[x986]

It’s in the latest issue. They blame it on the all male crash dummy crew. Does anyone here know about the European standards? Do they happen to use a more rounded set of dummy sizes?

I know "Car Guys" don't like to credit CR, but that is a shocking number. And for 'numbers' kind of stuff, I think they are normally pretty good.

[DomiGijzen]

I think the same message is spread in Europe. The number of 73% however may differ and off course has some additional context. Certainly not 73% change on death. Also small injuries.

[F32Fleet]

Type of injury is important. Do they mention it?

In any case women aren't built for taking impacts. Shorter height, lower bone density, bone structure, weight distribution.

Another thing is worse seating position (Comparatively speaking women more often position themselves too close to the steering wheel).

[Efthreeoh]

Because they have hooters?

[eluded]

Their chance of injury is greatly reduced when they sit in the backseat.

[Meeni]

I have seen children and woman shaped dummies on crash test videos. Not sure what the reason for the difference in outcome.

[WestRace]

And men have 73% more alcoholism related death lols.

[TomHudson]

What if the dummy identifies as a woman?

[BimmerAg]

Very interesting. The CR article seems to push for the adoption of an average female test dummy, but an industry representative states that the weight of a 2019 average female is actually quite close to the 50th percentile male from the 1970's that the dummy was modeled after (~160 vs 170 lbs, respectively). Also, data shows that the increased risk of injury for females is highest in the arms and legs, which seems to agree with F32Fleet that women sit closer to the steering wheel and pedals, which can increase the chance of injury in frontal crashes.

The article also highlights several times that females are not just smaller versions of males, their structure and "material properties" are different. The article tries to spin this as a reason for needing new tests and dummies that better represent female bodies. If female bodies have weaker "material properties", I'm not sure that anything can really be done to reduce the discrepancy between male and female injuries. As an extreme analogy, if you design a structure that will prevent an egg from breaking when dropped from 5ft, a billiards ball will also survive the same drop. It's not because the test or structure was biased towards the billiards ball, it's just that the material properties are different.

[MPBK]

Originally Posted by BimmerAg

Very interesting. The CR article seems to push for the adoption of an average female test dummy, but an industry representative states that the weight of a 2019 average female is actually quite close to the 50th percentile male from the 1970's that the dummy was modeled after (~160 vs 170 lbs, respectively). Also, data shows that the increased risk of injury for females is highest in the arms and legs, which seems to agree with F32Fleet that women sit closer to the steering wheel and pedals, which can increase the chance of injury in frontal crashes.

The article also highlights several times that females are not just smaller versions of males, their structure and "material properties" are different. The article tries to spin this as a reason for needing new tests and dummies that better represent female bodies. If female bodies have weaker "material properties", I'm not sure that anything can really be done to reduce the discrepancy between male and female injuries. As an extreme analogy, if you design a structure that will prevent an egg from breaking when dropped from 5ft, a billiards ball will also survive the same drop. It's not because the test or structure was biased towards the billiards ball, it's just that the material properties are different.

I think your example contradicts what I understood to be your point.
Current dummies are billiard balls. They want the industry to replace them with egg dummies. That would significantly lower the accident acceptability threshold and significantly add to the car's costs. Otherwise they would have done it already.
It's all driven by money.

[BimmerAg]

Originally Posted by MPBK

I think your example contradicts what I understood to be your point.
Current dummies are billiard balls. They want the industry to replace them with egg dummies. That would significantly lower the accident acceptability threshold and significantly add to the car's costs. Otherwise they would have done it already.
It's all driven by money.

I think we're on the same page, I just didn't fully clarify my point. I was trying to point out that if the female dummies were used as the new standard and the accident acceptability threshold was lowered, then the injury rate for female drivers and passengers could be reduced (but the car's cost and weight would increase). But by making the car safer for females, it would also likely reduce the injury rate for male drivers and passengers. Because injury rates would be reduced for both groups, there would still be a discrepancy between males and females.
The article argued that female dummies should be used because females are more likely to be injured in a crash. My point is that even if female dummies are used to set the standard, they will still be more likely to be injured in a crash. I don't think it's possible for the injury rates for males and females to be the same due to the difference in "material properties" between the two.

[MPBK]

Originally Posted by BimmerAg

I think we're on the same page, I just didn't fully clarify my point. I was trying to point out that if the female dummies were used as the new standard and the accident acceptability threshold was lowered, then the injury rate for female drivers and passengers could be reduced (but the car's cost and weight would increase). But by making the car safer for females, it would also likely reduce the injury rate for male drivers and passengers. Because injury rates would be reduced for both groups, there would still be a discrepancy between males and females.
The article argued that female dummies should be used because females are more likely to be injured in a crash. My point is that even if female dummies are used to set the standard, they will still be more likely to be injured in a crash. I don't think it's possible for the injury rates for males and females to be the same due to the difference in "material properties" between the two.

Thanks for your much better explanation. I agree. We are on the same page.

[///M Power-Belgium]

Originally Posted by x986

It’s in the latest issue. They blame it on the all male crash dummy crew. Does anyone here know about the European standards? Do they happen to use a more rounded set of dummy sizes?

I know "Car Guys" don't like to credit CR, but that is a shocking number. And for 'numbers' kind of stuff, I think they are normally pretty good.

.