Talk:Child safety lock

from VfD
(article kept)


 * Contains no useful information, or, for that matter, any other kind of information. That said, it is a sensible topic. It's just not even a stub yet. (Note: Not my deletion, but it was uncommented on) Snowspinner 16:34, Apr 18, 2004 (UTC)
 * Original submission gave no reason for listing and was unsigned. Contents are nonsense with no useful history.  Converted to stub.  Keep stub. Rossami 16:36, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep new stub. Original could have been speedy deleted -- Cyrius|&#9998 18:01, Apr 18, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Now good stub. Andrewa 19:27, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Pretty interesting now. Pteron 04:06, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Valid subject. jaknouse 04:18, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Why the plug for Slylock.com? Is this relevent?

The Auto kind
kinda seems like theyd be useful for kidnapping eh?

They're used as standerd on Police cars in the UK though I don't have a written source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.31.191.242 (talk) 01:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This is the internet. We have documented evidence of abused child locks. There are two main categories of problem : child endangerment (https://www.babble.com/parenting/amy-amos-hot-car-death-danger-warning/) and predatory (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/04/us/fake-uber-driver-assaults.html). To be completely fair, if it is possible to open a window (these can be locked as well) the window can be rolled down and the outer handle can be used, and it is often possible to climb into the driver's seat and exit the vehicle that way. Both these techniques should be taught but I won't go so far as to suggest an edit e. This information was originally there, but not accessible, I chose a phrasing and location that was hopefully more clear and obvious. I will go so far, though, to say that the glowing endorsement of child safety locks I was greeted with when visiting this page was decidedly not encyclopedic, and I will ask that the author or someone else cite evidence supporting the several opinions that were offered where information should instead be offered e. Since this article is very old I went ahead and edited the article . I am not taking a position for or against child safety locks on car doors. There are sound arguments on each side. I am, though, taking an opinion on an advertisement where an encyclopedia article should be. And in accord with "Don't tag an article if you can easily and confidently fix the problem" and "Do some research to attempt to solve the problem before tagging" I went ahead and added information to this section and performed the edit myself, removing several redundant sentences while doing so. Iheartdaikaiju (talk) 08:26, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Whoa whoa whoa... wait a second.
Let's look at this part here... child safety lock is a special-purpose lock for cabinets, drawers, bottles, etc. that is designed to help prevent children from getting at any dangerous contents. Young children are naturally curious about their surroundings and will always explore, but as they are unaware of dangerous substances or situations, the results can be fatal. Numerous cases of poisoning have resulted from toddlers eating brightly-colored pills or spilling cleaning solvents.

I see a few problems here.

Firstly, the link next to cabinets is a link to a store page. Secondly, look at those 'Citation needed's.
 * Young children are naturally curious about their surroundings
 * Someone saw it as opinion, I get that. Sort of.


 * And will always explore
 * Erm... um... common knowledge. It is a basic idea in child psychology.


 * But as they are unaware of dangerous substances or situations
 * Are you freaking kidding me? How do you validate ignorance. That is common knowledge too.


 * the results can be fatal
 * Duh! Should we have examples or something?


 * Numerous cases of poisoning have resulted from toddlers eating brightly-colored pills or spilling cleaning solvents
 * FINALLY! One placed for a good reason. Examples are needed here.

Okay, next paragraph.

In the United States, child safety locking mechanisms have been required by law since 1970 on all containers for potentially dangerous medicines and household cleaning products. These laws are enforced by the Consumer Products Safety Commission Okay. Now where did the person who placed those CNs go for the rest of the article? I can think of several exceptions to this in the US. Window washing fluid. Bleach. Ammonia. Must I go on? Can anyone help cite some of this stuff? These locking mechanisms may take several forms, but the most common is a design that requires a tab to be pressed firmly as the lid is twisted. Great strength and dexterity are not required to open the bottle, but the process is deliberately made to be unintuitive, and the children who might recklessly eat pills are unable to decipher the opening instructions. Parents and guardians are firmly admonished to keep all such containers out of the reach of children anyway, as no locking device is foolproof. It has become common practice in households to keep medicines and pills in high cabinets (sometimes locked) for safety. Cleaning agents, however, are still generally kept under sinks, where they are accessible. Forms such as...? And the factcheck-devil is back again. Although I agree with having one on that under the sink cleaning agents part. But how do we get proof of that? Go door to door and look under sinks?
 * Geez. That's it I am doing some serious editing... And I need to verify that having an online store selling something is a useful source. I don't know if there is a "Wikipedia is not a store", but there should be. If you have any problems with my reasons for doing anything, speak up. Wikipedia needs help. Melune (talk) 21:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

what about front passenger?
Are there remote operating locks for the front passenger door?204.106.231.199 (talk) 08:05, 15 January 2014 (UTC)