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

[stroopwafel]

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.

These subtle differences are interesting from a medical POV but when you have skin and bone colliding with metal at high velocity I doubt they make much of a difference. Male or female it's the same mangled flesh dragged from the wreckage.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

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.

A tall woman very well may not have more in common with a tall man as a tall man is usually not built like a woman. He does not have breasts, he is not likely to have female curves that cause seatbelt and sitting issues, yes they have the need for leg room and head coverage, but everything else would be different. That is why we need options available. How do you accommodate large breasts with a seat belt to ensure adequate protection? This isn't even an issue of " fat vs skinny" as you can have large breasts and still be too skinny for the seat and seatbelts. Of course they can be accommodated. There is seriously no reason I can go online and buy all sorts of custom seats designed for men that I can put in my car myself, but not any designed for women. It is absurd to suggest we cannot do the same for women. I can go online and buy all sorts of seats designed for men. For example:
https://lmr.com/item/CS-L74901/corbeau-sportline-rrs-racing-seat-black-leather?gclid=EAIaIQobChMImfbtioXE4wIVFZSzCh1vSAs7EAkYBiABEgLpSfD_BwE
but having access to options actually designed for me is somehow undoable? I call BS.

I am not seeing this "witch hunt" you speak of, most of he stuff on Jezebel is celebrity, shopping and fashion nonsense with political opinion articles scattered here and there on all sorts of topics.

Of course biological differences exist, as do cultural. It is a matter of determining which is which and not making false assumptions simply because you haven't been exposed enough to other cultures to know the difference. I have never even remotely suggested that there were not biological differences and have made that very argument numerous times on these very forums. It is a matter of understanding correlation is not causation. Where I come from " traditional roles", for example, mean women are the primary property holders, women are the primary ones to conduct business and control the economy and make the final decisions on important matters and the man takes the woman's clan name upon marriage and becomes part of the woman's family. In a paternal culture, that is the opposite. These roles are not biological, they are cultural. Of course men and women have many biological differences, just who is traditionally the primary "breadwinner" and decision maker is not one of them, it is a cultural issue rather than biological. The entire way businesses are designed and run are cultural rather than based on biology. Pretty much the way most everything is designed is different in maternal and paternal cultures due to the founding principles being different. In the maternal culture where I come from, the warrior was never elevated but the teacher was. A warrior is low status but a teacher is high social status. Priorities and the way things are centered is completely different. Children are seen as the most important aspect of life where I come from, not "kept out of the workplace and out of the way" as they are in paternal culture. The noticeable differences are like night and day really.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

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.

These subtle differences are interesting from a medical POV but when you have skin and bone colliding with metal at high velocity I doubt they make much of a difference. Male or female it's the same mangled flesh dragged from the wreckage.

When you have metal and bone colliding, the medical point of view is EXACTLY what is important as the damage being done and how to repair it is WHY the medical point of view is what matters here. As I linked above, males and females even have differences in healing and how they take damage.

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

The reason I linked you difference in males and females with 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.

Which, as your own previous links argue, boils down to issues with proper diagnosis and post-accident treatment.

...as they have shown the methods and ones they have used traditionally are not doing that.

Once again, yes they are [https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/gender]. Air bags didn't start proliferating in the US until the '90s, and had some early faults which actually caused fatalities as opposed to prevent them. So, let's compare thirty-year fatality reduction as a function of gender. According to that link, accounting for pedestrian, bicyclist, and motorcyclist deaths as well which skews the statistics "in favor of" men...

In 1987, 32,621 men died in car wrecks. In 2017, 26,380. That's a 19.1% reduction in fatality rate.

In 1987, 13,757 women died in car wrecks. In 2017, 10,697. That's a 22.2% reduction in fatality rate.

This is despite the percentage of women drivers to men, and the average mileage of women drivers to men, going up [https://news.umich.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/women-drivers-closing-the-mileage-gap-findings-20150511.pdf].

More women are driving, and driving more miles on average. Despite this, not only are fewer women dying in car wrecks in sum, the rate of fatality reduction among women is higher than among men.

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

Yes, they stated MANY for a reason here.[/quote]

So, your link is about obesity rates and finding correlation between that factor and lower-extremity injuries, which they cite when disclosing they actually disproved their initial hypotheses.

 

[Silvanus]

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

Uhrm, right. In that case, why the sneery "at least read the report" line, if the report doesn't say what you're arguing?

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

The reason I linked you difference in males and females with 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.

Which, as your own previous links argue, boils down to issues with proper diagnosis and post-accident treatment.

...as they have shown the methods and ones they have used traditionally are not doing that.

Once again, yes they are [https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/gender]. Air bags didn't start proliferating in the US until the '90s, and had some early faults which actually caused fatalities as opposed to prevent them. So, let's compare thirty-year fatality reduction as a function of gender. According to that link, accounting for pedestrian, bicyclist, and motorcyclist deaths as well which skews the statistics "in favor of" men...

In 1987, 32,621 men died in car wrecks. In 2017, 26,380. That's a 19.1% reduction in fatality rate.

In 1987, 13,757 women died in car wrecks. In 2017, 10,697. That's a 22.2% reduction in fatality rate.

This is despite the percentage of women drivers to men, and the average mileage of women drivers to men, going up [https://news.umich.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/women-drivers-closing-the-mileage-gap-findings-20150511.pdf].

More women are driving, and driving more miles on average. Despite this, not only are fewer women dying in car wrecks in sum, the rate of fatality reduction among women is higher than among men.

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

Yes, they stated MANY for a reason here.

So, your link is about obesity rates and finding correlation between that factor and lower-extremity injuries, which they cite when disclosing they actually disproved their initial hypotheses.[/quote] Context is everything. As 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."

Yes, how they were doing things was not working, thus why they are changing it. This is from an actual air bag manufacturer FYI.

Less women died in automobile accidents in 2014 than they did in 2017, they are actually higher atm. Data from 1987 is outdated and irrelevant as people are not driving cars from 1987.

The link isn't just about obesity, it is about an airbag manufacturer improving heir safety standards overall. Obesity is just one of the issues being discussed and researched, not the only issue.

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

Once again, yes they are [https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/gender]. Air bags didn't start proliferating in the US until the '90s, and had some early faults which actually caused fatalities as opposed to prevent them. So, let's compare thirty-year fatality reduction as a function of gender. According to that link, accounting for pedestrian, bicyclist, and motorcyclist deaths as well which skews the statistics "in favor of" men...

In 1987, 32,621 men died in car wrecks. In 2017, 26,380. That's a 19.1% reduction in fatality rate.

In 1987, 13,757 women died in car wrecks. In 2017, 10,697. That's a 22.2% reduction in fatality rate.

This is despite the percentage of women drivers to men, and the average mileage of women drivers to men, going up [https://news.umich.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/women-drivers-closing-the-mileage-gap-findings-20150511.pdf].

More women are driving, and driving more miles on average. Despite this, not only are fewer women dying in car wrecks in sum, the rate of fatality reduction among women is higher than among men.

In fact, let's look at that at ten and twenty year marks too, to drive the point home in reduction in fatality rates.

In 1997, 27,827 men died. That's a 5.1% reduction to 2017.

In 1997, 14,168 women died. That's a 24.4% reduction to 2017.

In 2007, 29,173 men died. That's a 9.6% reduction to 2017.

In 2007, 12,080 women died. That's an 11.4% reduction to 2017.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

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

Uhrm, right. In that case, why the sneery "at least read the report" line, if the report doesn't say what you're arguing?

I didn't "get" what was up with that either, as I read the report the first time and when he kept repeating it and not making sense, I figured he was just doing what he did earlier with the whole repeating " muh crash dummies" like it was a catchy tune he couldn't get out of his head.

In the end, I just chose to ignore it to stay on topic.

 

[stroopwafel]

A tall woman very well may not have more in common with a tall man as a tall man is usually not built like a woman. He does not have breasts, he is not likely to have female curves that cause seatbelt and sitting issues, yes they have the need for leg room and head coverage, but everything else would be different. That is why we need options available. How do you accommodate large breasts with a seat belt to ensure adequate protection? This isn't even an issue of " fat vs skinny" as you can have large breasts and still be too skinny for the seat and seatbelts.

Has there ever been a single incidence then where a seatbelt didn't provide adequate protection specifically b/c of female curves and boobs? I'd like to know.

Of course biological differences exist, as do cultural. It is a matter of determining which is which and not making false assumptions simply because you haven't been exposed enough to other cultures to know the difference. I have never even remotely suggested that there were not biological differences and have made that very argument numerous times on these very forums. It is a matter of understanding correlation is not causation. Where I come from " traditional roles", for example, mean women are the primary property holders, women are the primary ones to conduct business and control the economy and make the final decisions on important matters and the man takes the woman's clan name upon marriage and becomes part of the woman's family. In a paternal culture, that is the opposite. These roles are not biological, they are cultural. Of course men and women have many biological differences, just who is traditionally the primary "breadwinner" and decision maker is not one of them, it is a cultural issue rather than biological. The entire way businesses are designed and run are cultural rather than based on biology. Pretty much the way most everything is designed is different in maternal and paternal cultures due to the founding principles being different. In the maternal culture where I come from, the warrior was never elevated but the teacher was. A warrior is low status but a teacher is high social status. Priorities and the way things are centered is completely different. Children are seen as the most important aspect of life where I come from, not "kept out of the workplace and out of the way" as they are in paternal culture. The noticeable differences are like night and day really.

You conflate biological susceptibilities with cultural values which are different things. Different cultures value different things but that doesn't change gender specific predispositions that have it's merits in neurobiological differences, espescially hormones.

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

Yes, how they were doing things was not working, thus why they are changing it. This is from an actual air bag manufacturer FYI.

Because of obesity rates, not gender.

Less women died in automobile accidents in 2014 than they did in 2017, they are actually higher atm. Data from 1987 is outdated and irrelevant as people are not driving cars from 1987.

You'll notice less men died, too. In fact, fatalities across the board were down between 2008-2014. That's because of gas prices and the recession [https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/11/crash-the-decline-of-us-driving-in-6-charts/281528/], there were fewer drivers on the road and driving fewer miles. You'll notice the relevant chart starts at '75, where fatalities skyrocketed...due to the end of the energy crisis...and fatalities dipped again in '91, due to the recession. Surprise, economic strength is a big determining factor on automotive fatalities, too!

Which is why I concentrated on 2017 in particular, being a post-recession year and the latest to have published FARS data.

Data from 1987 is incredibly relevant, because Chrysler was the first to standardize air bags in new models in '88 with other automakers to follow. Because we're discussing automotive safety features and their impact to injury and fatality rates by gender, particularly non-belt (arguably post-belt) protective devices.

Because that's what the NHTSA report is about.

And, as I demonstrated in my latest post comparing data from 1997 and 2007, the trend is the same. More women on the road driving more average miles, few women fatalities and higher rate of fatality reduction among women.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

Once again, yes they are [https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/gender]. Air bags didn't start proliferating in the US until the '90s, and had some early faults which actually caused fatalities as opposed to prevent them. So, let's compare thirty-year fatality reduction as a function of gender. According to that link, accounting for pedestrian, bicyclist, and motorcyclist deaths as well which skews the statistics "in favor of" men...

In 1987, 32,621 men died in car wrecks. In 2017, 26,380. That's a 19.1% reduction in fatality rate.

In 1987, 13,757 women died in car wrecks. In 2017, 10,697. That's a 22.2% reduction in fatality rate.

This is despite the percentage of women drivers to men, and the average mileage of women drivers to men, going up [https://news.umich.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/women-drivers-closing-the-mileage-gap-findings-20150511.pdf].

More women are driving, and driving more miles on average. Despite this, not only are fewer women dying in car wrecks in sum, the rate of fatality reduction among women is higher than among men.

In fact, let's look at that at ten and twenty year marks too, to drive the point home in reduction in fatality rates.

In 1997, 27,827 men died. That's a 5.1% reduction to 2017.

In 1997, 14,168 women died. That's a 24.4% reduction to 2017.

In 2007, 29,173 men died. That's a 9.6% reduction to 2017.

In 2007, 12,080 women died. That's an 11.4% reduction to 2017.

Again, I was using more recent data, as automobiles are constantly changing:

2014: 9463 women died.
2014: 23266 men died.
2017: 10697 women died.
2017: 26380 men died.
https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/gender

Most people are not driving around in cars from the 90's. Or even cars from 2007 anymore either. They have a buyback program to get cars ten years or older off the road for a reason.

Your vehicle must meet these conditions:
Failed an emissions test,
Has a current registration and has been registered in your participating county area for at least 12 of the 15 months preceding your application, and
Passed a Texas motor-vehicle safety and emissions inspection within 15 months of your application and driven under its own power to the automobile dealership.
OR
At least 10 years old and gasoline powered,
Driven under its own power to the automobile dealership,
Has a current registration and has been registered in your participating county area for at least 12 of the 15 months preceding your application, and
Passed a DPS motor-vehicle safety inspection (if more than 24 years old) or safety and emissions inspection (if 24 years old or less) within 15 months of application.

https://www.tceq.texas.gov/airquality/mobilesource/vim/driveclean.html

Data on cars 10 years or older is irrelevant now.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

A tall woman very well may not have more in common with a tall man as a tall man is usually not built like a woman. He does not have breasts, he is not likely to have female curves that cause seatbelt and sitting issues, yes they have the need for leg room and head coverage, but everything else would be different. That is why we need options available. How do you accommodate large breasts with a seat belt to ensure adequate protection? This isn't even an issue of " fat vs skinny" as you can have large breasts and still be too skinny for the seat and seatbelts.

Has there ever been a single incidence then where a seatbelt didn't provide adequate protection specifically b/c of female curves and boobs? I'd like to know.

Of course biological differences exist, as do cultural. It is a matter of determining which is which and not making false assumptions simply because you haven't been exposed enough to other cultures to know the difference. I have never even remotely suggested that there were not biological differences and have made that very argument numerous times on these very forums. It is a matter of understanding correlation is not causation. Where I come from " traditional roles", for example, mean women are the primary property holders, women are the primary ones to conduct business and control the economy and make the final decisions on important matters and the man takes the woman's clan name upon marriage and becomes part of the woman's family. In a paternal culture, that is the opposite. These roles are not biological, they are cultural. Of course men and women have many biological differences, just who is traditionally the primary "breadwinner" and decision maker is not one of them, it is a cultural issue rather than biological. The entire way businesses are designed and run are cultural rather than based on biology. Pretty much the way most everything is designed is different in maternal and paternal cultures due to the founding principles being different. In the maternal culture where I come from, the warrior was never elevated but the teacher was. A warrior is low status but a teacher is high social status. Priorities and the way things are centered is completely different. Children are seen as the most important aspect of life where I come from, not "kept out of the workplace and out of the way" as they are in paternal culture. The noticeable differences are like night and day really.

You conflate biological susceptibilities with cultural values which are different things. Different cultures value different things but that doesn't change gender specific predispositions that have it's merits in neurobiological differences, espescially hormones.

From the above link:

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.

That is what they are trying to determine.

Actually I am not conflating those things, I was doing the exact opposite and stating that often I hear them conflated as being biological when they are not. In fact, I was specifically stating that those were cultural rather than biological due to how many times I have heard people claim them to be otherwise. Of course there are hormonal differences in males and females, however, how one responds to those hormones is also often cultural due to social conditioning. The social norms in different cultures greatly impact the actions that are taken. In some cultures sex is not shunned and instead celebrated openly on full display, while others hide it away, some cultures tolerate or even exalt violence while others see that as the worst thing you could possibly do. The hormones are there in all cultures, just the behavior is drastically different depending on their cultural values.

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

Again, I was using more recent data, as automobiles are constantly changing:

You say this unironically, while trying to wish away the impact on fatality rate the introduction of air bags had on women compared to men. And ignoring the impact on fatality rate the maturation of air bag technology had on women compared to men.

Because read the NHTSA report.

2014: 9463 women died.
2014: 23266 men died.
2017: 10697 women died.
2017: 26380 men died.

Okay, let's ignore the fact the recession was a major intervening variable and outlier on number of drivers, average miles driven, which in turn led to an overall reduction in fatality rates. Let's play your game and see where it leads.

The increase in fatalities among men was 13.3 percent. The increase in fatalities among women was 13%. The increase in fatalities among women was still lower than the increase in fatalities among men.

 

[Anti-American Eagle]

Damn those sexists and their *rolls dice* airbag designs...

Yeah. This is terrible, but so is everything else. It's not just women being affected by bad design. Please stop pushing agendas while seeking solutions to problems, it doesn't help anyone.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

Again, I was using more recent data, as automobiles are constantly changing:

You say this unironically, while trying to wish away the impact on fatality rate the introduction of air bags had on women compared to men. And ignoring the impact on fatality rate the maturation of air bag technology had on women compared to men.

Because read the NHTSA report.

2014: 9463 women died.
2014: 23266 men died.
2017: 10697 women died.
2017: 26380 men died.

Okay, let's ignore the fact the recession was a major intervening variable and outlier on number of drivers, average miles driven, which in turn led to an overall reduction in fatality rates. Let's play your game and see where it leads.

The increase in fatalities among men was 13.3 percent. The increase in fatalities among women was 13%. The increase in fatalities among women was still lower than the increase in fatalities among men.

You are still trying to compare male vs female stats when this isn't even about male vs female stats. Like I stated earlier:

Men's stats here are pretty irrelevant to the topic outside of a comparison for the same severity of accident.

If a woman is going to be the only driver of their car, why is it still being designed for a man?

EDIT: This is about women having cars designed for their safety, not about men demanding all cars be designed for them because they want to drive like lunatics.

https://v1.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.1057231-The-odds-of-serious-injury-or-death-for-female-car-crash-victims-is-73-percent-higher-than-for-males#24312136

Men's stats are irrelevant to women having their cars designed for women's bodies. Men have demanded that they have cars designed for their bodies, comfort and safety so automakers produced them. Women are doing the same. Automakers should produce those as well. If I am buying a car that I am going to drive, should I not have one that is designed for my comfort and safety? Why should I be forced to spend my money on one that was designed for some other guy rather than for my body type instead?

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

Damn those sexists and their *rolls dice* airbag designs...

Yeah. This is terrible, but so is everything else. It's not just women being affected by bad design. Please stop pushing agendas while seeking solutions to problems, it doesn't help anyone.

Not having my boobs pushed up into my nose while sliding under the lap belt while the shoulder strap cuts my neck is not *pushing an agenda*. AND yes, it does help those of us with this problem to try and get options made available for us to not have to deal with that anymore. Men can buy new seats and seat belts all over the place designed for their needs. I would like some options made for me as well. How is that somehow wrong?

 

[Saelune]

Damn those sexists and their *rolls dice* airbag designs...

Yeah. This is terrible, but so is everything else. It's not just women being affected by bad design. Please stop pushing agendas while seeking solutions to problems, it doesn't help anyone.

You mean the agenda of wanting safer cars?

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

Uhrm, right. In that case, why the sneery "at least read the report" line, if the report doesn't say what you're arguing?

The NHTSA report highlights the misconstruction of the argument as pushed by Jezebel. The Jezebel author seems to want to blame the lack of diversity in women crash test dummies to gendered risk of severe injury and fatality.

When, really, the historical gendered risk boils down to insufficient protective technology; actual data supports the assertion non-belt (or post-belt) protective technology actually benefits women more than men. This can be demonstrated by showing gendered differences in severe injury and fatality reduction over time, and this phenomenon was in effect and observed before women crash test dummies were even introduced.

In other words, the Jezebel author is arguing a moot point, and presenting that moot point disingenuously, to clickbait.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

Uhrm, right. In that case, why the sneery "at least read the report" line, if the report doesn't say what you're arguing?

The NHTSA report highlights the misconstruction of the argument as pushed by Jezebel. The Jezebel author seems to want to blame the lack of diversity in women crash test dummies to gendered risk of severe injury and fatality.

When, really, the historical gendered risk boils down to insufficient protective technology; actual data supports the assertion non-belt (or post-belt) protective technology actually benefits women more than men. This can be demonstrated by showing gendered differences in severe injury and fatality reduction over time, and this phenomenon was in effect and observed before women crash test dummies were even introduced.

In other words, the Jezebel author is arguing a moot point, and presenting that moot point disingenuously, to clickbait.

And there you go again, from the link above:

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.

Why does this state the opposite of what you just said? It is not Jezebel misconstruing the information here. This data of course coming from an actual manufacturer of seat belts and air bags. This is not "historical" data, it is from 2011. Historical data often proves to be inaccurately construed. Correlation doesn't equal causation, you keep conveying that it does.

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

This is not "historical" data, it is from 2011. Historical data often proves to be inaccurately construed. Correlation doesn't equal causation, you keep conveying that it does.

So, let me get this straight. Decades' worth of data showing injury and fatality rates across several generations' worth of safety improvement, and correlations between the two, doesn't matter because "too old" and anything older than a decade doesn't matter. But at the same time timeliness and source matters, so much a 2011 report from UVA's engineering school matters less than a 2013 report from the NHTSA. Even though the Jezebel article is actually about a 2019 report from UVA's engineering school you have yet to actually cite, and quite frankly, don't even seem to have noticed. And despite this, 2014 is the key year to compare to injury and fatality rates today because it's more recent and relevant as long as you ignore the recession as an intervening variable.

Awful strange sense of time you have there. Likewise an awfully strange definition of causality, considering the UVA researchers you cite can't even identify causative factors.

And all of this over a single component of a vehicle's sum safety and protective equipment. Which even the UVA researchers cede have led to an overall reduction in risk profile for drivers. Just conveniently ignore other safety features, like air bags and iterative improvements to them over the years, which reduce women's risk profile in particular over men's.