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

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

stroopwafel:

Lil devils x:

stroopwafel:
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.

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

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

Lil devils x:

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.

Why is wanting safer cars so offensive to some people?

Eacaraxe:

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.

Lil devils x:

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.

stroopwafel:

Lil devils x:

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.

stroopwafel:

Lil devils x:

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.

Lil devils x:
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. 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.

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.

Eacaraxe:

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?

Eacaraxe:

Lil devils x:
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. 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.

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:
Once again, yes they are. 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.

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.

Silvanus:

Eacaraxe:

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. :P

image

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

Lil devils x:

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.

Lil devils x:
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, 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.

Eacaraxe:

Eacaraxe:
Once again, yes they are. 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.

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.

stroopwafel:

Lil devils x:

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.

Lil devils x:
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.

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.

Eacaraxe:

Lil devils x:
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?

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.

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?

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.

You mean the agenda of wanting safer cars?

Silvanus:
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.

Eacaraxe:

Silvanus:
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.

Lil devils x:
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.

Lil devils x:
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.

Lil devils x:

bluegate:

Lil devils x:
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?

Eacaraxe:

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.

Eacaraxe:
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.

Eacaraxe:
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.

Eacaraxe:
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).

Dirty Hipsters:

Lil devils x:

bluegate:
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?

Lil devils x:

Dirty Hipsters:

Lil devils x:
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.

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.

Lil devils x:
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.

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.

Fieldy409:
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.

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.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here