Crash test dummies test the impact of vehicle accidents on human bodies. While more men than women are injured in vehicle accidents, they are more frequently involved in them in the first place. Women are 17% more likely than men to die in the event of a car crash, based on university studies in the US, and 73% more likely to sustain serious injuries in a front-end collision (Invisible Women, p186). In the world of crash test dummies, ‘human body’ has really meant ‘male body’; the first anatomically correct female crash test dummy was only created in 2022.
I don’t think whether they’re driving or not is a meaningful distinction at this level, people should be expected to sit in any of the seats of a car, so I’m making the fairly safe assumption they put dummies in various different seating arrangements.
The stats apparently originate from the US government, so it’s going to be a pretty big sample size that should average out any differences in seating position.
I don’t think there are really any conclusive after stats as the product was only introduced to the market a couple of years ago, I guess manufacturers need to buy these and then use them in their in-progress designs. Cars on the market that have used these dummies during design are probably only new designs sold in the past year or so.
I also can’t seem to find it with a quick search, but I vaguely remember reading about this when it was new a couple of years ago, and there’s a correlation with male safety improving with advances in the crash test process that aren’t reflected equivalently with women’s safety. But maybe take that with a pinch of salt unless you can actually find the source
I don’t think whether they’re driving or not is a meaningful distinction at this level
But it does! For example, if the driver seat offers better protection than the rest of the car, and women are more often than men in one of the other seats, it would explain the results and the dummy doesn’t add much.
But if the fatality rate for women in the front passenger seat, for example, is the same as for men in that same seat, that’s were probably having an “anatomically correct female crash test dummy” can be very helpful in understanding why these crashes are killing more women than men.
so I’m making the fairly safe assumption they put dummies in various different seating arrangements
The source doesn’t use data from crash test dummies but from real life crashes. So we can’t take seating arrangements for granted if it could meaningfully effect the numbers.
The stats apparently originate from the US government, so it’s going to be a pretty big sample size that should average out any differences in seating position.
The sample size is irrelevant if cultural factors exist that could skew the results. Cultural factors like men are more commonly taxi/Uber/bus drivers, men are more likely to drive with their partner as a passenger than the inverse, etc.
I don’t think there are really any conclusive after stats as the product was only introduced to the market a couple of years ago
That’s a fair point, I don’t expect there would be enough data for anything conclusive.
there’s a correlation with male safety improving with advances in the crash test process that aren’t reflected equivalently with women’s safety
That would be an interesting read. I’ll have a look for it.
One reason male crash test dummies are not representative of female vehicle occupants in an accident is that seatbelts do not sit in the correct position on female bodies, because of their breasts.
This is the only reasoning provided in that entire article
https://www.theactuary.com/2023/02/02/when-human-isnt-female
Before intervention
17% more dead women than men
73% more injured women than men
When women are in fewer crashes overall
I appreciate your effort to find that data but it doesn’t really address any of my original questions.
Also, from what you’ve quoted at least, there is no differentiation between drivers vs passengers.
Your data absolutely shows there is a problem, it just doesn’t show that the problem is the lack of an “anatomically correct female crash test dummy”.
I don’t think whether they’re driving or not is a meaningful distinction at this level, people should be expected to sit in any of the seats of a car, so I’m making the fairly safe assumption they put dummies in various different seating arrangements.
The stats apparently originate from the US government, so it’s going to be a pretty big sample size that should average out any differences in seating position.
I don’t think there are really any conclusive after stats as the product was only introduced to the market a couple of years ago, I guess manufacturers need to buy these and then use them in their in-progress designs. Cars on the market that have used these dummies during design are probably only new designs sold in the past year or so.
I also can’t seem to find it with a quick search, but I vaguely remember reading about this when it was new a couple of years ago, and there’s a correlation with male safety improving with advances in the crash test process that aren’t reflected equivalently with women’s safety. But maybe take that with a pinch of salt unless you can actually find the source
But it does! For example, if the driver seat offers better protection than the rest of the car, and women are more often than men in one of the other seats, it would explain the results and the dummy doesn’t add much.
But if the fatality rate for women in the front passenger seat, for example, is the same as for men in that same seat, that’s were probably having an “anatomically correct female crash test dummy” can be very helpful in understanding why these crashes are killing more women than men.
The source doesn’t use data from crash test dummies but from real life crashes. So we can’t take seating arrangements for granted if it could meaningfully effect the numbers.
The sample size is irrelevant if cultural factors exist that could skew the results. Cultural factors like men are more commonly taxi/Uber/bus drivers, men are more likely to drive with their partner as a passenger than the inverse, etc.
That’s a fair point, I don’t expect there would be enough data for anything conclusive.
That would be an interesting read. I’ll have a look for it.
This is the only reasoning provided in that entire article