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
 

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.

Gethsemani:

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.

Fieldy409:

Gethsemani:

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?

Abomination:

Fieldy409:

Gethsemani:

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.

Fieldy409:

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.

Gethsemani:

Fieldy409:

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.

Abomination:

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.

Fieldy409:

Abomination:

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.

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?

Eacaraxe:

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.

Maybe Saudi Arabia were just looking out for women. I'm kidding, they weren't.

Silvanus:
Snip.

First, yeah, exactly with regards to the NHTSA study versus Jezebel article. As I said in my very first post, Jezebel cherry-picked without really pointing out the issue exists in a larger context, how the issue with belts fits into a broader context, or the thought process that went into how the women-designed crash test dummies were selected. In other words, your typical former Gawker network article.

Which points to structural problems I have with the article itself. Okay, they found a correlation between seat belt safety and gender...by controlling out every other variable, and ignoring the possibility gender itself is a confounding variable. Which is perfectly understandable, preferable in some scenarios, but what was the size of data set(s) after controlling out every last variable, are those reduced sets representative, and do findings yield usable and relevant data?

I mean, not to make a slightly hyperbolic comparison...but if I control out the risk of heart disease, cancer, stroke, dementia, most gastrointestinal disorders, and any number of other health concerns, I could write a paper that argues smoking cigarettes is actually good for you. Significant negative correlations were found between smokers and incidence of ulcerative colitis and Parkinson's.

Having just re-read the UVA study, I found no such assertion about crash test dummies. You're confusing statements made by the authors about the article, with the article itself, because the authors did make such statements hypothesizing to the press why their discovered correlations may be the case.

Now, with regards to the NHTSA findings, first I'd direct you to page 215 (which you cited) that demonstrated a highly-significant finding the combination of three-point belts without pretensioners or load limiters, and air bags, was overall safer for women drivers. Which is rather my point -- examining a single device in its own context does not lead to accurate conclusions about the state of automotive safety equipment today. In this the older data plays a key role in demonstrating how safety equipment has evolved over time to a state that is overall friendlier to women than in the past, including technologies that have played a greater role in protecting women than men.

As far as the issue of establishing statistical significance you cite, later analyses of fatalities as a function of gender refer the reader back to 9.2 for notation. That's page 216, and it sheds some light on why this is the case: sample sizes are too small to easily establish significance (that discrepancies in fatality reduction need to be 12-15% greater to establish significance should be a big tip-off). Meanwhile, statistically-insignificant reductions in fatalities from 5-10% are common. Which explains the discrepancy between the data as analyzed, and the key findings which I cited earlier: sample sizes themselves being too small to easily analyze, is a statement all on its own.

altnameJag:
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.

YEAH! Stupid sexist men and their sexist corporate-mandated dress codes! Stupid corporations and their sexist...ADA compliance?!? Why don't workers with disabilities that include heat sensitivity and respiratory problems just get heat stroke and die to preserve women workers' God-given right to not put on a cardigan, by God!

You guys ever want to question why I'm so ardently anti-feminist and anti-social justice in its current social media-age form, refer back to this post.

Eacaraxe:

First, yeah, exactly with regards to the NHTSA study versus Jezebel article. As I said in my very first post, Jezebel cherry-picked without really pointing out the issue exists in a larger context, how the issue with belts fits into a broader context, or the thought process that went into how the women-designed crash test dummies were selected. In other words, your typical former Gawker network article.

Eh, you've engaged in much the same selective interpretation yourself, drawing conclusions well outside of the study's purview but presenting the study as definitive.

The fact is, the article is utterly unremarkable as far as poor journalism goes, and it would even be a stretch to call it misinformation-- the data is available and accessible, so you can really only take issue with the emphasis.

I think we both know why you've taken issue with this particular outlet-- why else are you focusing almost exclusively on shooting the messenger, rather than the University of Virginia?

You'd think the issue of car safety would not cut along the same lines that politics do, yet look who has taken what sides.

Silvanus:
Eh, you've engaged in much the same selective interpretation yourself, drawing conclusions well outside of the study's purview but presenting the study as definitive.

Oh yes, my oh-so-egregious cherry picking of...wanting to look at more than seat belts but rather the sum total of vehicle safety features, information about crash and fatality data from other sources, and the data itself to look for year-over-year changes, to come to my own conclusions.

...why else are you focusing almost exclusively on shooting the messenger, rather than the University of Virginia?

Other than the emphasis of misrepresenting the study and ignoring other studies that present findings contrary to the clearly preconceived opinion? They're asking the wrong question to sawmill about "diversity in crash test dummies".

Let's compare the UVA findings in 2011 and 2019 in the expected context. Despite the development, maturation, and saturation of other safety features, and subsequent reductions in severe injuries and fatalities, the risk of seat belts specifically to women drivers' safety has increased. Meaning, even though seat belts reduce likelihood of severe injury and fatality across the board, that gendered risk has become greater over time...or perhaps merely more obvious?

In other words, was the historical lack of other safety features obfuscating the real risk seat belts pose to women drivers? That this possibility goes unaddressed, or seemingly unnoticed, is quite telling.

If so, in light of newer and better safety systems -- namely, intelligent and automated/semi-automated vehicles -- perhaps vehicle safety experts should be looking not at how to "improve" seat belts, but rather how to replace them. Specifically, if intelligent and automated systems are capable of minimizing wreck severity by controlling for relative speed, angle and location of impact, and subsequently likelihood of ejection or rollover, to the point other safety features such as air bags, crumple zones, and the like can sufficiently protect occupants, why continue to at least require seat belt use by law?

Fieldy409:

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.

Right, I doubt many people realize how a body is mangled even at relative speed, or how little is needed for the human body to be completely destroyed. It really doesn't matter if you're male or female if a high velocity impact splits your skull open with a dry crunch and the compression of metal and flesh contorts the human body to such an unnatural extent that the insides split open and bleed over the freeway that the police need to subsequently flush away with a fire hose so the wreckage can be cleared for traffic again. You'd have to be puzzled back together to have something fit for burial. Every human is just flesh and bone and snapped from existence just like that. A bit more body mass really isn't going to make a difference. We are all equal before death. So, let us share and lament the frailty. xD

Eacaraxe:

Oh yes, my oh-so-egregious cherry picking of...wanting to look at more than seat belts but rather the sum total of vehicle safety features, information about crash and fatality data from other sources, and the data itself to look for year-over-year changes, to come to my own conclusions.

No; your characterisation of the study as refuting the thrust of the article, despite that being way outside its purview and scarcely approaching the same question.

Also, "wanting to look at more than seat belts" is a rather generous way of describing merely dismissing any differential impact they may have entirely, based on an unrelated study looking at unrelated technologies.

Eacaraxe:

Other than the emphasis of misrepresenting the study and ignoring other studies that present findings contrary to the clearly preconceived opinion? They're asking the wrong question to sawmill about "diversity in crash test dummies".

Well... misrepresenting the study in a sense. The Uni of Virginia study text barely mentions dummies; that link is drawn by Forman (who led on the study) talking to City Lab, though it's been indicated by other researchers before. Jezebel is mostly rehashing content from City Lab.

Rehashing content from other outlets is minimal effort, and common practice. That I can certainly agree on.

Eacaraxe:

Let's compare the UVA findings in 2011 and 2019 in the expected context. Despite the development, maturation, and saturation of other safety features, and subsequent reductions in severe injuries and fatalities, the risk of seat belts specifically to women drivers' safety has increased. Meaning, even though seat belts reduce likelihood of severe injury and fatality across the board, that gendered risk has become greater over time...or perhaps merely more obvious?

In other words, was the historical lack of other safety features obfuscating the real risk seat belts pose to women drivers? That this possibility goes unaddressed, or seemingly unnoticed, is quite telling.

Wait, are you talking about the possibility that seat belts actually endanger women?

Well, no, and nor should the article discuss that "possibility", because it's not attested in the study-- and it would be tremendously dangerous and irresponsible to hypothesise about a topic which could convince people to take dangerous decisions.

Even the study you first linked-- from the NHTSA-- contains numerous passages going against that hypothesis: stating specifically that belt use lowers the danger for every demographic, and that the main gendered difference in injury likelihood in a rollover was specific to unbelted individuals.

...Actually, out of interest, why did you refer to the NHTSA study as "the study in question" when it's unrelated to the one Jezebel is talking about (and came out 6 years before the latter)?

Eacaraxe:

altnameJag:
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.

YEAH! Stupid sexist men and their sexist corporate-mandated dress codes! Stupid corporations and their sexist...ADA compliance?!? Why don't workers with disabilities that include heat sensitivity and respiratory problems just get heat stroke and die to preserve women workers' God-given right to not put on a cardigan, by God!

You guys ever want to question why I'm so ardently anti-feminist and anti-social justice in its current social media-age form, refer back to this post.

It's pretty insane, so sure.

stroopwafel:

Fieldy409:

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.

Right, I doubt many people realize how a body is mangled even at relative speed, or how little is needed for the human body to be completely destroyed. It really doesn't matter if you're male or female if a high velocity impact splits your skull open with a dry crunch and the compression of metal and flesh contorts the human body to such an unnatural extent that the insides split open and bleed over the freeway that the police need to subsequently flush away with a fire hose so the wreckage can be cleared for traffic again. You'd have to be puzzled back together to have something fit for burial. Every human is just flesh and bone and snapped from existence just like that. A bit more body mass really isn't going to make a difference. We are all equal before death. So, let us share and lament the frailty. xD

image

Silvanus:
No; your characterisation of the study as refuting the thrust of the article, despite that being way outside its purview and scarcely approaching the same question.

Also, "wanting to look at more than seat belts" is a rather generous way of describing merely dismissing any differential impact they may have entirely, based on an unrelated study looking at unrelated technologies.

See, here's the problem. Seat belts aren't the only safety feature in a car. They haven't been for decades. If you want to discuss the impact and implications of a given safety feature on a chosen demographic, that information has to be contextualized or else you end up with meaningless gobbledygook, or...uncomfortable implications, such as...

Wait, are you talking about the possibility that seat belts actually endanger women?

Why yes, yes I am. If we're to take the data in a vacuum and compare the two studies, we're to believe the potential negative impact of seat belts upon women's safety has increased -- by 26% over eight years. That, or newer safety systems/testing methods have revealed seat belts have a greater impact on negative outcomes for women than previously thought. Remember, we're not talking about seat belts' net benefit, and every variable save gender has been controlled out; we are looking at a "pure" analysis of outcomes as a factor of gender.

Don't like the implication? Tough titties. Or we can just admit decontextualized analysis of unduly specific data sets yields undesirable implications to push agendas that aren't even within the original study's scope, and the Jezebel article was trash.

Personally, I support the idea of advocating for greater maturation and proliferation of intelligent and automated vehicle safety systems, and non-belt protective mechanisms, to approach the point seat belts are considered obsolete and potentially hazardous to vehicle occupants. Harm prevention and elimination is always preferable to harm reduction. Especially compared to something like listlessly whinging about diversity in crash test dummies for dat ad revenue.

Last point,

...Actually, out of interest, why did you refer to the NHTSA study as "the study in question" when it's unrelated to the one Jezebel is talking about (and came out 6 years before the latter)?

I'd think that to be rather obvious, as that entire post was about that very study.

Eacaraxe:

See, here's the problem. Seat belts aren't the only safety feature in a car. They haven't been for decades. If you want to discuss the impact and implications of a given safety feature on a chosen demographic, that information has to be contextualized or else you end up with meaningless gobbledygook, or...uncomfortable implications, such as...

But "contextualising" is not what you did. You dismissed the impact out of hand, by citing a study about other technologies which did not address the same question-- and provided a hypothesis based on it which only works by getting extremely selective about the data.

This, despite the fact that various elements of the research has controlled out the confounding variables you keep bringing up.

Why yes, yes I am. If we're to take the data in a vacuum and compare the two studies, we're to believe the potential negative impact of seat belts upon women's safety has increased -- by 26% over eight years. That, or newer safety systems/testing methods have revealed seat belts have a greater impact on negative outcomes for women than previously thought. Remember, we're not talking about seat belts' net benefit, and every variable save gender has been controlled out; we are looking at a "pure" analysis of outcomes as a factor of gender.

This is a catastrophic misreading of the data.

The study goes to great lengths to separate relative gendered impact from Net. The data explicitly shows that seat belts may increase the discrepancy, but they also reduce the risk for both genders. Yes, with all other technologies controlled out.

The researchers actually spelt that out. You'd be having the reporter peddling dangerous nonsense in direct contradiction of the researchers.

I'd think that to be rather obvious, as that entire post was about that very study.

The Jezebel article, and the OP, were both about the 2019-published Uni of Virginia study. Neither were about the study you described as "the study in question".

Do you just mean your own post? If so, it seems a little odd, being in direct response to someone talking about an entirely different study.

Eacaraxe:

See, here's the problem. Seat belts aren't the only safety feature in a car. They haven't been for decades. If you want to discuss the impact and implications of a given safety feature on a chosen demographic, that information has to be contextualized or else you end up with meaningless gobbledygook, or...uncomfortable implications, such as...

Well, okay.

But fundamentally and irrespective of additional safety measures, there is an issue that assumptions of individual humans based on unrepresentative norms - including averages often result in suboptimal outcomes (see spoiler).

We have similar issues in pharmacology. How are drugs tested? Initially, especially for safety, on men in their 20s. And throughout a lot of work, there is often a leaning towards testing on men, or males in the case of animal research. For a long time, doses were calculated for men, and then for women by for instance a simple body weight conversion. But this is inadequate, because men and women differ by much more than simple body weight. As a result, even to this day with much improved procedure, knowledge of basic scientific understanding, clinical effectiveness and so on on women still tends to lag somewhat behind men.

So we can say things have got better (and they have, much better) all we like, or that contextually they aren't quite as bad as some people would have it, but that doesn't change the fact that work still needs to be done.

Eacaraxe:

altnameJag:
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.

YEAH! Stupid sexist men and their sexist corporate-mandated dress codes! Stupid corporations and their sexist...ADA compliance?!? Why don't workers with disabilities that include heat sensitivity and respiratory problems just get heat stroke and die to preserve women workers' God-given right to not put on a cardigan, by God!

You guys ever want to question why I'm so ardently anti-feminist and anti-social justice in its current social media-age form, refer back to this post.

Your need to be constantly be a victim is rather concerning mate.

Silvanus:
You dismissed the impact out of hand, by citing a study about other technologies which did not address the same question...

So, you see, when someone makes a series of declarative, imperative, and/or interrogative sentences to persuade an audience towards or against a certain point of view, this is called an "argument". "Arguments" are typically supported by statements calling upon facts or reasoning utilized to strengthen the claims made, and that's called "evidence". An argument in response, which may or may not be contrarian, is called a "counter-argument" and may likewise employ "counter evidence"! Neat, huh?

So, what I did was read the article, think to myself "this fails the smell test, let's dig a little deeper". Lo and behold, I found information that recontextualizes UVA's claims from the form presented by the Jezebel author! Then I looked into outside sources.

Because, let's stop and ask ourselves some questions. What is the implication and applicability of this study, when the gender driver gap favors women, and the gender mileage gap is rapidly closing; despite this, not only are severe injuries and fatalities among women falling, but are also falling at a rate faster than men? Why might this be the case? What does this say about the overall state of vehicle safety, and what might the state of vehicle safety be in the future?

This is a catastrophic misreading of the data.

If we look at it in accordance with the framing of the Jezebel author, sure. Which is my point. It's a shit article that misrepresents the study and the current state of vehicle safety as pertains to women, and tries to reduce the issue down to "diversity in muh crash test dummies" when in reality it is vastly more complex, and deserving of due diligence Jezebel is either unable, or unwilling, to provide.

Also, awfully funny how you really, really don't seem to want to address my points about future vehicle safety standards.

Eacaraxe:

Lil devils x:
...When a man and a woman have the same exact accidents, men are injured less...

Just never mind the whole thing about severe injury and fatality incidence decreasing at a faster rate among women than men, despite the milage gap closing due to women's average mileage approaching men's. Women are driving more and having less injurious and fatal wrecks, period.

"Women have less accidents; therefore it's ok for their accidents to be more fatal"

That's a pretty spiteful message...

Eacaraxe:

Because, let's stop and ask ourselves some questions. What is the implication and applicability of this study, when the gender driver gap favors women,

You keep repeating this argument in various forms. I can only assume you have got way too invested in this debate to realise just how dreadful it is.

The basic idea for equality is really that a man and woman put in a position with all else being the same should have very similar outcomes. The fact that men on average drive more (thus increasing exposure to risk) and more recklessly (thus increasing risk) are due to voluntary choices individual men make. This is completely different from the fact that car safety features are institutional measures effectively imposed on car buyers, thus not voluntary.

In terms of tackling the so-called male disadvantage you are touting, we can try to socially engineer men to drive less or women to drive more, but it's unclear to me why this should be really be socially desirable. What we can more usefully do is try to persuade men to drive more carefully... however it occurs to me there's not exactly a shortage of warnings about safe driving out there. If men are ignoring them, what measures do you propose, then? Force men to take mood stabilisers or something? Is that a good way to go?

and the gender mileage gap is rapidly closing; despite this, not only are severe injuries and fatalities among women falling, but are also falling at a rate faster than men? Why might this be the case? What does this say about the overall state of vehicle safety, and what might the state of vehicle safety be in the future?

A reasonable hypothesis is that car safety features are improving generally, but also that they have previously been more advantageous to men and are increasingly becoming more equal in benefits between the sexes. But there is still some way to go.

The future state of vehicle safety would be to somehow tackle men's attitude to driving more effectively than currently, if there even is a way. Arguably, we might not need to bother, as autonomous cars seem to be the future, and will necessarily remove much of the difference between genders in style of car driving.

Reading through the study Jezebel uses, Jezebel is full of shit. Whouda guessed? The discrepancy between men and women has been dropping like a stone, so the problem they're complaining about for clicks is already getting fixed.

Agema:
You keep repeating this argument in various forms. I can only assume you have got way too invested in this debate to realise just how dreadful it is.

I'm not entirely sure you fully understand what I'm saying, and why I'm saying it.

40% of miles driven in the US, are driven by women.
Men are drastically more likely to drive recklessly, or while impaired in any way, than women. Except for distracted driving, maybe.
Meanwhile, women are actually (grossly) over-represented in car wrecks than men across the board, and 68.1% of wrecks (fatal or not) involve a woman driver.
Despite this, women comprise only 30% of wreck fatalities. Fatality rate by gender, as a function of mileage, is higher for men than women.
The year-over-year reduction in fatalities among women is greater than that of men.

Women are driving more. You would expect this to mean more wrecks and more fatalities, but that is not the case.
Women are driving more compared to men. You would expect this to mean greater parity in wreck and fatality statistics, but this is not the case.

This doesn't jive with the statement driving is deadlier to women than men. This doesn't jive with the statement wrecks are deadlier to women than men. In fact, to arrive at a statement even supportive of the notion, one has to conduct a study that excludes the impact of literally every safety feature available to contemporary vehicles except for one, and strictly control for prevalence and severity of wreck...and concede this single safety feature still reduces overall risk to women, it just reduces risk to women less than men.

Okay, fine. So, why was that disparity 47% in 2011, and 73% in 2019? What is the applicability of this study, given its exceptional level of specificity, in light of what I already said? But most important to my part in this discussion, why is Jezebel on about diversity in crash test dummies, based upon a single passing comment, instead of literally any of this?

A reasonable hypothesis is that car safety features are improving generally, but also that they have previously been more advantageous to men and are increasingly becoming more equal in benefits between the sexes.

The way I put it was that newer safety features are more advantageous to women, and the efficacy of newer safety features reflects itself in growing disparity in fatality statistics. But God forbid we discuss anything in any context other than how detrimental something is to women.

Arguably, we might not need to bother, as autonomous cars seem to be the future, and will necessarily remove much of the difference between genders in style of car driving.

That's pretty much what I'm saying, yeah. In fact, I'm taking it one step further by suggesting we might be able to eliminate that disparity even further by removing the requirement for seat belts. Once vehicle autonomy reaches a point they are no longer necessary.

Eacaraxe:

I'm not entirely sure you fully understand what I'm saying, and why I'm saying it.

40% of miles driven in the US, are driven by women.
Men are drastically more likely to drive recklessly, or while impaired in any way, than women. Except for distracted driving, maybe.
Meanwhile, women are actually (grossly) over-represented in car wrecks than men across the board, and 68.1% of wrecks (fatal or not) involve a woman driver.
Despite this, women comprise only 30% of wreck fatalities. Fatality rate by gender, as a function of mileage, is higher for men than women.
The year-over-year reduction in fatalities among women is greater than that of men.

Women are driving more. You would expect this to mean more wrecks and more fatalities, but that is not the case.
Women are driving more compared to men. You would expect this to mean greater parity in wreck and fatality statistics, but this is not the case.

Okay. Firstly, one single study does not a whole story make: not least because there are a lot of other countries in the world. Also, mileage is not necessarily the best measure - time spent driving may be a more useful one.

Secondly, the characteristics of crashes become important. Getting T-boned in a city pulling out from a junction is likely to occur at low speed and not involve serious injury. A head-on collision from an unsafe overtaking manoeuver or swerving off the road into a tree at 60mph on a country road is likely to have much more drastic consequences.

So now start asking yourself, why are men vastly overrepresented in severe injuries, given we're bandying around the term reckless? Speeding? Especially involving unsafe manoeuvers? Maybe not wearing their seatbelts? Maybe more careless of degraded car condition (worn tyres, etc.)?

This doesn't jive with the statement driving is deadlier to women than men.

I don't think people are claiming driving is deadlier to women than men. They're arguing cars and their safety features are less favourable to women than they are to men.

Men manage to get killed and severely injured in much greater numbers mostly through their own behaviours. It's just that their advantages in terms of car design don't come close to compensating.

Agema:
Okay. Firstly, one single study does not a whole story make:

One of my key points, ironic considering I've probably linked more studies from UMich alone than the sum total of studies from UVA in this entire thread. But go on...

not least because there are a lot of other countries in the world.

A lot of other countries in the world with varying standards for vehicle safety, road construction and maintenance, and record-keeping for data relating to transportation, you mean. Also ironic, considering as far as I've noticed I'm one of two people in the thread to have posted data and studies from outside the US (the UK study I posted on the first page).

Also, mileage is not necessarily the best measure - time spent driving may be a more useful one.

Well, then you'll have to take that up with the NHTSA, because that's their metric.

Secondly, the characteristics of crashes become important. Getting T-boned in a city pulling out from a junction is likely to occur at low speed and not involve serious injury. A head-on collision from an unsafe overtaking manoeuver or swerving off the road into a tree at 60mph on a country road is likely to have much more drastic consequences.

So, the UMich study I just linked actually does that, at least in terms of angle and location of collision. In fact, one of their key suppositions based upon their findings was that women aren't [EDIT: Typo. My fault.] uniquely disadvantaged in certain collision types, due to reduced stature (as a class) negatively affecting visibility.

I don't think people are claiming driving is deadlier to women than men. They're arguing cars and their safety features are less favourable to women than they are to men.

Which literally means driving is deadlier to women than men.

Men manage to get killed and severely injured in much greater numbers mostly through their own behaviours.

Citation please. "Men are more likely to engage in riskier behavior" != "men die more because of risky behavior".

Don't worry, feminists are already designing new seats that do a much better job at protecting women from danger. Granted that danger is seeing a man sitting with his legs slightly ajar, but aren't microaggressions like manspreading far more damaging to women as a whole than petty concerns like vehicular safety in our patriarchal society?

Eacaraxe:

altnameJag:
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.

YEAH! Stupid sexist men and their sexist corporate-mandated dress codes! Stupid corporations and their sexist...ADA compliance?!? Why don't workers with disabilities that include heat sensitivity and respiratory problems just get heat stroke and die to preserve women workers' God-given right to not put on a cardigan, by God!

You guys ever want to question why I'm so ardently anti-feminist and anti-social justice in its current social media-age form, refer back to this post.

Ignoring problems is a problem. You seem to be showing a pattern.

Saelune:

Eacaraxe:

altnameJag:
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.

YEAH! Stupid sexist men and their sexist corporate-mandated dress codes! Stupid corporations and their sexist...ADA compliance?!? Why don't workers with disabilities that include heat sensitivity and respiratory problems just get heat stroke and die to preserve women workers' God-given right to not put on a cardigan, by God!

You guys ever want to question why I'm so ardently anti-feminist and anti-social justice in its current social media-age form, refer back to this post.

Ignoring problems is a problem. You seem to be showing a pattern.

I think that the thermostat being set to 72 instead of 74 is a problem that can safely be ignored. In fact, it could be argued that focusing on 'problems' like office thermostats and manspreading is actually its own problem because they can make the people complaining about them seem so...privileged. All it does is remind me of the "first world problems" meme from way back when. It can undermine feminist efforts to solve far more serious problems in the fight for gender equality by making them come off as having run out of anything of substance to complain about. It isn't about not being able to attack more than one problem at a time or relative privation, but almost something more akin to crying wolf, that people will take your claims of oppression less seriously if "My office is slightly colder than I would prefer" is even in your top 100 list of examples that change needs to be made.

Silent Protagonist:

Saelune:

Eacaraxe:

YEAH! Stupid sexist men and their sexist corporate-mandated dress codes! Stupid corporations and their sexist...ADA compliance?!? Why don't workers with disabilities that include heat sensitivity and respiratory problems just get heat stroke and die to preserve women workers' God-given right to not put on a cardigan, by God!

You guys ever want to question why I'm so ardently anti-feminist and anti-social justice in its current social media-age form, refer back to this post.

Ignoring problems is a problem. You seem to be showing a pattern.

I think that the thermostat being set to 72 instead of 74 is a problem that can safely be ignored. In fact, it could be argued that focusing on 'problems' like office thermostats and manspreading is actually its own problem because they can make the people complaining about them seem so...privileged. All it does is remind me of the "first world problems" meme from way back when. It can undermine feminist efforts to solve far more serious problems in the fight for gender equality by making them come off as having run out of anything of substance to complain about. It isn't about not being able to attack more than one problem at a time or relative privation, but almost something more akin to crying wolf, that people will take your claims of oppression less seriously if "My office is slightly colder than I would prefer" is even in your top 100 list of examples that change needs to be made.

Dismissing sexism as trivial as 2 degrees of temperature is sexist.

 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