Does it make their hair turn from black into bright white?

jaylectricity: You dropped one.

*hands fallen Mmm to subby*

Actually there are nine.

That's what they get for driving instead of being in the kitchen.

well their stupid then. Ill just go ahead and say it. Your welcome.

...and they have to come directly home right after school

Maybe if more women were concerned enough about safety to become safety engineers, this wouldn't be a problem. Instead, they're happy to let men do it and complain about it later.

/typical

Well, just put some air bags on them and problem solved

This wins the prize for the stupidest thing I've read all week. Un, head restraints are all adjustable and have been for 30 years. People with shorter legs are LESS likely to sustain leg injuries in a crash. Finally, there are both male and female crash dummies; there are also child crash dummies. All cars are tested with all types of dummies. Conclusion: this crap is just made up.

JackieRabbit: Conclusion: this crap is just made up.

JackieRabbit: This wins the prize for the stupidest thing I've read all week. Un, head restraints are all adjustable and have been for 30 years. People with shorter legs are LESS likely to sustain leg injuries in a crash. Finally, there are both male and female crash dummies; there are also child crash dummies. All cars are tested with all types of dummies. Conclusion: this crap is just made up.

Besides, don't women have primary chest cushioning already?

trappedspirit: Well, just put some air fun bags on them and problem solved

FTFY

H31N0US: jaylectricity: You dropped one.

*hands fallen Mmm to subby*

Actually there are nine.

Not in the title.

Women sustain injuries more often in crashes, so it must be because of the design of safety equipment. It can't possibly be because women are physically weaker and more fragile. Nah, too obvious.

Apparently there is a major problem of air bags rupturing breast implants.

/citation needed

So we need even more dummies with boobs?

But do we have the technology to build a dummy that correctly emulates female drivers?

This is sexists. Men and women are the same and any difference can be blamed on social constructs.

Hey ass-itter, I'm a senior saftey inspector for GM. This is article is baseless troll-food. At our testing facility we have dummies of all sizes. I hate when "journalists" make assumptions about the safety and run with it.

/been doing this job for 20 years
//pisses me off that this shiat got green-lit

So a study shows a situation where women are physically harmed by sexism and many responses here are sexist jokes at the expense of women.

Hilarious.

A challenger appears: That's what they get for driving instead of being in the kitchen.

"This is a man's world."

EnglishChef PolishInventor GermanHumanitarian: Hey ass-itter, I'm a senior saftey inspector for GM. This is article is baseless troll-food. At our testing facility we have dummies of all sizes. I hate when "journalists" make assumptions about the safety and run with it.

/been doing this job for 20 years
//pisses me off that this shiat got green-lit

My first thought was "uh, don't men come in different sizes?" If there was validity in this wouldn't there also be more injuries in men that were 5'2" vs. guys that are 5'7" and taller?

EnglishChef PolishInventor GermanHumanitarian: Hey ass-itter, I'm a senior saftey inspector for GM. This is article is baseless troll-food. At our testing facility we have dummies of all sizes. I hate when "journalists" make assumptions about the safety and run with it.

/been doing this job for 20 years
//pisses me off that this shiat got green-lit

You work for government motors. Your argument is invalid.

poe_zlaw: wWell theirthey're stupid then. IllI'll just go ahead and say it. YourYou're welcome.

1/10. See me after class.

Genevieve Marie: Anyone have any links to the actual published study? Because I'd like to read it.

I don't see why this is all that difficult for people to believe- I'm not going to assume it's fact without reading the study, but it seems plausible.

The "study" probably doesn't exist. What is more probable is that some dip-shiat feminist group took some stats out of context and is trying to show how we sexist men don't care about women's safety. I'm going to assume that it is bullshiat, since more men are killed in automobile accidents than women.

FTGodWin: EnglishChef PolishInventor GermanHumanitarian: Hey ass-itter, I'm a senior saftey inspector for GM. This is article is baseless troll-food. At our testing facility we have dummies of all sizes. I hate when "journalists" make assumptions about the safety and run with it.

/been doing this job for 20 years
//pisses me off that this shiat got green-lit

You work for government motors. Your argument is invalid.

My position has nothing to with the Obammy's bailout, lets not make this about politics please.

Women are more fragile in general. This doesn't surprise me, and I don't see how it's sexist. It would be sexist if it were impossible to adjust a seat belt to a typical woman height, or something like that.

I'm skeptical.

If part of it is due to being smaller, would a study that examined the height of men in collisions find that unusually short or tall men have a greater risk of dying?

Once there was this kid who
Got into an accident and couldn't come to school
But when he finally came back
His hair had turned from black into bright white
He said that it was from when
The car had smashed so hard

Mmm Mmm Mmm Mmm
Mmm Mmm Mmm Mmm

Once there was this girl who
Wouldn't go and change with the girls in the change room
But when they finally made her
They saw birthmarks all over her body
She couldn't quite explain it
( From: http://www.elyrics.net/read/c/crash-test-dummies-lyrics/mmm-mmm-mmm-mm m-lyrics.html )
They'd always just been there

Mmm Mmm Mmm Mmm
Mmm Mmm Mmm Mmm

But both girl and boy were glad
'Cause one kid had it worse than that

'Cause then there was this boy whose
Parents made him come directly home right after school
And when they went to their church
They shook and lurched all over the church floor
He couldn't quite explain it
They'd always just gone there

Mmm Mmm Mmm Mmm
Mmm Mmm Mmm Mmm

Some 90s songs should DIAF.

EnglishChef PolishInventor GermanHumanitarian: Hey ass-itter, I'm a senior saftey inspector for GM. This is article is baseless troll-food. At our testing facility we have dummies of all sizes. I hate when "journalists" make assumptions about the safety and run with it.

/been doing this job for 20 years
//pisses me off that this shiat got green-lit

For reporters, it's no fun unless they can accuse big companies of obvious failings. Actual truth is way down the list.

Genevieve Marie: EnglishChef PolishInventor GermanHumanitarian: Hey ass-itter, I'm a senior saftey inspector for GM. This is article is baseless troll-food. At our testing facility we have dummies of all sizes. I hate when "journalists" make assumptions about the safety and run with it.

/been doing this job for 20 years
//pisses me off that this shiat got green-lit

The article was bad, but it's citing a study from the American Journal of Public Health that looks legit. The abstract's available, but I'm not going to pay for access to the full findings, so I can't comment on what's in them.

But from what I can tell, they said nothing about the size of the dummies used in crash testing- they're talking specifically about features like the positioning of head restraints being more effective at protecting men than women. Any thoughts on that?

We've been long aware that women are more likely to die in car crashes. The problem is that when it comes to seat belts and air bags, there are no "one size fits all" solutions.

/that and women are just physically weaker
//more likely to give into death
///coward's way out

lsmsrbls: So a study shows a situation where women are physically harmed by sexism . . .

They haven't shown that women are physically harmed by sexism. They have shown that women suffer more injuries in car accidents than men.

This could be because of the disparity in height between men and women, in which case the bias is against short people, not people with ovaries. It could be because women in general suffer more injuries than men due to lighter bones or conditions (such as osteoporosis) which hit women harder and more often than men.

It looks like these studies might have controlled for this, but It could even be because women are more likely to report injuries than men (this would depend on how the researchers defined "serious").

EnglishChef PolishInventor GermanHumanitarian: At our testing facility we have dummies of all sizes.

I have those where I work too :)

/drives gmc

angry_scientist: EnglishChef PolishInventor GermanHumanitarian: At our testing facility we have dummies of all sizes.

I have those where I work too :)

/drives gmc

http://instantrimshot.com/classic/?sound=rimshot

If you stop short, shouldn't women be safer?

ManOfTeal: Some 90s songs should DIAF.


True, but that's not one of them...


An when he finally woke up
He saw that Mr. Happy was missing
He couldn't quite explain it
It'd always just been there


/love that parody

Genevieve Marie: EnglishChef PolishInventor GermanHumanitarian: Hey ass-itter, I'm a senior saftey inspector for GM. This is article is baseless troll-food. At our testing facility we have dummies of all sizes. I hate when "journalists" make assumptions about the safety and run with it.

/been doing this job for 20 years
//pisses me off that this shiat got green-lit

The article was bad, but it's citing a study from the American Journal of Public Health that looks legit. The abstract's available, but I'm not going to pay for access to the full findings, so I can't comment on what's in them.

But from what I can tell, they said nothing about the size of the dummies used in crash testing- they're talking specifically about features like the positioning of head restraints being more effective at protecting men than women. Any thoughts on that?

Yeah. Read my earlier post. Head restraints are adjustable and have been for years. Also, cars are tested with dummies configured as males, females and children.

Here's the abstract:


Vulnerability of Female Drivers Involved in Motor Vehicle Crashes: An Analysis of US Population at Risk
Dipan Bose, Ph.D.1, Maria Segui-Gomez, ScD, MD, MPH2 and Jeff R. Crandall, PhD3

1 University of Virginia
2 University of Virginia
3 University of Virginia

Correspondence: db­o­se­ai­nig­rived­u

Objectives. Motor vehicle trauma has been effectively reduced over the past decades; however, it is unclear whether the benefits are equally realized by the vehicle users of either sex. With increases in the number of female drivers involved in fatal crashes and similarity in driving patterns and risk behavior, we sought to evaluate if advances in occupant safety technology provide equal injury protection for drivers of either sex involved in a serious or fatal crash.

Methods. We performed a retrospective cohort study with national crash data between 1998 and 2008 to determine the role of driver sex as a predictor of injury outcome when involved in a crash.

Results. The odds for a belt-restrained female driver to sustain severe injuries were 47% (95% confidence interval=28%, 70%) higher than those for a belt-restrained male driver involved in a comparable crash.

Conclusions. To address the sex-specific disparity demonstrated in this study, health policies and vehicle regulations must focus on effective safety designs specifically tailored toward the female population for equity in injury reduction. (Am J Public Health. Published online ahead of print October 20, 2011:e1-e6. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2011.300275)

The abstract itself is dubious. But note that the authors say nothing in the abstract about anything other than policies that effect safety designs of the vehicles themselves should be refocused to address the fact that serious injury among females is rising and that statistically they stand a higher chance of being injured.

Snakeophelia: EnglishChef PolishInventor GermanHumanitarian: Hey ass-itter, I'm a senior saftey inspector for GM. This is article is baseless troll-food. At our testing facility we have dummies of all sizes. I hate when "journalists" make assumptions about the safety and run with it.

/been doing this job for 20 years
//pisses me off that this shiat got green-lit

All I know about crash test dummies is from a "how it's made" type of show, and it's obvious that they make dummies in all different shapes and sizes. However, do those dummies take into account things such as different bone densities, different muscle mass, and so on? Perhaps they do, because not all 5'4" people are created equal, but I have no idea how many variables would be important when it comes to car crashes.

Short answer is yes. Crash test dummy technology has come a long way in the past 30 years, but there are still factors that we cannot represent without crashing an actual human. Factors such as bone density, tenseness, posture at time of crash, etc are simulated using a variety of means, but these are still only simulations.