Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Streetsblog)   Women are more likely to be injured in auto accidents because all crash test dummies are male, a fact that might make you go hmm mmm mmm mmm   (usa.streetsblog.org) divider line
    More: Interesting, Automobile safety, Automobile, Crumple zone, Road transport, Gender, Car safety, Road traffic safety, Crash test  
•       •       •

378 clicks; posted to STEM » on 22 Dec 2021 at 12:00 PM (22 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



41 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2021-12-22 10:32:48 AM  
img.ifunny.coView Full Size
 
2021-12-22 11:11:36 AM  

SpectroBoy: [img.ifunny.co image 850x829]


Hey, how did my gross uncle's Facebook page get unblocked?
 
2021-12-22 11:59:38 AM  
I am a 5ft tall woman.
If in a serious accident, the things meant to save me will kill me - seatbelt will take my head off, airbags will crush my face in, etc.

I drive very carefully.

Cars aren't built for women.
Drugs aren't developed and tested for women.
Medical research didn't include women until fairly recently.
World's not built for women.
 
2021-12-22 12:05:21 PM  
 
2021-12-22 12:08:18 PM  
Why would you put genitals on a crash test dummy?

Wait never mind, I don't want to know.
 
2021-12-22 12:12:46 PM  

Incog_Neeto: Why would you put genitals on a crash test dummy?

Wait never mind, I don't want to know.


y.yarn.coView Full Size
 
2021-12-22 12:30:54 PM  
So...can you not go to an auto shop and ask them to move the top anchor point for a seat belt, or replace it with a style that works better?
 
Juc [TotalFark]
2021-12-22 12:31:00 PM  
Anybody who doesn't match standard dummies is at a higher risk.
If you want to have a comfy life, be completely average in every way, then shiat will actually be made for you.

imagine if they had a shaq test dummy, you'd need a crane to get that in a car.
 
2021-12-22 12:31:18 PM  

educated: I am a 5ft tall woman.
If in a serious accident, the things meant to save me will kill me - seatbelt will take my head off, airbags will crush my face in, etc.

I drive very carefully.

Cars aren't built for women.
Drugs aren't developed and tested for women.
Medical research didn't include women until fairly recently.
World's not built for women.


It's not new information, either--people have been writing about this for a while now.
It would be interesting (and probably frustrating) to learn why it's not getting fixed faster.
 
2021-12-22 12:38:10 PM  

lifeslammer: So...can you not go to an auto shop and ask them to move the top anchor point for a seat belt, or replace it with a style that works better?


Why should smaller folks have to pay extra for standard safety features?
What would after-market changes like the ones you suggest do to a car's warranty? What would after-market changes like the ones you suggest do to cases involving equipment failure, fault, compensation after accidents, insurance coverage, etc.

And while the article is specific to vehicles, the issue is much larger than that. Should women and smaller humans always have to pay extra?
Should women and smaller humans be required to fund the gap in research?

I humbly suggest that the world stop ignoring 50% of the people in it instead.
 
2021-12-22 12:52:13 PM  

Lochsteppe: educated: I am a 5ft tall woman.
If in a serious accident, the things meant to save me will kill me - seatbelt will take my head off, airbags will crush my face in, etc.

I drive very carefully.

Cars aren't built for women.
Drugs aren't developed and tested for women.
Medical research didn't include women until fairly recently.
World's not built for women.

It's not new information, either--people have been writing about this for a while now.
It would be interesting (and probably frustrating) to learn why it's not getting fixed faster.


It's not cost effective and the people who make cost effective decisions in various organizations are still typically white men.

It is slowly changing though.
 
2021-12-22 12:55:19 PM  

educated: Why should smaller folks have to pay extra for standard safety features?


Because until changes are made (if ever) you are putting yourself at increased risk every time you drive.
Much like car and booster seats.
 
2021-12-22 12:56:14 PM  

educated: Lochsteppe: educated: I am a 5ft tall woman.
If in a serious accident, the things meant to save me will kill me - seatbelt will take my head off, airbags will crush my face in, etc.

I drive very carefully.

Cars aren't built for women.
Drugs aren't developed and tested for women.
Medical research didn't include women until fairly recently.
World's not built for women.

It's not new information, either--people have been writing about this for a while now.
It would be interesting (and probably frustrating) to learn why it's not getting fixed faster.

It's not cost effective and the people who make cost effective decisions in various organizations are still typically white men.

It is slowly changing though.


Well, user name DOES check out, but damn, that sucks...
 
2021-12-22 1:05:06 PM  
Some seat-belts are adjustable:
ae01.alicdn.comView Full Size

Not nearly enough adjustability, but an effort has been made.
 
2021-12-22 1:05:35 PM  

johnny_vegas: educated: Why should smaller folks have to pay extra for standard safety features?

Because until changes are made (if ever) you are putting yourself at increased risk every time you drive.
Much like car and booster seats.


Totally see where you're coming from and I agree but did you just loosely compare the needs of adult women and smaller adult humans to the legally required safety measures for children?

Becaaaauuuuse..... you're so close to getting it...
 
2021-12-22 1:06:29 PM  

educated: I am a 5ft tall woman.
If in a serious accident, the things meant to save me will kill me - seatbelt will take my head off, airbags will crush my face in, etc.


We'd hear a lot more about seatbelt beheadings if this were true.
 
2021-12-22 1:08:57 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: educated: I am a 5ft tall woman.
If in a serious accident, the things meant to save me will kill me - seatbelt will take my head off, airbags will crush my face in, etc.

We'd hear a lot more about seatbelt beheadings if this were true.


Yeah, I admit that was a bit hyperbolic - crushed trachea is more likely - broken neck is more likely.
 
2021-12-22 1:15:07 PM  

educated: HotWingConspiracy: educated: I am a 5ft tall woman.
If in a serious accident, the things meant to save me will kill me - seatbelt will take my head off, airbags will crush my face in, etc.

We'd hear a lot more about seatbelt beheadings if this were true.

Yeah, I admit that was a bit hyperbolic - crushed trachea is more likely - broken neck is more likely.


I doubt either scenario rises to the frequency of "likely", but I understand being concerned about it.
 
2021-12-22 1:15:43 PM  

ZMugg: Some seat-belts are adjustable:
[ae01.alicdn.com image 640x640]
Not nearly enough adjustability, but an effort has been made.


That doesn't help if you have a large chest, because the seat belt inevitably ends up riding up to your neck. I'm not "short," but because seat belts aren't designed in an S pattern to go around breasts, the seat belt always digs into the side of my neck.

Also, because women have wider hips, the seat belt usually ends up higher up towards our stomach, causing increased internal injuries.

And let's not get started on the issues of trying to drive if you're pregnant.
 
2021-12-22 1:22:57 PM  

Juc: Anybody who doesn't match standard dummies is at a higher risk


Exactly the point.
And more than 50% of the population does not match the standard.

So why is it the standard?
 
2021-12-22 1:23:23 PM  
johnny_vegas:

I say we make the safety features for short people and let the giants pay.
 
2021-12-22 1:29:48 PM  

educated: I am a 5ft tall woman.
If in a serious accident, the things meant to save me will kill me - seatbelt will take my head off, airbags will crush my face in, etc.

I drive very carefully.

Cars aren't built for women.
Drugs aren't developed and tested for women.
Medical research didn't include women until fairly recently.
World's not built for women.


Amen to that. With medical research, there is quite a bit that seems to have only had caucasian males as the test subjects. The worst represented are black women - their pain is often ignored, their symptoms disregarded.

The dummies being based on (typically) 6' males of slim build, and basing all safety measures around that, is dangerous and has to change. Why should this be a political issue when it affects half the population?
 
2021-12-22 1:30:16 PM  
Vince and Larry never go tits up.
 
2021-12-22 1:31:00 PM  

educated: HotWingConspiracy: educated: I am a 5ft tall woman.
If in a serious accident, the things meant to save me will kill me - seatbelt will take my head off, airbags will crush my face in, etc.

We'd hear a lot more about seatbelt beheadings if this were true.

Yeah, I admit that was a bit hyperbolic - crushed trachea is more likely - broken neck is more likely.


My late boss' son was a passenger in a car that was T-boned less than 2 blocks from his home and was killed by the seat belt from a broken neck.
 
2021-12-22 1:31:37 PM  

educated: Juc: Anybody who doesn't match standard dummies is at a higher risk

Exactly the point.
And more than 50% of the population does not match the standard.

So why is it the standard?


The "rational man" was the default (and imaginary) audience for workplace safety standards for decades.

Technical communication scholars started picking that standard apart in the early 90s.

Not a satisfying answer, I know.
 
2021-12-22 1:52:27 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size


/unavailable for comment
 
2021-12-22 1:56:43 PM  
My wife is 4'10" and nothing is designed for her. She doesn't biatch about it, she deals with it.

It does come with the benefit of children's sized shoes are cheap as hell. Imelda Marcos like collection.
 
2021-12-22 1:57:50 PM  

SafetyThird: My wife is 4'10" and nothing is designed for her. She doesn't biatch about it, she deals with it.

It does come with the benefit of children's sized shoes are cheap as hell. Imelda Marcos like collection.


Username checks out

;)
 
2021-12-22 2:04:20 PM  

educated: I am a 5ft tall woman.
If in a serious accident, the things meant to save me will kill me - seatbelt will take my head off, airbags will crush my face in, etc.

I drive very carefully.

Cars aren't built for women.
Drugs aren't developed and tested for women.
Medical research didn't include women until fairly recently.
World's not built for women.


Seatbelts are designed to protect children 4'9" tall, weighing between 80-100 lbs, and upwards from there.  You're also 4" shorter than the average adult woman in the US.  There is no one size fits all solution, and it's ultimately your responsibility to find a vehicle that fits your stature.

As someone who is nearly a foot and a half taller than you, I recognize that it is unsafe for me to drive specific vehicles because the seating can never be adjusted properly.  I also recognize that I am above average height, and I do not expect every vehicle to fit me.

At least when you fly, you don't need to pay extra just to fit.  I bet you try to get more legroom or an exit row too.
 
2021-12-22 2:11:48 PM  

DeathByGeekSquad: ...and it's ultimately your responsibility to find a vehicle that fits your stature....

...At least when you fly, you don't need to pay extra just to fit.  I bet you try to get more legroom or an exit row too.


So I should sell my pickup truck?

Airplanes are the one place I fit and the only time I feel bad for people who are bigger than me.

I would not jeopardize other passengers by taking up an exit row seat.

Go Bears.
 
2021-12-22 2:16:22 PM  

educated: DeathByGeekSquad: ...and it's ultimately your responsibility to find a vehicle that fits your stature....

...At least when you fly, you don't need to pay extra just to fit.  I bet you try to get more legroom or an exit row too.

So I should sell my pickup truck?

Airplanes are the one place I fit and the only time I feel bad for people who are bigger than me.

I would not jeopardize other passengers by taking up an exit row seat.

Go Bears.


You always have the option of gaining about 100 pounds to give yourself more cushioning in case of a crash.
 
2021-12-22 2:19:57 PM  
FAARK YOU SUBBY

THANKS FOR THE CHRISTMAS EARWORM

FARKIN JERK

HMMM MMMM

'MMMM MMM MM MMM MM MMM

 
2021-12-22 2:21:39 PM  

educated: DeathByGeekSquad: ...and it's ultimately your responsibility to find a vehicle that fits your stature....

...At least when you fly, you don't need to pay extra just to fit.  I bet you try to get more legroom or an exit row too.

So I should sell my pickup truck?

Airplanes are the one place I fit and the only time I feel bad for people who are bigger than me.

I would not jeopardize other passengers by taking up an exit row seat.

Go Bears.


You should make a determination on your vehicle for yourself, not from someone on the internet.  You may need to consider accepting that you may not fit every vehicle, because you are technically an outlier, and they may not all be built to accommodate you.
 
2021-12-22 2:30:41 PM  

Lochsteppe: educated: I am a 5ft tall woman.
If in a serious accident, the things meant to save me will kill me - seatbelt will take my head off, airbags will crush my face in, etc.

I drive very carefully.

Cars aren't built for women.
Drugs aren't developed and tested for women.
Medical research didn't include women until fairly recently.
World's not built for women.

It's not new information, either--people have been writing about this for a while now.
It would be interesting (and probably frustrating) to learn why it's not getting fixed faster.


I think the first time I read about this was the 1990's. How the hell has it not changed?
 
2021-12-22 3:33:35 PM  
 
2021-12-22 3:41:49 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2021-12-22 5:11:57 PM  

guinsu: Lochsteppe: educated: I am a 5ft tall woman.
If in a serious accident, the things meant to save me will kill me - seatbelt will take my head off, airbags will crush my face in, etc.

I drive very carefully.

Cars aren't built for women.
Drugs aren't developed and tested for women.
Medical research didn't include women until fairly recently.
World's not built for women.

It's not new information, either--people have been writing about this for a while now.
It would be interesting (and probably frustrating) to learn why it's not getting fixed faster.

I think the first time I read about this was the 1990's. How the hell has it not changed?


There is only so much testing you can do and there are an infinite variety of people and conditions.

In that time the've added testing for things like side impacts, offset front impacts, and rollover.  They've added more airbags.

Do you help people more by having a variety of dummies for your single test, or an average dummy for a bunch of types of collisions?

And what makes men/woman the divide we should specifically care about?  I'm sure if you look at the stats you could find disparities in deaths with all sorts of divisions (tall vs short, fat vs thin, old vs young).

There is also no real reason that traffic deaths should be expected to mirror demographics.  If more 95 year olds die in car crashes than 30 year olds, it doesn't necessarily mean we're discriminating.  They might just be more fragile.  There may be no way to make a car crash equally safe for a 95 year old and a 30 year old - and trying to do so would take time and effort better spent on making crashes safer for both groups.

Finding these discrepancies is a good opportunity to improve things for everyone though, as changes specifically meant to help women would also help short men - its not a zero sum game.

So the question isn't "women die more than men, why aren't we closing the gap".  It's "how are people dying the most and are there commonalities that we can do anything about?"
 
2021-12-22 5:33:46 PM  

seanpg71: guinsu: Lochsteppe: educated: I am a 5ft tall woman.
If in a serious accident, the things meant to save me will kill me - seatbelt will take my head off, airbags will crush my face in, etc.

I drive very carefully.

Cars aren't built for women.
Drugs aren't developed and tested for women.
Medical research didn't include women until fairly recently.
World's not built for women.

It's not new information, either--people have been writing about this for a while now.
It would be interesting (and probably frustrating) to learn why it's not getting fixed faster.

I think the first time I read about this was the 1990's. How the hell has it not changed?

There is only so much testing you can do and there are an infinite variety of people and conditions.

In that time the've added testing for things like side impacts, offset front impacts, and rollover.  They've added more airbags.

Do you help people more by having a variety of dummies for your single test, or an average dummy for a bunch of types of collisions?

And what makes men/woman the divide we should specifically care about?  I'm sure if you look at the stats you could find disparities in deaths with all sorts of divisions (tall vs short, fat vs thin, old vs young).

There is also no real reason that traffic deaths should be expected to mirror demographics.  If more 95 year olds die in car crashes than 30 year olds, it doesn't necessarily mean we're discriminating.  They might just be more fragile.  There may be no way to make a car crash equally safe for a 95 year old and a 30 year old - and trying to do so would take time and effort better spent on making crashes safer for both groups.

Finding these discrepancies is a good opportunity to improve things for everyone though, as changes specifically meant to help women would also help short men - its not a zero sum game.

So the question isn't "women die more than men, why aren't we closing the gap".  It's "how are people dying the most and are there commonalities that we can do anything about?"


There are literally posts in this thread from women describing the problem in detail. Perhaps listening to them instead of trying to obfuscate the problem behind lots of irrelevant details would help?
 
2021-12-22 8:53:45 PM  
I can understand the reasoning behind not changing it. What is the primary use for the data? Is it Consumer Reports or JD Power rankings or is it for research to track changes over time and see how one new style of a model compares to another so that safer options propagate faster?

The system was set in place primarily with that research angle. Since the car changes every year, you hold test procedures and sensors static. You standardize conditions and you don't change them. If you do, there isn't enough commonality to draw valid conclusions from, say, decade to decade or before and after introduction of new features.

But if the goal is to communicate real risks to current consumers, then you prioritize modern conditions, modernize techniques etc and if you can't validly compare historical laboratory results that is just too bad.

My undergrad was in applied anthropology and this issue is very similar to conversations we had about the distinction. It's not that you can't be an applied academic, but usually academics in general are about trying to inform policies at a higher level, or trying to be that transparent eyeball. You may engage in observer participation to understand elements such as rituals better, but you don't try to change things because you don't know better than the culture you are studying. Bad shiat had resulted from that, my alma mater birthed the American eugenics movement, which a century later causes great concern over applying anthropology directly to solve social problems such as crime. It was literally a different program at another campus but that school is the one that issued my diploma.

But why do you test? Why do you study? We probably did need standardized conditions to really understand what is going on. But these days we can reconstruct that in a computer, more or less. So the focus should be "How safe are these cars you are looking at today, for you?" And it's probably psst time to change the focus, but the regulators aren't going to change without clear direction from outside and above. That's not what regulators do.
 
2021-12-22 9:44:21 PM  
Airbags? Me don' need no steenkin' airbags!

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2021-12-22 10:47:14 PM  

educated: johnny_vegas: educated: Why should smaller folks have to pay extra for standard safety features?

Because until changes are made (if ever) you are putting yourself at increased risk every time you drive.
Much like car and booster seats.

Totally see where you're coming from and I agree but did you just loosely compare the needs of adult women and smaller adult humans to the legally required safety measures for children?

Becaaaauuuuse..... you're so close to getting it...


From the perspective of having to pay to accommodate, absolutely.
 
Displayed 41 of 41 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.