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

[Leg End]

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

...I know like, fuck all about the R&D that goes into crash safety and tend to sit on Bender's side of the fence, but have you considered... putting the strap that goes over your chest, instead under your armpit? Seen the issue for a lot of people in terms of comfort, and in some cars even have it myself. Inb4 I'm actually breaking a law somewhere.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

https://jezebel.com/women-are-dying-in-car-accidents-because-the-only-femal-1836527298

So yea, women make up half the population, but automotive makers still haven't bothered to make them safe for women. Seatbelts, even when not in an accident leave marks and have even cut my neck due to where they rest on my body and I have had to disable my airbags due to my height putting me at risk of decapitation. I have to have my seat pulled up to the lowest setting to even reach the brake and gas, and there are still plenty of women shorter than I am. Cars are obviously not designed for women and you would think by now they would have started to work on that as there are plenty of women buying and riding in cars these days, but apparently it still is not a priority to automakers as they have not yet bothered.

Is the problem here that you are a woman or that you are just a short person? Seems to be the latter rather than the former.

Both. My height is only one part of it, I have large breasts on a petite frame and I carry them high with a small waist with an hourglass type body shape. This prevents the seatbelt from crossing my body and resting where it should. The seat belt has a huge space across my lower body and then pushes hard on the top of my body. I can slide in and out of the lap belt, which also causes me to slide forward because the lap belt is based on the width of the seat which is much wider than I am. I can slide under the lap belt entirely while having the shoulder strap choking me. The whole design is a mess for someone like me.

So...why did you buy a car with seats that don't fit you.

There are hundreds of different car models with different seats, and also aftermarket seats. Don't like the seats in your car or don't like the seat belt? Why not buy some racing seats with a harness? They're narrower and the harness won't dig into your neck.

Cars are super customizable, you have tons of options. Instead of being upset that something that was built for the most average person possible doesn't fit someone with your non-standard body type why not customize your car to actually fit what you want?

 

[Silvanus]

The NHTSA report highlights the misconstruction of the argument as pushed by Jezebel.

How? It doesn't contradict the article. It identifies an increased risk for women, and also identifies ameliorating factors (related to non-belt protective tech). It doesn't address the same question as the Jezebel article, and scarcely even mentions crash-test dummies.

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.

Well, actually the link was drawn in the University of Virginia study [https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/15389588.2019.1630825?needAccess=true&].

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.

Well, the study is rather more non-committal. Let's take a look at its own conclusions (section on "Crashworthiness technologies: fatality reduction for older occupants and women" beginning on page 197);

On "energy-absorbing steering assemblies";

However, with a chi-square of 0.36, this last effect is not statistically significant. We cannot conclude that the technology is more effective for females than males.

On seat-belts, '74 - '82;

However, with a chi-square of 2.41, this last effect is not statistically significant. We cannot conclude that belts are more effective for female drivers than males in MY 1974-1982 cars.

Also worth looking at the table on page 215, showing one or two areas in which belts reduce the risk for women more than for men, but just as many scenarios in which the opposite is true.

On air bags;

Table 9-12 shows that the air bags are at least as effective for females (34%) as for males (32%);
the CATMOD analysis indicates these estimates are not significantly different.

The only point I can find which does attest to a statistically significant indication that a technology reduces the risk for women substantially more than for men is FMVSS 201:

The point estimate for males is close to zero, whereas the observed fatality reduction for females
is 16 percent. Effectiveness is significantly higher for women than for men. Although statistically
significant, the difference should perhaps be viewed with caution because: (1) it is based on still
relatively limited FARS-MCOD data, which is only available through CY 2007 as of October
2012; (2) females have only moderately higher risk of fatal head injury than males and the injury
patterns are similar (see Tables 4-2d and 6-3); thus, it is surprising for a safety technology to be
much more effective for females; (3) an analysis of CDS data in NHTSA?s 2011 evaluation
report only partially confirms this result ? it shows higher effectiveness for females with the
unweighted data, but higher effectiveness for males with weighted data.

...And that's hardly conclusive.

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

You've gone way beyond what is being outlined in the study itself (or what can be reasonably inferred).

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

https://jezebel.com/women-are-dying-in-car-accidents-because-the-only-femal-1836527298

So yea, women make up half the population, but automotive makers still haven't bothered to make them safe for women. Seatbelts, even when not in an accident leave marks and have even cut my neck due to where they rest on my body and I have had to disable my airbags due to my height putting me at risk of decapitation. I have to have my seat pulled up to the lowest setting to even reach the brake and gas, and there are still plenty of women shorter than I am. Cars are obviously not designed for women and you would think by now they would have started to work on that as there are plenty of women buying and riding in cars these days, but apparently it still is not a priority to automakers as they have not yet bothered.

Is the problem here that you are a woman or that you are just a short person? Seems to be the latter rather than the former.

Both. My height is only one part of it, I have large breasts on a petite frame and I carry them high with a small waist with an hourglass type body shape. This prevents the seatbelt from crossing my body and resting where it should. The seat belt has a huge space across my lower body and then pushes hard on the top of my body. I can slide in and out of the lap belt, which also causes me to slide forward because the lap belt is based on the width of the seat which is much wider than I am. I can slide under the lap belt entirely while having the shoulder strap choking me. The whole design is a mess for someone like me.

So...why did you buy a car with seats that don't fit you.

There are hundreds of different car models with different seats, and also aftermarket seats. Don't like the seats in your car or don't like the seat belt? Why not buy some racing seats with a harness? They're narrower and the harness won't dig into your neck.

Cars are super customizable, you have tons of options. Instead of being upset that something that was built for the most average person possible doesn't fit someone with your non-standard body type why not customize your car to actually fit what you want?

First of all, it is illegal in my state for me to use a racing harness instead of a seatbelt and not only can you not get your car inspected, you will also be ticketed the same as if you were not wearing a seatbelt at all. There are many good features allowed on race cars that are not street legal, this happens to be one of them. Second, I actually have a smaller seat than most in my car, but there is still too much room and I can slide under the lapbelt. I wear a size 1 in juniors on bottom, for jeans I cannot even shop in the ladies section so they do not really make car seats that fit 34" hips with a 23" waist. Even the smallest ones have a good bit of room and due to having large breasts, to get the seatbelt over the breasts it leaves a lot of room to slide around in the middle so it is tight on the bust and like the Grand Canyon on the waist.

Sure they have lots of customizing options for men, just much to choose from for women. That was why they need to actually design something for the woman's body rather than expect women to use something designed for a man. That was the point being discussed here. Where are the seats and seatbelts designed for large breasts and small hips?

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

https://jezebel.com/women-are-dying-in-car-accidents-because-the-only-femal-1836527298

So yea, women make up half the population, but automotive makers still haven't bothered to make them safe for women. Seatbelts, even when not in an accident leave marks and have even cut my neck due to where they rest on my body and I have had to disable my airbags due to my height putting me at risk of decapitation. I have to have my seat pulled up to the lowest setting to even reach the brake and gas, and there are still plenty of women shorter than I am. Cars are obviously not designed for women and you would think by now they would have started to work on that as there are plenty of women buying and riding in cars these days, but apparently it still is not a priority to automakers as they have not yet bothered.

Is the problem here that you are a woman or that you are just a short person? Seems to be the latter rather than the former.

Both. My height is only one part of it, I have large breasts on a petite frame and I carry them high with a small waist with an hourglass type body shape. This prevents the seatbelt from crossing my body and resting where it should. The seat belt has a huge space across my lower body and then pushes hard on the top of my body. I can slide in and out of the lap belt, which also causes me to slide forward because the lap belt is based on the width of the seat which is much wider than I am. I can slide under the lap belt entirely while having the shoulder strap choking me. The whole design is a mess for someone like me.

So...why did you buy a car with seats that don't fit you.

There are hundreds of different car models with different seats, and also aftermarket seats. Don't like the seats in your car or don't like the seat belt? Why not buy some racing seats with a harness? They're narrower and the harness won't dig into your neck.

Cars are super customizable, you have tons of options. Instead of being upset that something that was built for the most average person possible doesn't fit someone with your non-standard body type why not customize your car to actually fit what you want?

First of all, it is illegal in my state for me to use a racing harness instead of a seatbelt and not only can you not get your car inspected, you will also be ticketed the same as if you were not wearing a seatbelt at all.

I'm pretty sure that's only true if the harness is not certified by the DOT (most aren't and a lot of the people who buy them don't check beforehand). There's a few manufacturers that do make street legal 4 point harnesses.

 

[Abomination]

Just so I follow, men - who are, on average, more physically robust than females, on average - when subjected to the same physical trauma caused by a vehicle accident, have a higher probability, on average, of surviving or suffering less physical damage than females?

Is that what this report is suggesting? But that data only applies to a specific age group?

If that's the case... er, yeah? That sounds about right. More physically robust people are more likely to survive physical trauma than those who are not - that's pretty much what being physically robust means.

Could cars be safer? Yes, they have been getting safer and safer as time has progressed. They continue to do so, and I don't see that trend stopping any time soon.

 

[votemarvel]

If It is my car and I am expected to drive it, would it not make more sense to have it designed with the driver's safety in mind?

Then perhaps buy a car that is more suited to your stature? You chose to buy the car knowing that it was ill suited for your size, so why now complain that it is ill suited for your size?

If this somehow isn't an option then perhaps purchase something like this seatbelt comforter https://www.amazon.co.uk/MIKAFEN-Seat-Belt-Comfort-Harness/dp/B07DC5CFD8/ which will provide softness to stop damage to your neck.

 

[Fieldy409_v1legacy]

Perhaps this is a case of something being done one way just because we accept now 'this is the way it's done' Who says you need to have a seat belt sitting at that angle across you? We could have a seatbelt made up of two or three straps running across your body.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

Perhaps this is a case of something being done one way just because we accept now 'this is the way it's done' Who says you need to have a seat belt sitting at that angle across you? We could have a seatbelt made up of two or three straps running across your body.

I believe it has something to do with protecting you head in the event that your car overturns, while still making it theoretically possible to slip out of if the buckle gets damaged.

Not saying there couldn't be a better way, but I think that's the reason that seatbelts are designed the way they are.

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

Just so I follow, men - who are, on average, more physically robust than females, on average - when subjected to the same physical trauma caused by a vehicle accident, have a higher probability, on average, of surviving or suffering less physical damage than females?

Is that what this report is suggesting? But that data only applies to a specific age group?

If that's the case... er, yeah? That sounds about right. More physically robust people are more likely to survive physical trauma than those who are not - that's pretty much what being physically robust means.

Ironically, the discussion did take a turn towards that some 30 posts back, but both sides seemed disinterested in noting that physical capacity to endure and sustain trauma is an important factor in how seriously one gets injured. Instead, it was more fun, apparently, to argue about the relative merit of different fatality reports.

Because, yeah, I can't really see this as being a gender issue. Women are less robust then men of comparable size and weight and it seems obvious that women will suffer more injuries then men, on average, when subjected to similar traumas. The physics of a car crash does not care for the gender of the person who gets subjected to it. The outlier case of some body types not really fitting into a seat belt (I've got lanky friends who are pushing 6'7 and seat belts fits them really awkwardly too) only seems somewhat tangential to the actual discussion.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

It only becomes a gendered issue when you've got multiple average dude sized dummies and zero average woman sized dummies to work with.

Kinda like how if dudes stopped wearing heavy wool suits in office buildings, businesses could save money on air conditioning and the average woman that worked for them would be more comfortable.

 

[Fieldy409_v1legacy]

Just so I follow, men - who are, on average, more physically robust than females, on average - when subjected to the same physical trauma caused by a vehicle accident, have a higher probability, on average, of surviving or suffering less physical damage than females?

Is that what this report is suggesting? But that data only applies to a specific age group?

If that's the case... er, yeah? That sounds about right. More physically robust people are more likely to survive physical trauma than those who are not - that's pretty much what being physically robust means.

Ironically, the discussion did take a turn towards that some 30 posts back, but both sides seemed disinterested in noting that physical capacity to endure and sustain trauma is an important factor in how seriously one gets injured. Instead, it was more fun, apparently, to argue about the relative merit of different fatality reports.

Because, yeah, I can't really see this as being a gender issue. Women are less robust then men of comparable size and weight and it seems obvious that women will suffer more injuries then men, on average, when subjected to similar traumas. The physics of a car crash does not care for the gender of the person who gets subjected to it. The outlier case of some body types not really fitting into a seat belt (I've got lanky friends who are pushing 6'7 and seat belts fits them really awkwardly too) only seems somewhat tangential to the actual discussion.

I mean men are tougher than women sure, but is it really going to make a difference, a bit of muscle and bone density difference could be largely irrelevant when compared to machines capable of force perhaps 100 times what any human can withstand. Compared to the strength of machines humans might as well be made of paper mache.

 

[Abomination]

Just so I follow, men - who are, on average, more physically robust than females, on average - when subjected to the same physical trauma caused by a vehicle accident, have a higher probability, on average, of surviving or suffering less physical damage than females?

Is that what this report is suggesting? But that data only applies to a specific age group?

If that's the case... er, yeah? That sounds about right. More physically robust people are more likely to survive physical trauma than those who are not - that's pretty much what being physically robust means.

Ironically, the discussion did take a turn towards that some 30 posts back, but both sides seemed disinterested in noting that physical capacity to endure and sustain trauma is an important factor in how seriously one gets injured. Instead, it was more fun, apparently, to argue about the relative merit of different fatality reports.

Because, yeah, I can't really see this as being a gender issue. Women are less robust then men of comparable size and weight and it seems obvious that women will suffer more injuries then men, on average, when subjected to similar traumas. The physics of a car crash does not care for the gender of the person who gets subjected to it. The outlier case of some body types not really fitting into a seat belt (I've got lanky friends who are pushing 6'7 and seat belts fits them really awkwardly too) only seems somewhat tangential to the actual discussion.

I mean men are tougher than women sure, but is it really going to make a difference, a bit of muscle and bone density difference could be largely irrelevant when compared to machines capable of force perhaps 100 times what any human can withstand. Compared to the strength of machines humans might as well be made of paper mache.

I mean, yes, it will make a difference the more data you compile.

Men are more likely to survive car crashes than women because men on average are hardier than women. How much hardier? Well, the data collected is a good way to measure that, I guess.

But somehow(/unsurprisingly) Jezebel is looking to turn this report into a sex issue.

Will the Javelin be sexist next because on average men can throw it further?

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

Just so I follow, men - who are, on average, more physically robust than females, on average - when subjected to the same physical trauma caused by a vehicle accident, have a higher probability, on average, of surviving or suffering less physical damage than females?

Is that what this report is suggesting? But that data only applies to a specific age group?

If that's the case... er, yeah? That sounds about right. More physically robust people are more likely to survive physical trauma than those who are not - that's pretty much what being physically robust means.

Ironically, the discussion did take a turn towards that some 30 posts back, but both sides seemed disinterested in noting that physical capacity to endure and sustain trauma is an important factor in how seriously one gets injured. Instead, it was more fun, apparently, to argue about the relative merit of different fatality reports.

Because, yeah, I can't really see this as being a gender issue. Women are less robust then men of comparable size and weight and it seems obvious that women will suffer more injuries then men, on average, when subjected to similar traumas. The physics of a car crash does not care for the gender of the person who gets subjected to it. The outlier case of some body types not really fitting into a seat belt (I've got lanky friends who are pushing 6'7 and seat belts fits them really awkwardly too) only seems somewhat tangential to the actual discussion.

I mean men are tougher than women sure, but is it really going to make a difference, a bit of muscle and bone density difference could be largely irrelevant when compared to machines capable of force perhaps 100 times what any human can withstand. Compared to the strength of machines humans might as well be made of paper mache.

I mean, yes, it will make a difference the more data you compile.

Men are more likely to survive car crashes than women because men on average are hardier than women. How much hardier? Well, the data collected is a good way to measure that, I guess.

But somehow(/unsurprisingly) Jezebel is looking to turn this report into a sex issue.

Will the Javelin be sexist next because on average men can throw it further?

Of course it is an issue of sex. " one sex being hardier" is exactly what I was discussing above with the differences in skeletal and soft tissue damage and ability to heal between males and females. Not having the data of how this impacts females in the first place because they didn't even make crash dummies to do so is part of why it is a sex issue. How can they design the vehicle itself to be safer for females than it currently is if they are not even bothering to obtain the data necessary to do so?

We are discussing the design and materials used to provide safety equipment to females and if they are only testing these things on "hardier" males, they are not going to be able to provide women with adequate protection. How a seatbelt fits a woman vs a man does make all the difference when you are not going to have a seatbelt injure your neck if the seatbelt is not touching your neck. If you can't keep the seatbelt off your neck because your boobs are forcing it to stay there, the design needs to be adjusted to better protect the person with boobs so that they can be properly protected. That is what is not being done here. The hardiness between males and females IS still a part of the sex issue.

Comparing a javelin to safety equipment that is supposed to protect females but isn't being designed for females is irrelevant nonsense. Men and women do not compete against one another in sports due to their biological physical differences and that has nothing to do with devices that are supposed to be designed reduce injuries and save lives.

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

I mean men are tougher than women sure, but is it really going to make a difference, a bit of muscle and bone density difference could be largely irrelevant when compared to machines capable of force perhaps 100 times what any human can withstand. Compared to the strength of machines humans might as well be made of paper mache.

Sure, but the purpose of all those safety features in cars, like seat belts, air bags, deformation zones etc., are to make sure that a human being isn't squished like a ripe tomato when thrown against the dashboard in a 50 mph crash. Their purpose is to ensure that a human being stands a decent chance of surviving, if not coming out entirely unscathed, and when they've done all their part it is not unreasonable to assume that individual constitution will be an important factor in how injured you'll be. In fact, as the Jezebel linked article points out (but glosses over), the biggest factor in risk of injury in a car crash is age. Because age makes us all more fragile and the less hardy we are, the worse we'll get injured.

That's not to say that we shouldn't look for ways to keep improving car safety, especially for outliers in terms of body type, but rather that at some point we just have to accept that women, on average, will not be able to endure the same amount of physical trauma as a man of their height, weight and age. That could well account for a large part of the higher trauma frequency for women when compared to men. I mean, anyone who's seen me post here knows I'm a hardcore feminazi (hey, that's my forum title!), but at some point we have to accept that men and women are biologically different and that those differences means we might not be able to reach perfect parity in terms of physiological performance.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

I mean men are tougher than women sure, but is it really going to make a difference, a bit of muscle and bone density difference could be largely irrelevant when compared to machines capable of force perhaps 100 times what any human can withstand. Compared to the strength of machines humans might as well be made of paper mache.

Sure, but the purpose of all those safety features in cars, like seat belts, air bags, deformation zones etc., are to make sure that a human being isn't squished like a ripe tomato when thrown against the dashboard in a 50 mph crash. Their purpose is to ensure that a human being stands a decent chance of surviving, if not coming out entirely unscathed, and when they've done all their part it is not unreasonable to assume that individual constitution will be an important factor in how injured you'll be. In fact, as the Jezebel linked article points out (but glosses over), the biggest factor in risk of injury in a car crash is age. Because age makes us all more fragile and the less hardy we are, the worse we'll get injured.

That's not to say that we shouldn't look for ways to keep improving car safety, especially for outliers in terms of body type, but rather that at some point we just have to accept that women, on average, will not be able to endure the same amount of physical trauma as a man of their height, weight and age. That could well account for a large part of the higher trauma frequency for women when compared to men. I mean, anyone who's seen me post here knows I'm a hardcore feminazi (hey, that's my forum title!), but at some point we have to accept that men and women are biologically different and that those differences means we might not be able to reach perfect parity in terms of physiological performance.

I think that is the actual point of the article here is that they are not factoring the biological differences to be able to actually design safety equipment to better protect women. What materials they choose to use and the design itself needs to take into account a woman's anatomy as well as their susceptibility to injury.

This data not being taken into account with the design because they are not even using women's body types or structures in the testing is why this is being brought up in the first place. If they actually consider this data in the design process, we can begin to create designs that will provide more comfort to and better protect women. For example, a woman will not likely receive a neck injury from her seatbelt if the seat belt is not designed to be touching her neck. Current designs do not always allow for that to happen. My seatbelt, for example, is so bad due to my height and breasts that it actually rests on my neck all the way near my jawline and by my chin and they would have to change my seat and the belt design in order to prevent that from happening since my head does not even sit on the headrest even when it is on it's lowest setting. If they never use models of women with these issues, they will never know what changes need to be made to make the vehicle safe for me or others like me. The end goal here is to have them determining what materials to use and the design of safety equipment for females based upon more accurate information that actually applies to females.

 

[Fieldy409_v1legacy]

I mean, yes, it will make a difference the more data you compile.

Men are more likely to survive car crashes than women because men on average are hardier than women. How much hardier? Well, the data collected is a good way to measure that, I guess.

But somehow(/unsurprisingly) Jezebel is looking to turn this report into a sex issue.

Will the Javelin be sexist next because on average men can throw it further?

The force of 2 tons of steel moving at 100km/h hitting each other is not comparable to javelins. Man or woman, that kind of force hits your skull that skull is breaking, it doesn't matter if one skull is twice as hard as the other they'd both break. Being tough doesn't change physics, machines can crush any person easily. Even The Mountain can't beat a hydraulic press.

What might actually might make a difference is whether you are a foot taller and it hits your torso or arm instead of your skull. And women are often shorter right?

Remember how short people can't use rollercoasters? Shape is important.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

I mean, yes, it will make a difference the more data you compile.

Men are more likely to survive car crashes than women because men on average are hardier than women. How much hardier? Well, the data collected is a good way to measure that, I guess.

But somehow(/unsurprisingly) Jezebel is looking to turn this report into a sex issue.

Will the Javelin be sexist next because on average men can throw it further?

The force of 2 tons of steel moving at 100km/h hitting each other is not comparable to javelins. Man or woman, that kind of force hits your skull that skull is breaking, it doesn't matter if one skull is twice as hard as the other they'd both break. Being tough doesn't change physics, machines can crush any person easily. Even The Mountain can't beat a hydraulic press.

What might actually might make a difference is whether you are a foot taller and it hits your torso or arm instead of your skull. And women are often shorter right?

Remember how short people can't use rollercoasters? Shape is important.

Yea.. Rollercoasters should also take more into account than just height as well though. If a skinny person sits next to someone larger and the ride has a single bar that comes down to protect both, the skinny person is going to be able to fall out. Hell even some of the rides on the lowest setting still have the bar set too high and you can fall out. I have had that issue so many times on so many rides, it was actually pretty scary at times and you have to hold on for dear life. I prefer rides with the over the shoulder restraints because they provide so much more protection than the single bars.

 

[Palindromemordnilap_v1legacy]

It'd be an easy fix if you just made the settings for seatbelts adjustable, same as you can the seat itself. But I can count on one hand the number of cars I've been in that had that as a feature. Was it deemed too unreliable to be properly secure/safe or something?

 

[Agema]

Women are actually the majority group of drivers in the US. Despite this, men still drive about 30% more miles per driver than women despite the mileage gap having been considerably narrowed in the past fifty years. Even controlling for mileage, women are overall less likely to be involved in wrecks and severe wrecks, less likely to be injured, and less likely to die, and incidence rate among women has decreased more among women than men despite this.

Men are also more likely to drive less safe vehicles, and engage in riskier behaviors, than women. Including distracted driving which is vastly more common among women drivers, despite the current lack of data on it and incorporation into larger data sets as a high-risk behavior.

Which is why approximately 40-50% more men (depending on year of study and source) die per year in car wrecks than women. Buh muh crash test dummies!

Yeah, it's totally sexist that men choose to drive more, and more recklessly. The government needs to correct for this imbalance, so I'm sure you'd agree that we need to do is make car safety measures even less safe for women, so that we get statistical gender parity in traffic accident serious injuries.