As a for instance, let's address Elly's tendency to blank out about the risks of small children who don't understand what inertia is. Despite Elly's clear need to believe that simply barking orders will stop a child from doing something lethal, any major dude will tell you that that's not the case. Let's not forget her insouciance about how easy it is for Lizzie to have access to bleach and prescription medicines. As you might have guessed, there's a PIF for that. There's even one for the death of Farley.
That being said, the one oversight that most bothers me is the one that Lynn ascribes to being a concern of the early Eighties: the wearing of seatbelts and the need to keep children in the back seat of the car securely belted in. As we can see from this advert from the early seventies, that simply is not the case at all. Mind you, there is one class of PIF that Elly could get behind: the "Think Bike" campaign. This, of course, would be because she'd be able to lecture someone else about safety. Accidents, you see, happen to people who engage in risky behaviour like riding motorcycles; I mean, what harm could come from children trying to reach foegraffs? Simply put, Elly can't conceive of accidents happening to children because she survived risks she was not aware of and tended not to derive any sort of lesson from the examples of those who did not. Also, there is the danger that the only lesson that Elly might derive is "Now that I have to spend all this time making sure that my children don't die, I won't have time for myself. POOR ME!!!"