Crash Test Dummies Deserve Gender Equity
-
wrote on 20 Apr 2023, 16:34 last edited by
-
wrote on 20 Apr 2023, 18:37 last edited by
Next stop: I want a male dummy but thinks they are a female dummy. Yes, emphasis...dummy.
-
wrote on 20 Apr 2023, 19:06 last edited by
Will they have the female dummy in the driver's seat of a vehicle sitting at a green light but they don't see it because they are applying makeup and then gets rearended?
-
Will they have the female dummy in the driver's seat of a vehicle sitting at a green light but they don't see it because they are applying makeup and then gets rearended?
wrote on 20 Apr 2023, 20:03 last edited by@LuFins-Dad said in Crash Test Dummies Deserve Gender Equity:
Will they have the female dummy in the driver's seat of a vehicle sitting at a green light but they don't see it because they are applying makeup and then gets rearended?
That made me lol
-
wrote on 20 Apr 2023, 22:12 last edited by Mik
FFS. The fact that we can even make jokes about this joke of an effort is pretty ridiculous. To call it equity is even more so.
-
wrote on 20 Apr 2023, 23:56 last edited by
Googling a bit it does seem women are much more likely to get injured than men conditional on being in an accident. It’s worth learning why that is (it may be known too I just haven’t googled that much) and if there’s a way to make it better (as opposed to more equitable) then yeah go
-
Googling a bit it does seem women are much more likely to get injured than men conditional on being in an accident. It’s worth learning why that is (it may be known too I just haven’t googled that much) and if there’s a way to make it better (as opposed to more equitable) then yeah go
wrote on 20 Apr 2023, 23:59 last edited by@jon-nyc said in Crash Test Dummies Deserve Gender Equity:
Googling a bit it does seem women are much more likely to get injured than men conditional on being in an accident. It’s worth learning why that is (it may be known too I just haven’t googled that much) and if there’s a way to make it better (as opposed to more equitable) then yeah go
I would have thought it was bloody obvious that they should model different body types with crash test dummies. They have kids modeled, why not women?
It probably wouldn't be a bad idea to model obese people, really tall people, etc. too.
-
wrote on 21 Apr 2023, 00:02 last edited by jon-nyc
I was very deliberate to say ‘better’, not ‘more equitable’.
Men get in far more accidents, because men. Insofar as there are design trade offs which alter the optimally protected body type, there would almost certainly be a net reduction in injuries if you skew it towards better protecting the more typically masculine.
-
I was very deliberate to say ‘better’, not ‘more equitable’.
Men get in far more accidents, because men. Insofar as there are design trade offs which alter the optimally protected body type, there would almost certainly be a net reduction in injuries if you skew it towards better protecting the more typically masculine.
wrote on 21 Apr 2023, 00:12 last edited by@jon-nyc said in Crash Test Dummies Deserve Gender Equity:
I was very deliberate to say ‘better’, not ‘more equitable’.
Men get in far more accidents, because men. Insofar as there are design trade offs which alter the optimally protected body type, there would almost certainly be a net reduction in injuries if you skew it towards better protecting the more typically masculine.
A safety engineer is never going to use terms like equitable. These politicians have probably been told that it would be a really good idea to require testing of different body shapes, and then they do what politicians always do, tailor the message for morons, sorry, their base.
A really great reason for developing certification standards (which I do quite a bit of) is to keep politicians noses out of this stuff. They're better off passing laws that sound high-minded and preachy, and leave the details to people who can do tricky sums without getting a nose-bleed.
-
wrote on 21 Apr 2023, 00:17 last edited by
Right that’s how things always used to work. It also used to be that public health officials didn’t recommend courses of action that killed more rather than fewer people as long as the phenotypic mix was was more to their liking. But here we are.
-
Right that’s how things always used to work. It also used to be that public health officials didn’t recommend courses of action that killed more rather than fewer people as long as the phenotypic mix was was more to their liking. But here we are.
wrote on 21 Apr 2023, 00:24 last edited by Doctor Phibes@jon-nyc said in Crash Test Dummies Deserve Gender Equity:
Right that’s how things always used to work. It also used to be that public health officials didn’t recommend courses of action that killed more rather than fewer people as long as the phenotypic mix was was more to their liking. But here we are.
I feel we've also crossed a line when the President of the United States called his own senior health advisors 'idiots' as part of a losing re-election campaign, right in the middle of a pandemic that is killing millions, and which he had repeatedly tried to play down the seriousness of.
-
Googling a bit it does seem women are much more likely to get injured than men conditional on being in an accident. It’s worth learning why that is (it may be known too I just haven’t googled that much) and if there’s a way to make it better (as opposed to more equitable) then yeah go
wrote on 21 Apr 2023, 00:26 last edited by@jon-nyc said in Crash Test Dummies Deserve Gender Equity:
Googling a bit it does seem women are much more likely to get injured than men conditional on being in an accident. It’s worth learning why that is (it may be known too I just haven’t googled that much) and if there’s a way to make it better (as opposed to more equitable) then yeah go
Sure. Just don’t present it in those terms. It appears shallow.
-
Googling a bit it does seem women are much more likely to get injured than men conditional on being in an accident. It’s worth learning why that is (it may be known too I just haven’t googled that much) and if there’s a way to make it better (as opposed to more equitable) then yeah go
wrote on 21 Apr 2023, 01:24 last edited by@jon-nyc said in Crash Test Dummies Deserve Gender Equity:
Googling a bit it does seem women are much more likely to get injured than men conditional on being in an accident. It’s worth learning why that is (it may be known too I just haven’t googled that much) and if there’s a way to make it better (as opposed to more equitable) then yeah go
I’m not sure this 1st part is rocket science. They say that the force of two professional football players hitting each other is equivalent to a car crash… Who do you think is going to stand up to a hit by a professional lineman better, a 6’ 180lb man or a 5’6” 115lb woman? Size, weight, musculature all play a part…
Now there are also likely some other factors. Are female drivers closer to the steering wheel? That would also play a part, especially with injuries due to airbag deployment. A one size fits all answer for auto safety (airbag, seatbelts, crumplezones) may not be the best option for auto safety.
I wonder if they could provide adjustable settings for the airbags based on weight and height of the driver? Or do we actually envision some models of cars built to be safer for drivers at certain weights/heights?
-
@jon-nyc said in Crash Test Dummies Deserve Gender Equity:
I was very deliberate to say ‘better’, not ‘more equitable’.
Men get in far more accidents, because men. Insofar as there are design trade offs which alter the optimally protected body type, there would almost certainly be a net reduction in injuries if you skew it towards better protecting the more typically masculine.
A safety engineer is never going to use terms like equitable. These politicians have probably been told that it would be a really good idea to require testing of different body shapes, and then they do what politicians always do, tailor the message for morons, sorry, their base.
A really great reason for developing certification standards (which I do quite a bit of) is to keep politicians noses out of this stuff. They're better off passing laws that sound high-minded and preachy, and leave the details to people who can do tricky sums without getting a nose-bleed.
wrote on 21 Apr 2023, 01:35 last edited byThese politicians have probably been told that it would be a really good idea to require testing of different body shapes, and then they do what politicians always do, tailor the message for morons, sorry, their base.
Am glad you put in that caveat. However I would have stayed with the term, morons. It alone grasps the very essence of the object to whom politicians pander.
-
I was very deliberate to say ‘better’, not ‘more equitable’.
Men get in far more accidents, because men. Insofar as there are design trade offs which alter the optimally protected body type, there would almost certainly be a net reduction in injuries if you skew it towards better protecting the more typically masculine.
wrote on 21 Apr 2023, 08:46 last edited by@jon-nyc said in Crash Test Dummies Deserve Gender Equity:
Men get in far more accidents, because men
They did a survey and something like 80% of men think that they are an above average driver! 555
-
wrote on 21 Apr 2023, 10:56 last edited by Doctor Phibes
This one had teh sex with 9 wimmenz!
-
This one had teh sex with 9 wimmenz!
wrote on 21 Apr 2023, 11:16 last edited by@Doctor-Phibes said in Crash Test Dummies Deserve Gender Equity:
This one had teh sex with 9 wimmenz!
Another NSFW clip (a terrific show... Silicon Valley), but your comment above Phibes reminds me of, well:
again NSFW language
Link to video -
Will they have the female dummy in the driver's seat of a vehicle sitting at a green light but they don't see it because they are applying makeup and then gets rearended?
wrote on 21 Apr 2023, 11:17 last edited by@LuFins-Dad said in Crash Test Dummies Deserve Gender Equity:
...because they are applying makeup and then gets rearended?
Don't forget having a few drinks between those two actions... HI OH!!!!!
-
@jon-nyc said in Crash Test Dummies Deserve Gender Equity:
Googling a bit it does seem women are much more likely to get injured than men conditional on being in an accident. It’s worth learning why that is (it may be known too I just haven’t googled that much) and if there’s a way to make it better (as opposed to more equitable) then yeah go
I would have thought it was bloody obvious that they should model different body types with crash test dummies. They have kids modeled, why not women?
It probably wouldn't be a bad idea to model obese people, really tall people, etc. too.
wrote on 21 Apr 2023, 11:19 last edited by@Doctor-Phibes said in Crash Test Dummies Deserve Gender Equity:
It probably wouldn't be a bad idea to model obese people, really tall people, etc. too.
That is true, one study resulted in the recommendation that obese people have extra airbags attached around their entire body so as to provide more cushioning. Then they realized... problem solved.
-
wrote on 21 Apr 2023, 11:45 last edited by
Whenever I ride in a coach, I wonder whether they've done crash tests featuring 50 people not wearing any seatbelts getting thrown forward simultaneously at 50 mph.