grandchildren we are blessed with and the ability to watch them they are little.

I purchased the crib second hand in 1992. Two children have used it, and the sides are tight as the day I first purchased it. It makes me wonder if the crib companies along the years decided to save some money and the cribs are made in a less than desirable way now. It's really too bad. I love my crib and my high chair also. It doesn't have full baby constraints so it most likely has been recalled also.

I just found a Stork Craft crib (not a bassinet; not nursery bed - a crib) advertised for $69. That's $46 in 1992 money. Were there any cribs made in 1992 that sold, new, at retail for that amount? I seem to remember cribs costing a lot more back then. So I wonder if parents along the years decided to save some money and prompt crib manufacturers to offer for sale lesser-quality cribs, so that the parents could save money.

I quoted both of us, because I was confused at first when I read your post... I didn't post prices originally, but my crib used in 1992 was....

.
.
.
.
.
.

$500.00 and the high chair was $100.00. And I wasn't being ripped-off. I got a great deal. The workmanship is superior. We didn't have that kind of money back then, just like I am sure a lot of parents don't have it now. BUT WE MADE the money. My DH took a second job just to pay for that furniture. I had no clue you could buy a crib that inexpensive. That is where the problem lies...

 

[bicker]

No one wants to add insult to injury by pointing out the ways these tragedies could have been avoided, of course, but I think it would do more good to do so (not directed at the parents, but more in a PSA sort of way) than to ban useful products outright because of the careless few.

I've seen some PSA type material... it's usually distributed with each unit. Are you saying that perhaps presenting commercials on television during prime time? Seems to me that a ban would be less expensive than that - a far better decision.

 

[bicker]

I quoted both of us, because I was confused at first when I read your post... I didn't post prices originally, but my crib used in 1992 was.... $500.00 and the high chair was $100.00. And I wasn't being ripped-off. I got a great deal. The workmanship is superior.

Precisely. And now there are parents who are struggling, and see the $69 crib and jump at the chance to do what they think is "right" by their child, when clearly their decision is radically different from the decision you made. Perhaps the ban should have been a ban on all cribs less than $500 (or some number). However, I don't see that any any less invasive. Perhaps then the ban should have been only applicable on cheap cribs, but that would then be viciously attacked by our rabid media at elitist. So we Americans have effectively boxed ourselves into a corner, eliminating all the other options.

 

[DisneyBamaFan]

Yet people still do, and our society doesn't condemn grieving parents for doing so. I doubt any of us here would stand up and say that those parents should be condemned.

Shouldn't that be taken on a case by case basis? Do we absolve parents of all responsibility?

 

[bicker]

What "should" be almost doesn't matter, because rational perspective won't prevail. The fact is that society will react emotionally - irrationally - and so determinations about what government and industry must do in cases like this have to factor-in that fact.

 

[DisneyBamaFan]

What "should" be almost doesn't matter, because rational perspective won't prevail. The fact is that society will react emotionally - irrationally - and so determinations about what government and industry must do in cases like this have to factor-in that fact.

So, in your opinion, the government had to ban something that led to the deaths of less than one child per million in America?

 

[Magic Mom]

just read about this online. It was causing 30 deaths a year

I wonder how many of those 30 were from cribs that were very old, in disrepair and/or purchased at second hand stores or yard sales.

 

[bicker]

No what I'm saying has nothing to do what the government had to or didn't have to do, but rather was about what circumstances, of our own design, brought about the conditions that led to the government (1) being put in the position of essentially having to make up for the myopia of some people; and (2) essentially having so many fewer options than they should have had available to them due to the irrationality of the general public.

 

[DisneyBamaFan]

No what I'm saying has nothing to do what the government had to or didn't have to do, but rather was about what circumstances, of our own design, brought about the conditions that led to the government (1) being put in the position of essentially having to make up for the myopia of some people; and (2) essentially having so many fewer options than they should have had available to them due to the irrationality of the general public.

So you believe that the American people demand this sort of action by the government. You have to pardon me. I am a man. You need to be more direct.

 

[C.Ann]

When DGD was a baby (she's 12 now) her crib had different levels that you could set the mattress to, so bending over (or a drop-side) wasn't really necessary.. I think you'll probably see more of those types now..

 

[bicker]

So you believe that the American people demand this sort of action by the government.

No, my message had nothing to do with what the American people "demand" or don't "demand". It had to do with what the American people, due to their tendencies, prompt others to do.

You have to pardon me. I am a man. You need to be more direct.

I'm a man too. And I realize that (1) things aren't necessarily simple because someone might want them to be; and (2) trying to simplify something complex to make it easier to process doesn't actually serve any constructive purpose. It generally only causes confusion because you're thinking I said one thing when in reality I didn't say anything of the sort.

That's actually pretty common here on the CB, in my experience.

Just try to understand what I wrote, without trying to corrupt into a statement about something else. Part of that would involve not changing the object of the sentences.

Thanks.

Oh! And "I don't know what that means..." is perfectly acceptable. Works for Bones (Temperance Brennan)!

 

[cabanafrau]

When DGD was a baby (she's 12 now) her crib had different levels that you could set the mattress to, so bending over (or a drop-side) wasn't really necessary.. I think you'll probably see more of those types now..

I think most cribs have had that option for decades now. The one I slept in as a baby did, as did the one we had when DD's were young.

When they're able to pull themselves up to kneel or stand, you have to drop the mattress. When ours was at the lowest setting I would have had to drop the baby into bed if I couldn't lower the side.

 

[Tinkermommy]

When DGD was a baby (she's 12 now) her crib had different levels that you could set the mattress to, so bending over (or a drop-side) wasn't really necessary.. I think you'll probably see more of those types now..

My drop side crib had that as well, but that was for when the baby got bigger and could stand. You had to drop the mattress or they could climb out.