Besides, is there a time line for the Swanson Primary School story? The article I linked to mentions this as an experiment conducted in 2011. If this is true, I would love to know how it has progressed since.

[1] http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/03/hey-pare...

We might accept a few more phobias in our children in exchange for fewer injuries. But the final irony is that our close attention to safety has not in fact made a tremendous difference in the number of accidents children have. According to the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System, which monitors hospital visits, the frequency of emergency-room visits related to playground equipment, including home equipment, in 1980 was 156,000, or one visit per 1,452 Americans. In 2012, it was 271,475, or one per 1,156 Americans.

EDIT: it's actually a 25% increase as ebrenes correctly pointed out. Server me right for trying to do math early in the morning...

Assuming a fixed population size of 1 million, given the 1980 prevalence of injuries you'd expect about ~689 injuries. With the 2012 prevalence of injuries you'd expect about ~865 injuries. So it's actually an increase, not a drop.

I might be totally wrong in using this analogy, but just because it's statistically unlikely that I will die in a fire doesn't mean I will tempt fate and use fire recklessly in my home.

Quit talking nonsense. A young boy got abducted mere blocks from where I live not more than 3 years ago. Those parents would give anything to have an obese kid right now.

Asking parents to make decisions based on the aggregate damage child obesity does to society rather than the acute damage an abduction does to their family is ridiculous.

115 children out of ~74 million in the US. I understand it's a highly emotional and tragic experience when it happens, but statistically speaking, the odds of your child being kidnapped are roughly the same as them being struck by lightning. Part of the problem is the amplification effect of modern media. Kidnappings are sensational stories and we have a very human and empathetic reaction to them. Public perception would indicate that the odds of an child abduction are way higher than they really are. The biggest risk to your kids being abducted is one you probably don't want to admit -- around 200,000 children/year are abducted by a family member. Another 58,000 by people they know. Restricting your child from playing outside probably won't do much to help those far larger threats to their safety. I know it's an emotionally charged subject, especially for people who have been directly effected by it, but when you look at it rationally, the numbers speak for themselves.

We're scared of the wrong things.

I understand that stranger abduction is a rare occurrence. What I don't buy is the approach of divorcing that statistic from the "parental overprotectionism" that so many of you decry. Yes, kidnappings are probably trending down (I don't know for sure...I can't find any statistics other than from 1999) at the same time that parental protectionism is trending up. Isn't that the whole point?

> The biggest risk to your kids being abducted is one you probably don't want to admit -- around 200,000 children/year are abducted by a family member.

I don't mind admitting that at all. I just don't see what it has to do with my argument (which might be admittedly difficult to read now since it doesn't fall in line with the HN hive mind).