The odds of serious injury or death for female car crash victims is 73 percent higher than for males

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

Yea, sitting in a high chair and braking with stilts is going to make me safer while driving. XD

I feel I'm throwing out good solutions and you're being picky about safety. Have you considered just getting a motorbike? Or a boat?

Speaking of which, when I bartended in college at a beach club, I used to actually drive a kawasaki jet ski to work every day and hide it in the cattails by my apartment so I could drive it across the bay instead of having to do this whole pain in the ass long ass one way loop on the highway to get to work every day. The jet ski was so much faster. Besides I was the bartender/lifeguard on duty so I working in a bikini anyhow so I didn't even have to change for work.

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

Simply because women have less accidents then men is not a reason to ignore our safety.

Say it with me, factor of age. Intervening variables are boss, yo. Otherwise, might I suggest you at least read the abstract of the actual report which I just linked you, wherein it is argued non-belt protection technologies are just as if not more effective for women drivers than men.

All of the major occupant protection technologies in vehicles of recent model years have at least some benefit for adults of all age groups and of either gender[/b]; none of them are harmful for a particular age group or gender. Nevertheless, seat belts have been historically somewhat less effective for older occupants and female passengers, but more effective for female drivers. Frontal air bags are about equally effective across all ages; side air bags may be even more effective for older occupants than for young adults. Air bags and other non-belt protection technologies are helping females just as much and quite possibly even more than they protect males; this may have contributed to shrinking the historical risk increase for females relative to males of the same age.

Which means this is an already solved issue, it boils down to maturation, proliferation, and saturation of these technologies. Which is already occurring, because if you actually read the links I cited earlier and do some consideration, vehicles which incorporate non-belt protection technologies are already preferred and used by women. Which perhaps might be why occurrence of severe injuries and fatalities among women are decreasing at a greater rate among women than men, despite increasing average mileage.

Buh muh crash test dummies.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

Simply because women have less accidents then men is not a reason to ignore our safety.

Say it with me, factor of age. Intervening variables are boss, yo. Otherwise, might I suggest you at least read the abstract of the actual report which I just linked you, wherein it is argued non-belt protection technologies are just as if not more effective for women drivers than men.

Which means this is an already solved issue, it boils down to maturation, proliferation, and saturation of these technologies. Which is already occurring, because if you actually read the links I cited earlier and do some consideration, vehicles which incorporate non-belt protection technologies are already preferred and used by women. Which perhaps might be why occurrence of severe injuries and fatalities among women are decreasing at a greater rate among women than men, despite increasing average mileage.

Buh muh crash test dummies.

Read my edit above. It really has nothing to do with age, it has to do with what is happening to the bodies during the accident. Most women getting fatter as they age does not mean that the car is any safer for women who do not. That is why we actually need crash dummies so they can see what happens to our bodies in an accident. Correlation doesn't equal causation.

 

[Palindromemordnilap_v1legacy]

It's not just seatbelts either, women in both the police and military have reported that their body armour won't protect them properly simply due to how ill-fitting it is and thats assuming it can fit them at all since it wasn't designed to go over boobs

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

It's not just seatbelts either, women in both the police and military have reported that their body armour won't protect them properly simply due to how ill-fitting it is and thats assuming it can fit them at all since it wasn't designed to go over boobs

And god forbid you have big boobs and a small waist, then nothing fits. If it is made to fit your hips it will ride up to your waist. If it is made to fit your boobs, it will ride up to your nose and twist all over your body where the space is at the waist. It is ridiculous really. I had the same problem with my life vests. They too are not made for women's body shapes and if you manage to get one that fits your boobs it tries to come off you the second you hit the water because the side straps do not adjust small enough for the waist to keep it in place.

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

Read my edit above. It really has nothing to do with age, it has to do with what is happening to the bodies during the accident. Most women getting fatter as they age does not mean that the car is any safer for women who do not. That is why we actually need crash dummies so they can see what happens to our bodies in an accident. Correlation doesn't equal causation.

Oh man, thanks for pointing that out. So, discrepancies in injury rates between men and women are attributed to differences in bone density. The same correlation between injury/fatality and stature is present among men [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3217531/]. Which is why injury and fatality among men increases at a greater rate than women until the age of 35, at which point it normalizes.

So guess of what, other than gender, bone density is a factor! So how might we jive that with normalized rates of injury/fatality in post-menopausal women?

Just read the damn report already. Or just keep going muh crash test dummies. Whatevs.

 

[Palindromemordnilap_v1legacy]

It's not just seatbelts either, women in both the police and military have reported that their body armour won't protect them properly simply due to how ill-fitting it is and thats assuming it can fit them at all since it wasn't designed to go over boobs

And god forbid you have big boobs and a small waist, then nothing fits. If it is made to fit your hips it will ride up to your waist. If it is made to fit your boobs, it will ride up to your nose and twist all over your body where the space is at the waist. It is ridiculous really. I had the same problem with my life vests. They too are not made for women's body shapes and if you manage to get one that fits your boobs it tries to come off you the second you hit the water because the side straps do not adjust small enough for the waist to keep it in place.

I work a job where we are required to wear high-vis PPE, and literally every woman I have worked with has said how poorly it fits them. Its only lately we've been bringing out specific female fitting PPE and its being treated as worth its weight in gold simply for how much of a relief it has to have stuff that they can actually work in

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

Read my edit above. It really has nothing to do with age, it has to do with what is happening to the bodies during the accident. Most women getting fatter as they age does not mean that the car is any safer for women who do not. That is why we actually need crash dummies so they can see what happens to our bodies in an accident. Correlation doesn't equal causation.

Oh man, thanks for pointing that out. So, discrepancies in injury rates between men and women are a factor of bone density. The same correlation between injury/fatality and stature is present among men [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3217531/]. Which is why injury and fatality among men increases at a greater rate than women until the age of 35, at which point it normalizes.

So guess of what, other than gender, bone density is a factor!

Just read the damn report already.

That is one of many factors.
This study made it pretty clear the specifics of what they were focused on:

The aims and objectives are summarised as follows;

To identify relationships between height and injury outcome for drivers of European passenger cars;

To identify by height those members of the population with an increased probability of serious injury compared with standardised probability across all heights

To investigate the relationship between height and seating position for those with a possible increased risk of injury.

In addition, this data is from vehicles 20 years old, not even cars that are currently on the road. There is far more to a woman than her "height" and skeletal structure. Those are factors, yes, but they are not the only factors involved. Yes, CRASH DUMMIES are needed.

THIS may help get you started in understanding male vs female injuries:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2517312/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4057258/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5357874/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4818312/

Here we go, where they actually start focusing on women's bodies, and this one points out that obese women have it even worse than skinny women:

Now researchers are beginning to move beyond the consensus choice ? the 50th percentile male ? to look at other vulnerable populations, and the University of Virginia's Center for Applied Biomechanics is taking a leading role. Foremost among these groups are women. In 2011, the center's researchers published a study demonstrating that women wearing seat belts were 47 percent more likely than male seatbelt-wearers to suffer severe injury, even after controlling for age, height, weight and the severity of the crash. The discrepancy is especially pronounced for lower-extremity injuries.

"For years, we used a technique called geometric scaling to forecast how human beings of different sizes would respond to crashes," said assistant professor James Kerrigan, the Center for Applied Biomechanics' deputy director. "Not only does extrapolation not work for males, but it particularly doesn't work for females."

Among the many dissimilarities potentially affecting results are different ligament laxity and bone shape.

One of Kerrigan's graduate students, Carolyn Roberts, is focusing on this issue. Roberts is trying to understand the biomechanical differences between males and females and determine how these differences affect injury tolerance. With support from Autoliv, one of the largest makers of airbags and seatbelts, she is determining the precise limitations of the current methodologies used to predict female response and developing a companion dataset of female injury response data. This will enable her to identify specific test conditions where male-to-female prediction techniques fail.

https://phys.org/news/2018-10-women-obese-passengers-worst-car-crash.html

 

[stroopwafel]

Women being better drivers is irrelevant to having a car designed for their safety. Men wanting to drive like lunatics is not a "reason" to not design cars for women. If more drivers are women, that means those women driving should have cars designed for their safety.

That's a bit of a generalization there. I don't think accidents caused by excessive risk taking or overconfidence is representative for men as a whole, but rather increased risk of a specific age group that also gets men in trouble in other domains in life. That's probably also a component of hormones that aggravate risk taking and aggression among things and is espescially prevalent in young men. This itself doesn't make women 'better drivers', just that they aren't biologically predisposed to the same risk factors, or to a much lesser extent. Doesn't invalidate the severity of such behaviors ofcourse or should in any way serve as an excuse for lethal or severe car crashes due to negligence but reduced impulse control does have a neurobiological component that is largely male, and primarily manifest in a young age group. Women are more docile unless they know they are protected by the social environment and won't take risks on their own or feel the need to 'prove' themselves trough reckless behavior. Again, has it's roots in neurochemistry.

What you describe is a very specific body type you want standardized in every car which is just impossible. I'm taller than average and you won't see me driving a car with little leg room. But I won't complain that these cars exists. Similarly as I can't expect every car to accomodate my height you can't realistically expect every car should from now on be a big boob mobile. With so many cars and customization options available it really is a non-issue other than making the tired Jezebel argument that 'white male heterosexual privilege makes cars unsafe for muh women!!1'

 

[Baffle]

And god forbid you have big boobs and a small waist, then nothing fits.

Belts and bras probably do (no guarantees though!).

I work a job where we are required to wear high-vis PPE, and literally every woman I have worked with has said how poorly it fits them.

I think there's a general correlation between high-vis PPE and poor fitting regardless of sex, because most of it appears to have been designed to fit gorillas.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

Women being better drivers is irrelevant to having a car designed for their safety. Men wanting to drive like lunatics is not a "reason" to not design cars for women. If more drivers are women, that means those women driving should have cars designed for their safety.

That's a bit of a generalization there. I don't think accidents caused by excessive risk taking or overconfidence is representative for men as a whole, but rather increased risk of a specific age group that also gets men in trouble in other domains in life. That's probably also a component of hormones that aggravate risk taking and aggression among things and is espescially prevalent in young men. This itself doesn't make women 'better drivers', just that they aren't biologically predisposed to the same risk factors, or to a much lesser extent. Doesn't invalidate the severity of such behaviors ofcourse or should in any way serve as an excuse for lethal or severe car crashes due to negligence but reduced impulse control does have a neurobiological component that is largely male, and primarily manifest in a young age group. Women are more docile unless they know they are protected by the social environment and won't take risks on their own or feel the need to 'prove' themselves trough reckless behavior. Again, has it's roots in neurochemistry.

What you describe is a very specific body type you want standardized in every car which is just impossible. I'm taller than average and you won't see me driving a car with little leg room. But I won't complain that these cars exists. Similarly as I can't expect every car to accomodate my height you can't realistically expect every car should from now on be a big boob mobile. With so many cars and customization options available it really is a non-issue other than making the tired Jezebel argument that 'white male heterosexual privilige makes cars unsafe for muh women!!1'

It actually does make women " better drivers" if they are choosing not to drive around like lunatics simply because they are a certain age. LOL!

I never said I wanted a specific body type standardized in every car. Please show me where I even suggested such, as I did not. I want the options available and they currently are not. They already do have custom seat and seat belt options designed for tall men, just not for tall women, just as they have custom seat options for short men, but not short women. That is what needs to change here.
They just started doing real tests on women recently, we are still a good ways away from actually designing vehicle options for women. Adding a mirror to the visor is not a " female centric" option as they have suggested in the past btw, it was nonsense.

They have just started studying how women's soft tissues react to be able to actually make designs in the future so hopefully we will get there one day. We are not there yet however. Women wanting to have cars designed with them in mind is no different than men wanting to have cars designed with them in mind. This is far from being a non issue to those of us who need these options to be safe in our vehicles.

You seem to be the only one ranting about heterosexual white male nonsense in this thread, maybe you have issues you should address. Especially when you spout off nonsense like "women are more docile unless they know they are protected by the social environment". Not wanting to drive like an idiot does not make one " docile unless they know they are protected by the social environment". It means they think doing stupid things like driving like an idiot is stupid.

 

[stroopwafel]

We are not there yet however. Women wanting to have cars designed with them in mind is no different than men wanting to have cars designed with them in mind. This is far from being a non issue to those of us who need these options to be safe in our vehicles.

Again you imply there is some implicit bias with the design of cars that are detrimental to women but why would any manufacturer deliberately alienate half of their consumers? That doesn't make sense. Espescially if you consider many car commercials are even specifically aimed at women.

Say you were right and they now only make cars with women in mind. Then what women? Tall women with small boobs? Short women with big boobs? What about plumpers, grannies or male-to-female? Good luck finding one standard you will all find equally comfortable.

You seem to be the only one ranting about heterosexual white male nonsense in this thread, maybe you have issues you should address.

Ehmm..you quote a Jezebel article so please don't dance around the issue like you don't know what their agenda is.

It means they think doing stupid things like driving like an idiot is stupid.

I never argued this I only added that male hormones, which is specifically prevalent in young men, contributes to reckless behavior. Which is simply stating an objective fact. Hence why young men have more accidents as it's the only common denominator. Again, just to point it out, doesn't excuse negligence or, in the worst case, involuntary manslaughter or grave injury.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

We are not there yet however. Women wanting to have cars designed with them in mind is no different than men wanting to have cars designed with them in mind. This is far from being a non issue to those of us who need these options to be safe in our vehicles.

Again you imply there is some implicit bias with the design of cars that are detrimental to women but why would any manufacturer deliberately alienate half of their consumers? That doesn't make sense. Espescially if you consider many car commercials are even specifically aimed at women.

Say you were right and they now only make cars with women in mind. Then what women? Tall women with small boobs? Short women with big boobs? What about plumpers, grannies or male-to-female? Good luck finding one standard you will all find equally comfortable.

You seem to be the only one ranting about heterosexual white male nonsense in this thread, maybe you have issues you should address.

Ehmm..you quote a Jezebel article so please don't dance around the issue like you don't know what their agenda is.

They didn't " deliberately alienate customers" they just didn't think about it until now. When you have men designing things for men, women are often an " afterthought" especially since in the past it was not as common for women to buy and drive cars as it is today and old habits die hard. The industry is just lagging. But as I linked above, this should be changing in the future now that they have started working on it in recent years to actually find out how these thing impact females. They have not even studied this properly until recently.

Who would be right saying that they only make cars for women in mind? I never said that, did you? They should be making options for both men and women. if a guy can go buy a tall man's seat and seat belt option, a tall woman should be able to do the same. You should have mix and match options like they do already, just more of them that include women's options. Men mix and match their seats and seat belts as it is already, why should women not be able to do the same? Women get to do this with mix and match bikini sets so they can have a large top that fits and a small bottom in the same set, mixing and matching seats and seat belt options should be no different.

Oh why don't you tell me what you think "Jezebel's agenda" is. Considering I come from an actual matriarchal culture, this has got to be a good laugh. Most of the nonsense I hear spouted off about male and female biological roles is utter nonsense and simply a matter of social conditioning depending on the cultural norms.

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

This study made it pretty clear the specifics of what they were focused on:

Yup, then they went and found height is the determinant factor, and that gender is a confounding variable due to women, on average, being shorter than men.

In addition, this data is from vehicles 20 years old, not even cars that are currently on the road.

You mean cars made before the maturation and proliferation of air bag technology? The one that still finds air bags have better outcomes for shorter-statured people (read, mostly women) than not?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2517312/

About athletic injuries.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4057258/

Traumatic injury in sum, not limited to car wrecks.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5357874/

Congratulations, you found one link that actually supports an argument. In the case of lap-belt related injuries. That require hospitalization, not necessarily injuries that cause death. In the context of increasing awareness for proper diagnosis and injury management.

Which is funny, considering on page 93 of the NHTSA report, it is pointed out women are at higher risk than men of abdominal injury regardless of lap belt, and it is posited this boils down to sex-based differences in skeleture of the ribcage.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4818312/

About missed injuries in diagnosis.

You didn't even account for one key factor the NHTSA report identified (again, page 93), which you might otherwise have pointed out. Women are more at risk for head and neck injury due to discrepancies in the weight of the head, versus musculature and bone mass differences. In other words, women's heads are nearly the same size as men's, but have less supporting musculature and thinner, less dense, cervical vertebrae. But of course, seat belts don't protect against neck and head injuries (in fact, chest belts exaggerate the risk and severity of head- and neck-related injuries, especially in women), so muh crash test dummies.

Just read the damn report already.

Let's just ELI5 this for a second. Injury and fatality rate are more closely linked to height, not gender, and what gendered differences there are can be attributed to women's skeleture compared to men's. And even among women, shorter and more petite women are higher-risk groups. Taking these factors into consideration, the NHTSA introduced a woman-type dummy representative of one who would be at the highest risk of severe injury or fatality in a car wreck. Not even average as in the case of men, HIGHEST risk.

Meanwhile, non-belt protective devices such as air bags benefit smaller-statured persons across the board, but this is especially important to women due to gendered differences in height. Which means this is a largely solved issue and the matter is down to maturation and proliferation of non-belt protective technology, as accident and fatality statistics demonstrate. Particularly, the discrepancy between injury and fatality rate reduction between men and women, despite more women driving and for more miles on average over the past fifty years.

Not that a word of this actually matters to Jezebel, which is clearly more concerned over pushing "muh patriarchy!" mean-world syndrome clicks than women's safety.

 

[Silvanus]

Which means this is an already solved issue, it boils down to maturation, proliferation, and saturation of these technologies.

What? That's not what that says or implies. Not even the bit you directly quoted.

Other technologies "may shrink the risk". Identifying an ameliorating factor doesn't mean the original issue is entirely negated.

 

[Saelune]

The 'odds' is a very vague term. If you go by actual numbers I believe much more men are involved in car crashes, meaning excessive risk taking and overconfidence contributes much more to accidents. If a seatbelt straps you into the seat and prevents you from ejecting through the windshield it's done it's purpose. Whether it's comfortable or not depends on many kinds of body types not just if you're male or female. Someone can be too tall, too fat, too short etc. It would be impossible for a manufacturer to accomodate to each and every body type.

There is always some risk involved with driving a car, and it's not like seatbelts would prevent you from serious injury or death when hit from the side or front. Cars are safer than ever but it are still drivers with shit driving skills or being under influence or distracted that causes the majority of accidents.

There is a difference between being " uncomfortable" and dangerous. People have actually been decapitated by their seatbelt due to the actual design. There is a reason you wear a safety harness instead of a seatbelt in racecars as the seatbelt was proven inadequate.
The seatbelt on me is not just uncomfortable it cuts into my neck to the point of actually makes me bleed, and leave a permanent mark on my neck, in an accident that would be far worse. I disagree that they could not better design cars to fit more body types and make adjustable a nd offer customizable options to make them safer. My father designed and built my car to his custom specifications along with all my brother's and sisters cars, you are making this out to be way more difficult than it actually is. With as much as we pay for cars, and their many customizable options, they should not have much of an issue offering something more substantial than just cupholders and custom seats, we should have more vehicles equipped with more options for safety features that actually matter. We already have cars with more adjustable seatbelt options, we just need to take this further and actually design features using different sexes and body types and make those options fit those individuals better. It isn't like it is difficult to change out seatbelts and seats easily, we already do this to give men more options in their seat design, this should be happening with seats and seatbelts designed from the ground up for women as well.

I think you do not realize how customizable cars already are, but I grew up in a family where my dad was designing, building and racing prostock cars, so I don't see things to be as rigid as that. When my dad wanted the car to be 5 inches shorter, he made a new frame so it would be shorter.. That is just how these things are done. Cars may be safer than ever for people they are designed to be safer for, but that does not mean they are necessarily safer for everyone else. It is time we change that. Car safety standards are ever evolving, this should just be their next evolution.

Well yeah, duh. I'm sure anything is possible to adjust a car to your specific needs or comfort when you pay for it or have those specific skills yourself. But cars that simply roll out of the factory just have to comply with specific safety standards, and if they do they are safe to drive considering how tight these regulations are. Manufacturers will also hold themselves to the highest standard to prevent negligence. That women are at increased risk of being decapitated by seatbelts just sound bogus to me, and I bet there is not a single accident where that has ever taken place.

I'm all for increasing safety and comfort for every driver but at the end of the day you're still stuck with standard models, which might not provide a similar amount of comfort for every body type, male or female. Either buy a different car or have the car customized. I really don't see the problem here. Just sound like another whiny topic to demonstrate how even car manufacturers don't care about 'muh women' and only use straight, white, heterosexual male dummies in crash tests. I'm actually surprised no one mentioned how manufacturers are probably closet fat shamers as well.

You have too much faith in government regulations and corporations.

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

What? That's not what that says or implies.

That's because it's my summation of the issue.

 

[stroopwafel]

Who would be right saying that they only make cars for women in mind? I never said that, did you? They should be making options for both men and women. if a guy can go buy a tall man's seat and seat belt option, a tall woman should be able to do the same. You should have mix and match options like they do already, just more of them that include women's options. Men mix and match their seats and seat belts as it is already, why should women not be able to do the same?

You keep categorizing car safety and comfort in male and female but wouldn't a tall chick have more physical similarity with a tall bloke than a short plumper of her own gender, and as such render your argument void? These clear distinctions you make aren't so much male or female but rather the large variety that exist in body types and can't be accomodated for in equal measure even if general comfort has become one of the top design principles in the manufacture of cars.

Oh why don't you tell me what you think "Jezebel's agenda" is. Considering I come from an actual matriarchal culture, this has got to be a good laugh. Most of the nonsense I hear spouted off about male and female biological roles is utter nonsense and simply a matter of social conditioning depending on the cultural norms.

That entire website reads like one giant witch hunt so please don't pretend their articles are in good faith. Also, biological differences exist whether you want to or not. That men have on average eight times more volume of blood testosterone has it's implications on susceptibilities for behavior that aren't 'simply a matter of social conditioning depending on the cultural norms'. Which again is an argument with which you shoot yourself in the foot as the phenomena is the same across all cultures and social conditioning that exist.

 

[Saelune]

Why is wanting safer cars so offensive to some people?

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

Spoiler: I read the study, did you read my post above?

This study made it pretty clear the specifics of what they were focused on:

Yup, then they went and found height is the determinant factor, and that gender is a confounding variable due to women, on average, being shorter than men.

In addition, this data is from vehicles 20 years old, not even cars that are currently on the road.

You mean cars made before the maturation and proliferation of air bag technology? The one that still finds air bags have better outcomes for shorter-statured people (read, mostly women) than not?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2517312/

About athletic injuries.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4057258/

Traumatic injury in sum, not limited to car wrecks.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5357874/

Congratulations, you found one link that actually supports an argument. In the case of lap-belt related injuries. That require hospitalization, not necessarily injuries that cause death. In the context of increasing awareness for proper diagnosis and injury management.

Which is funny, considering on page 93 of the NHTSA report, it is pointed out women are at higher risk than men of abdominal injury regardless of lap belt, and it is posited this boils down to sex-based differences in skeleture of the ribcage.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4818312/

About missed injuries in diagnosis.

You didn't even account for one key factor the NHTSA report identified (again, page 93), which you might otherwise have pointed out. Women are more at risk for head and neck injury due to discrepancies in the weight of the head, versus musculature and bone mass differences. In other words, women's heads are nearly the same size as men's, but have less supporting musculature and thinner, less dense, cervical vertebrae. But of course, seat belts don't protect against neck and head injuries (in fact, chest belts exaggerate the risk and severity of head- and neck-related injuries, especially in women), so muh crash test dummies.

Just read the damn report already.

Let's just ELI5 this for a second. Injury and fatality rate are more closely linked to height, not gender, and what gendered differences there are can be attributed to women's skeleture compared to men's. And even among women, shorter and more petite women are higher-risk groups. Taking these factors into consideration, the NHTSA introduced a woman-type dummy representative of one who would be at the highest risk of severe injury or fatality in a car wreck. Not even average as in the case of men, HIGHEST risk.

Meanwhile, non-belt protective devices such as air bags benefit smaller-statured persons across the board, but this is especially important to women due to gendered differences in height. Which means this is a largely solved issue and the matter is down to maturation and proliferation of non-belt protective technology, as accident and fatality statistics demonstrate. Particularly, the discrepancy between injury and fatality rate reduction between men and women, despite more women driving and for more miles on average over the past fifty years.

Not that a word of this actually matters to Jezebel, which is clearly more concerned over clicks than women's safety.

Do you not understand that female and male soft tissue injuries are also different not just skeletal?

The reason I linked you difference in males and females with athletic injuries, traumatic injuries, and delayed onset injuries is you should understand that there are numerous differences that impact how males and females are injured, how they heal and these differences are important when designing safety standards that cover both males and females. The differences in our soft tissues and skeletal systems are important to be able to do this. They have only recently been starting to study the impact on women at all and yes, we need good "test dummies" to be able to actually do that, as they have shown the methods and ones they have used traditionally are not doing that.

From the article linked above:

"For years, we used a technique called geometric scaling to forecast how human beings of different sizes would respond to crashes," said assistant professor James Kerrigan, the Center for Applied Biomechanics' deputy director. "Not only does extrapolation not work for males, but it particularly doesn't work for females."

Among the many dissimilarities potentially affecting results are different ligament laxity and bone shape.

Yes, they stated MANY for a reason here.

https://phys.org/news/2018-10-women-obese-passengers-worst-car-crash.html

EDIT: In addition, delayed onset injury is not necessarily a "misdiagnosis", often the injury is not detectable until days later.